how many of you think this is still about Mr Floyd?

[Silver]

Institutionalized failure means there is corruption on all levels. It’s why policemen do bad things and why their superiors up the chain of command cover for them. Corruption.

[The Grand Nudger]

Institutional failure and systemic racism are not caused by individual corruption. Focusing on corruption and drape changing is nothing more or less than the concerted effort to avoid addressing a problem we may find difficult to name by diverting our efforts to a smaller problem more palatable to our sensibilities and notions of self as a country, or as people.

We've been doing that for some time, throwing individually corrupt (and non-corrupt) people into the flames as ritual sacrifice. It hasn't worked.

Perhaps we should organize our police force in such a way as to make it difficult to nigh impossible for a person to engage in such abuse, even if they are individually corrupt and very much do want to abuse our fellow citizens? What do you think?

[Silver]

Thereby stating the obvious that the corruption is not on an individual level so much as an institutionalized level. Which I had already stated.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, stating the obvious, that the institution itself, and not the officers, or supervisors or leaders... is corrupt. How does that corruption manifest itself? How is the institution abusing it's power, and who are the primary victims of that abuse?

[Rev. Rye]

Some similarities with the democrats and the Nazis...

The democrats have Antifa the Nazis had the SA brownshirts. Their objective is the same, to drown out opposition

Key difference: The SA were an actual organ of the Nazi Party. Antifa not only work independently of the Democratic party, they're not even an organised group; just a very-loosely affiliated movement united only by opposition to fascism.

The dems stop right wing speakers from speaking the brownshirts would stop oppositions parties from speaking.

So, I take it that to you, simply refusing to allow a far-right speaker at a certain venue is the same as the sort of violent intimidation that the SA engaged in? Also, if you want to understand why this happens, see this:

The dems have cancel culture, the Nazis had book burning... Same objective, anything that doesn't fit the narrative is discarded

1) Informal campaigns on social media hive minds are not the same as book burning.
2) Frankly, I don't support cancel culture, either.

The dems want to rewrite history and create another narrative... The Nazis did that, creating the whole "Arian race" narrative and final solution

The Nazis used the education system to indoctrinate the youth just like the dems

Ahem...

The dems are heavily driven by ideological  perceptions... Same as the Nazis.

Yeah, it's almost like this is inherent in the nature of political movements.

The dems want a dictatorship, like Hitler...

The dems want state controlled industries. Like the Nazis

If you're talking about regulation, this is because, well, when businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, the consequences can be disastrous.

The dems are more authoritarian like the Nazis

This has been discussed at length, and odds are, if you haven't gotten it by now, you never will, but, the fact is, in America, especially with Trump, it's the Republicans who are more explicitly authoritarian.

The Nazis controlled the media to deliver propaganda and fake news just like the dems.

Thankfully, this is why I tend to see the Trump regime as history repeating itself as farce; this is an administration that lied about the number of people who came to Trump's administration, and when called on their bullshit, cited "alternative facts." Fortunately, freedom of the press has not degenerated to the point where they can get away with their bullshit.

The dems don't care if people die in order to maintain the narrative

And yet Donald Trump has zero qualms whatsoever about demanding states reopen from COVID even if cases are still raging, and holding big political rallies while cases of COVID skyrocket in that exact same state.

The dems have made a pact with socialism, the Nazis made a pact with socialism

The "socialist" in the NSDAP's name is pretty much meaningless.
An actual excerpt from a 1922 speech:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist.

And in a more private moment:

Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.

As Ian Kershaw, the author of the Fuhrer's definitive biography states:

[Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.

Indeed, there were groups of Socialists within the NSDAP in its early years, specifically the Strasserites. They did not get along very well with the mainstream version of the NSDAP. In fact, the Strasser brothers, who helped lead this NSDAP that actually gave a shit about the "socialism" in their names, were expelled from the party. By 1934, all those members who hadn't fled Germany were killed in the Night of the Long Knives.

To call the Nazis socialists involves either completely disregarding the actual history, a definition of socialism that's so nebulous that it may as well just be like the Salinas farmer who, when John Steinbeck asked what a communist was, replied "any son-of-a-bitch who wants 30 cents an hour when I'm willing to pay him two bits." Or, most likely, both.

Moral of the story: Do not abuse the history of the Third Reich on my watch.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pack dissolved advisory boards over each of the networks and placed his own aides above them. He gave no reason for his actions other than his authority to do so, according to two people with direct knowledge of the day's events.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879873926...f-meddling

Food for thought, in addition to the constant litany of litigation threats and attempts to "open up the libel laws"....while we consider whether or not the fascist in chief is attempting to control media narratives. Seb Gorka is being floated to head VOA. If that's not right on the nose, it's difficult to imagine what would be. In the private sector, herr dumpsterfire is publicly fueding with fox news...for being insufficiently loyal.

The Trump admin absolutely is getting away with their bullshit, and our corporatist media are willingly complicit for any number of reasons that range from the mildly annoying to downright absurd.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Some similarities with the democrats and the Nazis...

The democrats have Antifa the Nazis had the SA brownshirts. Their objective is the same, to drown out opposition

Key difference: The SA were an actual organ of the Nazi Party. Antifa not only work independently of the Democratic party, they're not even an organised group; just a very-loosely affiliated movement united only by opposition to fascism.

The dems stop right wing speakers from speaking the brownshirts would stop oppositions parties from speaking.

So, I take it that to you, simply refusing to allow a far-right speaker at a certain venue is the same as the sort of violent intimidation that the SA engaged in? Also, if you want to understand why this happens, see this:

The dems have cancel culture, the Nazis had book burning... Same objective, anything that doesn't fit the narrative is discarded

1) Informal campaigns on social media hive minds are not the same as book burning.
2) Frankly, I don't support cancel culture, either.

The dems want to rewrite history and create another narrative... The Nazis did that, creating the whole "Arian race" narrative and final solution

The Nazis used the education system to indoctrinate the youth just like the dems

Ahem...

The dems are heavily driven by ideological  perceptions... Same as the Nazis.

Yeah, it's almost like this is inherent in the nature of political movements.

The dems want a dictatorship, like Hitler...

The dems want state controlled industries. Like the Nazis

If you're talking about regulation, this is because, well, when businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, the consequences can be disastrous.

The dems are more authoritarian like the Nazis

This has been discussed at length, and odds are, if you haven't gotten it by now, you never will, but, the fact is, in America, especially with Trump, it's the Republicans who are more explicitly authoritarian.

The Nazis controlled the media to deliver propaganda and fake news just like the dems.

Thankfully, this is why I tend to see the Trump regime as history repeating itself as farce; this is an administration that lied about the number of people who came to Trump's administration, and when called on their bullshit, cited "alternative facts." Fortunately, freedom of the press has not degenerated to the point where they can get away with their bullshit.

The dems don't care if people die in order to maintain the narrative

And yet Donald Trump has zero qualms whatsoever about demanding states reopen from COVID even if cases are still raging, and holding big political rallies while cases of COVID skyrocket in that exact same state.

The dems have made a pact with socialism, the Nazis made a pact with socialism

The "socialist" in the NSDAP's name is pretty much meaningless.
An actual excerpt from a 1922 speech:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist.

And in a more private moment:

Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.

As Ian Kershaw, the author of the Fuhrer's definitive biography states:

[Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.

Indeed, there were groups of Socialists within the NSDAP in its early years, specifically the Strasserites. They did not get along very well with the mainstream version of the NSDAP. In fact, the Strasser brothers, who helped lead this NSDAP that actually gave a shit about the "socialism" in their names, were expelled from the party. By 1934, all those members who hadn't fled Germany were killed in the Night of the Long Knives.

To call the Nazis socialists involves either completely disregarding the actual history, a definition of socialism that's so nebulous that it may as well just be like the Salinas farmer who, when John Steinbeck asked what a communist was, replied "any son-of-a-bitch who wants 30 cents an hour when I'm willing to pay him two bits." Or, most likely, both.

Moral of the story: Do not abuse the history of the Third Reich on my watch.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some of the testimony from whistleblowers today appears to cut directly to the point of contention in this thread as well. Turns out that Billy Barr is using the power of the government in an attempt to control our economy. Man doesn't like the reefers...or, really, any business that The Donald rage tweets about, and has been using the DOJ as a cudgel against them.

[Pat Mustard]

The dems want state controlled industries. Like the Nazis

Actually, idiot, there were very few state controlled industries in Nazi Germany. The established companies kept their industry (except those owned by Jews, SDs and Communists) and individual Nazi party members used their clout to take ownership of appropriated companies in Germany and, during the war, in occupied territories.

There was less state control of industry in Nazi Germany during the war than there was in the United States, supposedly the most free market friendly country in the world at the time.

[Rev. Rye]

A point I probably should have made.