What if Hitler had been like Trump?
13 Oct 2019, 12:37 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
Appreciate what you're trying to do, Ezra. I think, taking your question at a simplistic level, Hitler simply wouldn't be a notable figure.
However, I don't think that's actually a very good answer to your question. Surely we need to take historical factors into account? For example, President Trump wants to build a wall and a moat on the border with Mexico. Chancellor Trump would not have been able to do that, as Germany does not share a border with Mexico. President Trump changed the name of NAFTA, but Chancellor Trump couldn't do that as NAFTA didn't exist (and Germany is not a party to it).
So let's look at the differences between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power. Please bear in mind that I am by no means an expert and I'm sure our resident history buffs will be able to do much more with this:
Hitler took over a country that was an international black sheep. As punishment for Germany's role in WWI, the country was grossly weakened and humiliated. There wasn't really much of a conception of the protection of minority rights, the concept of human rights wasn't nearly as popular as it is today, and if Hitler said something racist he didn't have to put up with liberals on the internet comparing him to Hitler. Germany was a country looking to reassert itself on the international stage and take revenge against the countries that wronged it, as well as purging the "undesirables" in their own ranks. There was minimal resistance to Hitler tearing up the German constitution and blowing away all the checks and balances that should have restrained his power.
By contrast, Trump took power in very successful country. The USA is a country with a proud (if patchy) record of respecting human rights, including a constitution which demands equality. Although it is an imperfect democracy, it is nonetheless robust and contains a lot of checks and balances which are valued both by the establishment and, usually, by the population at large. There are restraints on presidential power. The country is rich and globally respected following eight years of excellent governance and leadership, and even with the departure of President Obama, still has inclusive institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve maintaining good governance. We have learned lessons from the actions of 20th century dictators and make it very difficult for similar takeovers of our countries today. If a presidential candidate talks of discriminating against immigrants on the grounds of religion then they get compared to Hitler.
The notion of transplanting Trump to 1930 Germany, or Hitler to 2016 America, breaks down because they'd fundamentally be different people if they lived in those times. I think the thought experiment tells us much more about history than it does about either individual.
With that very much in mind... if Trump was Chancellor of Germany from 1930 to 1934 and implemented equivalent policies to those he has implemented (or attempted to implement) in the US, then he would probably be remembered as the guy who bridged the gap between Heisenberg and Hitler. His "Jewish travel ban" and his migrant detention camps for example would be seen as a precursor to the death camps of the Nazis. His desire to tear up "unfair deals" surely would extend to the Treaty of Versailles and therefore to invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland, and remilitarisation of the Rhineland (causing tensions with France). However, I would really like to emphasise that I do not think this is a valid criticism of Trump's current policies. Mr Trump is a product of his time, and the deals he wants to tear up... actually the Iran deal is potentially comparable to the Treaty of Versailles. But... look, I'd much rather criticise Trump for who he is, rather than for what would have happened in a hypothetical situation where he was born in 1860s Berlin rather than 1940s New York.
However, I don't think that's actually a very good answer to your question. Surely we need to take historical factors into account? For example, President Trump wants to build a wall and a moat on the border with Mexico. Chancellor Trump would not have been able to do that, as Germany does not share a border with Mexico. President Trump changed the name of NAFTA, but Chancellor Trump couldn't do that as NAFTA didn't exist (and Germany is not a party to it).
So let's look at the differences between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power. Please bear in mind that I am by no means an expert and I'm sure our resident history buffs will be able to do much more with this:
Hitler took over a country that was an international black sheep. As punishment for Germany's role in WWI, the country was grossly weakened and humiliated. There wasn't really much of a conception of the protection of minority rights, the concept of human rights wasn't nearly as popular as it is today, and if Hitler said something racist he didn't have to put up with liberals on the internet comparing him to Hitler. Germany was a country looking to reassert itself on the international stage and take revenge against the countries that wronged it, as well as purging the "undesirables" in their own ranks. There was minimal resistance to Hitler tearing up the German constitution and blowing away all the checks and balances that should have restrained his power.
By contrast, Trump took power in very successful country. The USA is a country with a proud (if patchy) record of respecting human rights, including a constitution which demands equality. Although it is an imperfect democracy, it is nonetheless robust and contains a lot of checks and balances which are valued both by the establishment and, usually, by the population at large. There are restraints on presidential power. The country is rich and globally respected following eight years of excellent governance and leadership, and even with the departure of President Obama, still has inclusive institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve maintaining good governance. We have learned lessons from the actions of 20th century dictators and make it very difficult for similar takeovers of our countries today. If a presidential candidate talks of discriminating against immigrants on the grounds of religion then they get compared to Hitler.
The notion of transplanting Trump to 1930 Germany, or Hitler to 2016 America, breaks down because they'd fundamentally be different people if they lived in those times. I think the thought experiment tells us much more about history than it does about either individual.
With that very much in mind... if Trump was Chancellor of Germany from 1930 to 1934 and implemented equivalent policies to those he has implemented (or attempted to implement) in the US, then he would probably be remembered as the guy who bridged the gap between Heisenberg and Hitler. His "Jewish travel ban" and his migrant detention camps for example would be seen as a precursor to the death camps of the Nazis. His desire to tear up "unfair deals" surely would extend to the Treaty of Versailles and therefore to invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland, and remilitarisation of the Rhineland (causing tensions with France). However, I would really like to emphasise that I do not think this is a valid criticism of Trump's current policies. Mr Trump is a product of his time, and the deals he wants to tear up... actually the Iran deal is potentially comparable to the Treaty of Versailles. But... look, I'd much rather criticise Trump for who he is, rather than for what would have happened in a hypothetical situation where he was born in 1860s Berlin rather than 1940s New York.
Wasn't Hitler born in 1880s Austria?
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
13 Oct 2019, 1:04 pm
Tim_Tex wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Appreciate what you're trying to do, Ezra. I think, taking your question at a simplistic level, Hitler simply wouldn't be a notable figure.
However, I don't think that's actually a very good answer to your question. Surely we need to take historical factors into account? For example, President Trump wants to build a wall and a moat on the border with Mexico. Chancellor Trump would not have been able to do that, as Germany does not share a border with Mexico. President Trump changed the name of NAFTA, but Chancellor Trump couldn't do that as NAFTA didn't exist (and Germany is not a party to it).
So let's look at the differences between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power. Please bear in mind that I am by no means an expert and I'm sure our resident history buffs will be able to do much more with this:
Hitler took over a country that was an international black sheep. As punishment for Germany's role in WWI, the country was grossly weakened and humiliated. There wasn't really much of a conception of the protection of minority rights, the concept of human rights wasn't nearly as popular as it is today, and if Hitler said something racist he didn't have to put up with liberals on the internet comparing him to Hitler. Germany was a country looking to reassert itself on the international stage and take revenge against the countries that wronged it, as well as purging the "undesirables" in their own ranks. There was minimal resistance to Hitler tearing up the German constitution and blowing away all the checks and balances that should have restrained his power.
By contrast, Trump took power in very successful country. The USA is a country with a proud (if patchy) record of respecting human rights, including a constitution which demands equality. Although it is an imperfect democracy, it is nonetheless robust and contains a lot of checks and balances which are valued both by the establishment and, usually, by the population at large. There are restraints on presidential power. The country is rich and globally respected following eight years of excellent governance and leadership, and even with the departure of President Obama, still has inclusive institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve maintaining good governance. We have learned lessons from the actions of 20th century dictators and make it very difficult for similar takeovers of our countries today. If a presidential candidate talks of discriminating against immigrants on the grounds of religion then they get compared to Hitler.
The notion of transplanting Trump to 1930 Germany, or Hitler to 2016 America, breaks down because they'd fundamentally be different people if they lived in those times. I think the thought experiment tells us much more about history than it does about either individual.
With that very much in mind... if Trump was Chancellor of Germany from 1930 to 1934 and implemented equivalent policies to those he has implemented (or attempted to implement) in the US, then he would probably be remembered as the guy who bridged the gap between Heisenberg and Hitler. His "Jewish travel ban" and his migrant detention camps for example would be seen as a precursor to the death camps of the Nazis. His desire to tear up "unfair deals" surely would extend to the Treaty of Versailles and therefore to invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland, and remilitarisation of the Rhineland (causing tensions with France). However, I would really like to emphasise that I do not think this is a valid criticism of Trump's current policies. Mr Trump is a product of his time, and the deals he wants to tear up... actually the Iran deal is potentially comparable to the Treaty of Versailles. But... look, I'd much rather criticise Trump for who he is, rather than for what would have happened in a hypothetical situation where he was born in 1860s Berlin rather than 1940s New York.
However, I don't think that's actually a very good answer to your question. Surely we need to take historical factors into account? For example, President Trump wants to build a wall and a moat on the border with Mexico. Chancellor Trump would not have been able to do that, as Germany does not share a border with Mexico. President Trump changed the name of NAFTA, but Chancellor Trump couldn't do that as NAFTA didn't exist (and Germany is not a party to it).
So let's look at the differences between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power. Please bear in mind that I am by no means an expert and I'm sure our resident history buffs will be able to do much more with this:
Hitler took over a country that was an international black sheep. As punishment for Germany's role in WWI, the country was grossly weakened and humiliated. There wasn't really much of a conception of the protection of minority rights, the concept of human rights wasn't nearly as popular as it is today, and if Hitler said something racist he didn't have to put up with liberals on the internet comparing him to Hitler. Germany was a country looking to reassert itself on the international stage and take revenge against the countries that wronged it, as well as purging the "undesirables" in their own ranks. There was minimal resistance to Hitler tearing up the German constitution and blowing away all the checks and balances that should have restrained his power.
By contrast, Trump took power in very successful country. The USA is a country with a proud (if patchy) record of respecting human rights, including a constitution which demands equality. Although it is an imperfect democracy, it is nonetheless robust and contains a lot of checks and balances which are valued both by the establishment and, usually, by the population at large. There are restraints on presidential power. The country is rich and globally respected following eight years of excellent governance and leadership, and even with the departure of President Obama, still has inclusive institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve maintaining good governance. We have learned lessons from the actions of 20th century dictators and make it very difficult for similar takeovers of our countries today. If a presidential candidate talks of discriminating against immigrants on the grounds of religion then they get compared to Hitler.
The notion of transplanting Trump to 1930 Germany, or Hitler to 2016 America, breaks down because they'd fundamentally be different people if they lived in those times. I think the thought experiment tells us much more about history than it does about either individual.
With that very much in mind... if Trump was Chancellor of Germany from 1930 to 1934 and implemented equivalent policies to those he has implemented (or attempted to implement) in the US, then he would probably be remembered as the guy who bridged the gap between Heisenberg and Hitler. His "Jewish travel ban" and his migrant detention camps for example would be seen as a precursor to the death camps of the Nazis. His desire to tear up "unfair deals" surely would extend to the Treaty of Versailles and therefore to invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland, and remilitarisation of the Rhineland (causing tensions with France). However, I would really like to emphasise that I do not think this is a valid criticism of Trump's current policies. Mr Trump is a product of his time, and the deals he wants to tear up... actually the Iran deal is potentially comparable to the Treaty of Versailles. But... look, I'd much rather criticise Trump for who he is, rather than for what would have happened in a hypothetical situation where he was born in 1860s Berlin rather than 1940s New York.
Wasn't Hitler born in 1880s Austria?
Yes, but Trump was older than Hitler when he took power, and I think if we're doing like-for-like then Trump has to be born in the country he rules rather than annexing his territory of birth.
13 Oct 2019, 3:01 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
Appreciate what you're trying to do, Ezra. I think, taking your question at a simplistic level, Hitler simply wouldn't be a notable figure.
That's part of it.
The other part is how little they have in common.
The_Walrus wrote:
However, I don't think that's actually a very good answer to your question. Surely we need to take historical factors into account? For example, President Trump wants to build a wall and a moat on the border with Mexico. Chancellor Trump would not have been able to do that, as Germany does not share a border with Mexico. President Trump changed the name of NAFTA, but Chancellor Trump couldn't do that as NAFTA didn't exist (and Germany is not a party to it).
So let's look at the differences between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power. Please bear in mind that I am by no means an expert and I'm sure our resident history buffs will be able to do much more with this:
Hitler took over a country that was an international black sheep. As punishment for Germany's role in WWI, the country was grossly weakened and humiliated. There wasn't really much of a conception of the protection of minority rights, the concept of human rights wasn't nearly as popular as it is today, and if Hitler said something racist he didn't have to put up with liberals on the internet comparing him to Hitler. Germany was a country looking to reassert itself on the international stage and take revenge against the countries that wronged it, as well as purging the "undesirables" in their own ranks. There was minimal resistance to Hitler tearing up the German constitution and blowing away all the checks and balances that should have restrained his power.
By contrast, Trump took power in very successful country. The USA is a country with a proud (if patchy) record of respecting human rights, including a constitution which demands equality. Although it is an imperfect democracy, it is nonetheless robust and contains a lot of checks and balances which are valued both by the establishment and, usually, by the population at large. There are restraints on presidential power. The country is rich and globally respected following eight years of excellent governance and leadership, and even with the departure of President Obama, still has inclusive institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve maintaining good governance. We have learned lessons from the actions of 20th century dictators and make it very difficult for similar takeovers of our countries today. If a presidential candidate talks of discriminating against immigrants on the grounds of religion then they get compared to Hitler.
The notion of transplanting Trump to 1930 Germany, or Hitler to 2016 America, breaks down because they'd fundamentally be different people if they lived in those times. I think the thought experiment tells us much more about history than it does about either individual.
With that very much in mind... if Trump was Chancellor of Germany from 1930 to 1934 and implemented equivalent policies to those he has implemented (or attempted to implement) in the US, then he would probably be remembered as the guy who bridged the gap between Heisenberg and Hitler. His "Jewish travel ban" and his migrant detention camps for example would be seen as a precursor to the death camps of the Nazis. His desire to tear up "unfair deals" surely would extend to the Treaty of Versailles and therefore to invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland, and remilitarisation of the Rhineland (causing tensions with France). However, I would really like to emphasise that I do not think this is a valid criticism of Trump's current policies. Mr Trump is a product of his time, and the deals he wants to tear up... actually the Iran deal is potentially comparable to the Treaty of Versailles. But... look, I'd much rather criticise Trump for who he is, rather than for what would have happened in a hypothetical situation where he was born in 1860s Berlin rather than 1940s New York.
So let's look at the differences between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power. Please bear in mind that I am by no means an expert and I'm sure our resident history buffs will be able to do much more with this:
Hitler took over a country that was an international black sheep. As punishment for Germany's role in WWI, the country was grossly weakened and humiliated. There wasn't really much of a conception of the protection of minority rights, the concept of human rights wasn't nearly as popular as it is today, and if Hitler said something racist he didn't have to put up with liberals on the internet comparing him to Hitler. Germany was a country looking to reassert itself on the international stage and take revenge against the countries that wronged it, as well as purging the "undesirables" in their own ranks. There was minimal resistance to Hitler tearing up the German constitution and blowing away all the checks and balances that should have restrained his power.
By contrast, Trump took power in very successful country. The USA is a country with a proud (if patchy) record of respecting human rights, including a constitution which demands equality. Although it is an imperfect democracy, it is nonetheless robust and contains a lot of checks and balances which are valued both by the establishment and, usually, by the population at large. There are restraints on presidential power. The country is rich and globally respected following eight years of excellent governance and leadership, and even with the departure of President Obama, still has inclusive institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve maintaining good governance. We have learned lessons from the actions of 20th century dictators and make it very difficult for similar takeovers of our countries today. If a presidential candidate talks of discriminating against immigrants on the grounds of religion then they get compared to Hitler.
The notion of transplanting Trump to 1930 Germany, or Hitler to 2016 America, breaks down because they'd fundamentally be different people if they lived in those times. I think the thought experiment tells us much more about history than it does about either individual.
With that very much in mind... if Trump was Chancellor of Germany from 1930 to 1934 and implemented equivalent policies to those he has implemented (or attempted to implement) in the US, then he would probably be remembered as the guy who bridged the gap between Heisenberg and Hitler. His "Jewish travel ban" and his migrant detention camps for example would be seen as a precursor to the death camps of the Nazis. His desire to tear up "unfair deals" surely would extend to the Treaty of Versailles and therefore to invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland, and remilitarisation of the Rhineland (causing tensions with France). However, I would really like to emphasise that I do not think this is a valid criticism of Trump's current policies. Mr Trump is a product of his time, and the deals he wants to tear up... actually the Iran deal is potentially comparable to the Treaty of Versailles. But... look, I'd much rather criticise Trump for who he is, rather than for what would have happened in a hypothetical situation where he was born in 1860s Berlin rather than 1940s New York.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,415
Location: Long Island, New York
13 Oct 2019, 3:05 pm
magz wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The Great Depression would have been even worse because instead of real wars he would have engaged in trade wars with every other country.
I hope it was irony.
Nope. I based this hypothetical on his actions. He has been reluctant to use force but quite open to starting trade wars. And the existing trade wars were a factor in creating the Great depression to begin with.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
13 Oct 2019, 3:37 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
magz wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The Great Depression would have been even worse because instead of real wars he would have engaged in trade wars with every other country.
I hope it was irony.
Nope. I based this hypothetical on his actions. He has been reluctant to use force but quite open to starting trade wars. And the existing trade wars were a factor in creating the Great depression to begin with.
It sounded like real war was the better alternative.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,415
Location: Long Island, New York
13 Oct 2019, 5:45 pm
magz wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
magz wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The Great Depression would have been even worse because instead of real wars he would have engaged in trade wars with every other country.
I hope it was irony.
Nope. I based this hypothetical on his actions. He has been reluctant to use force but quite open to starting trade wars. And the existing trade wars were a factor in creating the Great depression to begin with.
It sounded like real war was the better alternative.
The Great Depression would have bee more severe.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
13 Oct 2019, 7:03 pm
Trump wouldn’t have made it in the Nazi party of the 20s and 30s. He would have been thought of as a
buffoon by other Nazis, and maybe killed off like the Brownshirts were.
Hitler would have been a laughingstock in today’s world. He would have been of those failed, bitter artists ranting on the Internet.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Oct 2019, 10:47 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
Trump wouldn’t have made it in the Nazi party of the 20s and 30s. He would have been thought of as a
buffoon by other Nazis, and maybe killed off like the Brownshirts were.
Hitler would have been a laughingstock in today’s world. He would have been of those failed, bitter artists ranting on the Internet.
buffoon by other Nazis, and maybe killed off like the Brownshirts were.
Hitler would have been a laughingstock in today’s world. He would have been of those failed, bitter artists ranting on the Internet.
Trump didn't have Hitler's intellect to take over and remake a whole country. Hell, Hitler wrote his own book, while Trump didn't.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
14 Oct 2019, 6:06 am
ASPartOfMe wrote:
magz wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
magz wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The Great Depression would have been even worse because instead of real wars he would have engaged in trade wars with every other country.
I hope it was irony.
Nope. I based this hypothetical on his actions. He has been reluctant to use force but quite open to starting trade wars. And the existing trade wars were a factor in creating the Great depression to begin with.
It sounded like real war was the better alternative.
The Great Depression would have bee more severe.
Trade wars would've probably been worse for the economy, but better for the people in the long run.
14 Oct 2019, 5:36 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
One thing that should be pointed out:
Germans in the mid to late 1920s had to carry wheelbarrows worth of money to buy loaves of bread....and they had to wait in lines to do so.
Does anyone on WrongPlanet have to do this?
Germans in the mid to late 1920s had to carry wheelbarrows worth of money to buy loaves of bread....and they had to wait in lines to do so.
Does anyone on WrongPlanet have to do this?
That is exactly what pisses me off about the Americans who support Trump. We're not in the same awful situation that Germany was when Hitler rose to power. We aren't starving or being threatened by communism!
15 Oct 2019, 1:39 pm
Seeing a name like mine, you will automatically surmise that Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of some cousins of mine. And yes, actually, he was.
Whereas I find it highly unlikely that President Trump will actually lop off any branches of what remains of my family tree (obviously if he starts a nuclear war he'll kill everyone, but that will be less personal, nicht wahr?).
However.
Hitler, up until say 1940 when his extremely unscrupulous personal physician (just you Google Theodor Morell, and then maybe even read Norman Ohler's book on Morell...) began injecting him regularly with all kinds of unimaginably weird and wonderful substances, was at least sincere and lucid. Dangerously unintelligent and lethally bitter and twisted, yes, but sincere and lucid. We're all quite fascinated by sincere and lucid politicians, because we so rarely actually get to see one.
Hitler and Trump had/have in common a taste for architecture. Except Hitler admired and craved great, Classically-inspired architecture, whereas Trump seeks mainly trashy, Trump-inspired architecture. Were we to judge these two cataclysmical a***holes on their architecture alone, Hitler would win without even getting out of bed. Which he was increasingly incapable of doing, ha ha.
Hitler may have been deluded and dangerous, but even if he did kill some cousins of mine (not to mention six million or so others), I'm prepared to believe he did that from innocent moral simplicity and unwitting intellectual stupidity. We are none of us as intelligent as we'd like. Yet we all have strong gut feelings. Hitler was mixed-up, partly from his experiences in the First World War. These days he might even qualify for a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ... in which case, maybe he might not have been considered fit to run an entire country, let alone annex any other countries ...
It's unclear to me that President Trump has any such excuse.
Trump's speeches are less convincing and less inspirational than Hitler's. His advisers are less competent than Hitler's. His appearance on camera is less pleasing to the eye than Hitler's. What he proposes to do for the poor and disadvantaged (not counting my cousins, of course) is practically nil, by comparison with Hitler: who, for instance, proposed to give low-income families a private motor-car of their own, and a cheap-to-run and reliable motor-car at that? Well, in case you don't already know, I'll tell you: Hitler did; he even got Porsche to design it!
Strange but true: Google Volkswagen, if you will.
So I tend to feel that Trump scores fewer points than Hitler. Admittedly Trump has not yet been known to kill any relations of mine, but who says my relations even matter anyway? Trump has no kind of post-traumatic stress or strain or childhood disadvantage that we can forgive him for being in recovery from, unlike Hitler. Trump has no taste, unlike Hitler. Trump's public utterances are unconvincing and inconsistent, unlike those of Hitler. Trump has never bothered to commission a good, cheap, well-built, reliable family car for the working classes, unlike Hitler.
And in the last analysis, Trump is orange. Unlike Hitler, whose lack of orangeness is perhaps his most attractive feature, six million or so dead cousins of mine notwithstanding.
So for me, as a Jew with an I.Q. above ten, Hitler trumps Trump.
Hitler was only stupid and angry.
Trump is educated and deliberately, calculatedly obnoxious.
_________________
You can't be proud of being Neurodivergent, because it isn't something you've done: you can only be proud of not being ashamed. (paraphrasing Quentin Crisp)
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
15 Oct 2019, 2:41 pm
Raphael F wrote:
Seeing a name like mine, you will automatically surmise that Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of some cousins of mine. And yes, actually, he was.
Whereas I find it highly unlikely that President Trump will actually lop off any branches of what remains of my family tree (obviously if he starts a nuclear war he'll kill everyone, but that will be less personal, nicht wahr?).
However.
Hitler, up until say 1940 when his extremely unscrupulous personal physician (just you Google Theodor Morell, and then maybe even read Norman Ohler's book on Morell...) began injecting him regularly with all kinds of unimaginably weird and wonderful substances, was at least sincere and lucid. Dangerously unintelligent and lethally bitter and twisted, yes, but sincere and lucid. We're all quite fascinated by sincere and lucid politicians, because we so rarely actually get to see one.
Hitler and Trump had/have in common a taste for architecture. Except Hitler admired and craved great, Classically-inspired architecture, whereas Trump seeks mainly trashy, Trump-inspired architecture. Were we to judge these two cataclysmical a***holes on their architecture alone, Hitler would win without even getting out of bed. Which he was increasingly incapable of doing, ha ha.
Hitler may have been deluded and dangerous, but even if he did kill some cousins of mine (not to mention six million or so others), I'm prepared to believe he did that from innocent moral simplicity and unwitting intellectual stupidity. We are none of us as intelligent as we'd like. Yet we all have strong gut feelings. Hitler was mixed-up, partly from his experiences in the First World War. These days he might even qualify for a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ... in which case, maybe he might not have been considered fit to run an entire country, let alone annex any other countries ...
It's unclear to me that President Trump has any such excuse.
Trump's speeches are less convincing and less inspirational than Hitler's. His advisers are less competent than Hitler's. His appearance on camera is less pleasing to the eye than Hitler's. What he proposes to do for the poor and disadvantaged (not counting my cousins, of course) is practically nil, by comparison with Hitler: who, for instance, proposed to give low-income families a private motor-car of their own, and a cheap-to-run and reliable motor-car at that? Well, in case you don't already know, I'll tell you: Hitler did; he even got Porsche to design it!
Strange but true: Google Volkswagen, if you will.
So I tend to feel that Trump scores fewer points than Hitler. Admittedly Trump has not yet been known to kill any relations of mine, but who says my relations even matter anyway? Trump has no kind of post-traumatic stress or strain or childhood disadvantage that we can forgive him for being in recovery from, unlike Hitler. Trump has no taste, unlike Hitler. Trump's public utterances are unconvincing and inconsistent, unlike those of Hitler. Trump has never bothered to commission a good, cheap, well-built, reliable family car for the working classes, unlike Hitler.
And in the last analysis, Trump is orange. Unlike Hitler, whose lack of orangeness is perhaps his most attractive feature, six million or so dead cousins of mine notwithstanding.
So for me, as a Jew with an I.Q. above ten, Hitler trumps Trump.
Hitler was only stupid and angry.
Trump is educated and deliberately, calculatedly obnoxious.
Whereas I find it highly unlikely that President Trump will actually lop off any branches of what remains of my family tree (obviously if he starts a nuclear war he'll kill everyone, but that will be less personal, nicht wahr?).
However.
Hitler, up until say 1940 when his extremely unscrupulous personal physician (just you Google Theodor Morell, and then maybe even read Norman Ohler's book on Morell...) began injecting him regularly with all kinds of unimaginably weird and wonderful substances, was at least sincere and lucid. Dangerously unintelligent and lethally bitter and twisted, yes, but sincere and lucid. We're all quite fascinated by sincere and lucid politicians, because we so rarely actually get to see one.
Hitler and Trump had/have in common a taste for architecture. Except Hitler admired and craved great, Classically-inspired architecture, whereas Trump seeks mainly trashy, Trump-inspired architecture. Were we to judge these two cataclysmical a***holes on their architecture alone, Hitler would win without even getting out of bed. Which he was increasingly incapable of doing, ha ha.
Hitler may have been deluded and dangerous, but even if he did kill some cousins of mine (not to mention six million or so others), I'm prepared to believe he did that from innocent moral simplicity and unwitting intellectual stupidity. We are none of us as intelligent as we'd like. Yet we all have strong gut feelings. Hitler was mixed-up, partly from his experiences in the First World War. These days he might even qualify for a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ... in which case, maybe he might not have been considered fit to run an entire country, let alone annex any other countries ...
It's unclear to me that President Trump has any such excuse.
Trump's speeches are less convincing and less inspirational than Hitler's. His advisers are less competent than Hitler's. His appearance on camera is less pleasing to the eye than Hitler's. What he proposes to do for the poor and disadvantaged (not counting my cousins, of course) is practically nil, by comparison with Hitler: who, for instance, proposed to give low-income families a private motor-car of their own, and a cheap-to-run and reliable motor-car at that? Well, in case you don't already know, I'll tell you: Hitler did; he even got Porsche to design it!
Strange but true: Google Volkswagen, if you will.
So I tend to feel that Trump scores fewer points than Hitler. Admittedly Trump has not yet been known to kill any relations of mine, but who says my relations even matter anyway? Trump has no kind of post-traumatic stress or strain or childhood disadvantage that we can forgive him for being in recovery from, unlike Hitler. Trump has no taste, unlike Hitler. Trump's public utterances are unconvincing and inconsistent, unlike those of Hitler. Trump has never bothered to commission a good, cheap, well-built, reliable family car for the working classes, unlike Hitler.
And in the last analysis, Trump is orange. Unlike Hitler, whose lack of orangeness is perhaps his most attractive feature, six million or so dead cousins of mine notwithstanding.
So for me, as a Jew with an I.Q. above ten, Hitler trumps Trump.
Hitler was only stupid and angry.
Trump is educated and deliberately, calculatedly obnoxious.
Also, don't forget:
Hitler would give lectures on art to the German people, whereas Trump is a cultural vulgarian.
Hitler wrote his own book, whereas Trump needed ghost writers.
Hitler as a child had been beaten into unconsciousness by his father, and only awoke days later, suggesting brain damage, whereas Trump has no excuse for a brain injury to fall back on.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
15 Oct 2019, 3:10 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Also, don't forget:
Hitler would give lectures on art to the German people, whereas Trump is a cultural vulgarian.
Hitler wrote his own book, whereas Trump needed ghost writers.
Hitler as a child had been beaten into unconsciousness by his father, and only awoke days later, suggesting brain damage, whereas Trump has no excuse for a brain injury to fall back on.
Somewhat agree. Becoming a tad nervous about my circumcision right now, but yes, in all intellectual fairness, these are good points.Hitler would give lectures on art to the German people, whereas Trump is a cultural vulgarian.
Hitler wrote his own book, whereas Trump needed ghost writers.
Hitler as a child had been beaten into unconsciousness by his father, and only awoke days later, suggesting brain damage, whereas Trump has no excuse for a brain injury to fall back on.
Can anyone loan me a dilapidated and inconspicuous cattle truck, just now?
Just for a few hours, to get me over the border into neutral territory?
_________________
You can't be proud of being Neurodivergent, because it isn't something you've done: you can only be proud of not being ashamed. (paraphrasing Quentin Crisp)
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
15 Oct 2019, 3:17 pm
Raphael F wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Also, don't forget:
Hitler would give lectures on art to the German people, whereas Trump is a cultural vulgarian.
Hitler wrote his own book, whereas Trump needed ghost writers.
Hitler as a child had been beaten into unconsciousness by his father, and only awoke days later, suggesting brain damage, whereas Trump has no excuse for a brain injury to fall back on.
Somewhat agree. Becoming a tad nervous about my circumcision right now, but yes, in all intellectual fairness, these are good points.Hitler would give lectures on art to the German people, whereas Trump is a cultural vulgarian.
Hitler wrote his own book, whereas Trump needed ghost writers.
Hitler as a child had been beaten into unconsciousness by his father, and only awoke days later, suggesting brain damage, whereas Trump has no excuse for a brain injury to fall back on.
Can anyone loan me a dilapidated and inconspicuous cattle truck, just now?
Just for a few hours, to get me over the border into neutral territory?
I think Latinos are more likely to face the rage of Trump and his voters rather than Jews this time around.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Donald Trump Likely Going To Prison |
29 Feb 2024, 1:04 am |
| Trump thinks he looks like Elvis! |
13 Feb 2024, 7:54 pm |
| Trump would let Russia attack allies who don't pay enough |
16 Feb 2024, 4:34 pm |
| SCOTUS: Trump to stay on ballots |
06 Mar 2024, 2:18 pm |
