But he… wasn’t. He lost the presidency in 1932 to Paul Von Hindenburg (53% to 37%. not even particularly close) who later appointed Hitler under pressure to the channclorship (which was an appointed role) in 1933. Hindenburg died in January of 1934 and Hitler de facto merged the presidency and chancelorship into one office (Fuhrer). The story isn’t “regular people put Hitler in power”, it’s “broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists”.
Not sure entirely about that. Nazis were still a party that held up to 44% of seats in the reichstag (before they were all nazi) with like 6 different parties. Hitler wasn’t isolated. The population voted for him and his party. Hindenburg didn’t like Hitler but essentially passed away at a terrible time and Hitler outplayed Papen who was meant to keep him in check. Hindenburg felt he had to since they had the closest to a majority in the reichstag.
"In the end, the president, who had previously vowed never to let Hitler become chancellor, appointed Hitler to the post at 11:30 am on 30 January 1933, with Papen as vice-chancellor.[91] While Papen’s intrigues appeared to have brought Hitler into power, the crucial dynamic was in fact provided by the Nazi Party’s electoral support, which made military dictatorship the only alternative to Nazi rule for Hindenburg and his circle. [Sauce]
Yes, there was support in the population, but there was also a lot of violence to suppress dissent. The historical consensus, as I learned it, is to call it the “seizure of power” (“Machtergreifung” in German), because Hitler wasn’t simply voted into power by a majority.
This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. “Machtergreifung” is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.
P.S.: Germany didn’t have a two-party system, so having a majority wasn’t that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.
That is not correct. Neither according to Wikipedia, not to what I learned in school. The term “Machtergreifung” was avoided by the Nazis, they used “Machtübernahme” as to not alienate their moderate conservative supporters. But “Machtergreifung” is much more fitting, when applying it to the process that was started in January 1933.
And yes, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to appoint him as the head of a coalition government, as the NSDAP had lost votes and came in “only” at around 33%. The normal rules of how to govern in a multi-party system don’t quite apply, because it was never Hitler’s goal to rule as part of a coalition, having to compromise.
They used both terms as well as “Machtübergabe” (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.
i always thought that’s mostly because german fascists dragged both of those countries into war by attacking them, which caused severe backlash by proxy, and not really antifa being particularly effective in those countries.
explains why the U.S., despite having a large fascist movement at the time, reversed course and turned on fascism as an ideology (in public); they got attacked.
same in Britain; early attacks in the war, plus some lingering resentment from WWI, combined overcoming a push towards fascism…
I’d love to hear/read more about successful antifa movements in the UK/US, but that’s what I’ve always thought/read were the major reasons for failing fascist movements in those countries: other fascists…
You really expect a politician to tell the truth, especially when it comes to history? She and the rest of the US political elite for decades now are just mouthpieces for interest groups, mostly military groups who make money with wars abroad. Together with the media, they sell you wars abroad, while waving any currently popular flag at home for votes. The US elections are so loud, you don’t hear the sounds of pain and misery those events create abroad, especially in Middle East.
After the reports of Israeli invasion in Gaza, the first smile I saw in media was that of Hillary. When the wars and killings across northern Africa and Middle East started during the Arab Spring, her smile was the most prominent one for months.
Every time this slime of a human being crawls out of a crack in the wall in Washington somewhere, a war is either being prepared or needs justifying for the american voters. All that with a smile, while the cameras are rolling.
it’s “broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists”.
She would know all about that. Bernie was killing Trump in the polls. Hilary was neck and neck with Trump.
The DNC cast their votes for who was going to General. A winner was announced. Everyone started to go to the announcement and for the only time in DNC history, the announcement was rescinded and everyone was broken up into different groups. Hilary staffers were observed scurrying around between groups. Then everyone was forced to vote again. THEN Hilary was declared the candidate going to General.
It was all live tweeted. It was all loudly publicized, but noone seemed to notice. Noone seemed to care.
Of course she is now going to make a historically inaccurate statement that casts actual democracy in a bad light.
Don't forget that there are many, many appointed superdelegates who each have around 8,000 voting power each.
There were 618 pledges from DNC superdelegates in the 2016 nomination, equaling 4,944,000 voting power (meaning votes equivalent to ~5 million regular voters in the DNC). These are not delegates assigned to states but to specific groups and people in positions in the DNC itself.
For reference, 16,917,853 of the popular vote itself went to Hilary Clinton and 13,210,550 went to Bernie Sanders according to this eye cancer of a website. If all of the DNC superdelegates voted for Bernie Sanders, he would have won the 2016 DNC primaries, even though the DNC voters regardless that the actual regular DNC voters voted for Hilary.
Anyway, I'm only making a point that system was broken.
The DNC did reform this afterwards, in that, if the first ballot doesn't have an absolute majority then superdelegates will cast votes but otherwise, cannot (as a superdelegate).
At the end of the day, I think the United States is just too damn big to run this type of system.
Red states are so entrenched in their beliefs and blue states are so entrenched in theirs, there is no way to cap them off with one cohesive federal government.
By design, every advancement is a crucial blow to the other side.
And then the real rub.
We have been at it long enough that there are not 2 parties. There is one mob of selfish egotistical asshats who struggle and toil keep federal office the best place to get richer and more powerful.
We keep calling it a government divided. IT ISNT. They are of one mind, taking a foot but making sure not to take a yard. Giving up a foot but making sure not to lose a yard. And every time the ball moves one half of The mindless masses feel validated, one half of The mindless masses feel violated, and the whole effort had an earmark on page 1672 of 3000 that assraped EVERYONE except the rich and the politician.
My betting money is on the fact that we will crumble like the USSR before I die. No grand civil war two electric Boogaloo. Just a pathetic crumbling.
The difference between US and the USSR is that we don't have a pre USA history/culture to fall back on.
DNC’s lawyers used the legal defense that they’re a private party and can run anyone they want in the general, and because of that, it doesn’t matter if they influence a primary election.
They flat out said primary elections are just a performative act, and the judge agreed with them.
Which is correct if you look at the history of how primaries came to be. Parties simply nominating someone is exactly what used to happen. The first Presidential primaries started in 1901, and they still don’t even happen in every state. Plenty still use the caucus system, where a bunch of insiders (usually local people who have volunteered for the party in some capacity) take off a day from work to decide on a candidate. The caucus system has historically been far more susceptible tampering by powerful interests. It literally was a smoke filled room, and is where that metaphor started.
Primaries aren’t some system enshrined in the Constitution or anything. It’s just how both parties have evolved over time. The general population gets its say in the election later on. The system now is far more democratic than the one that existed 200 years ago (with the caveat that we don’t have to stop with progress here).
Obama would never have gotten the nomination in 2008 if the caucus system was still the norm. The leaders of the party wanted Hillary.
That said, I think this approach would work better if there were more than two viable parties. If you don’t like who the Democrats nominated, look the Green Party or Progressives Party or Send Billionaires to Guillotines Party. If they all put a candidate out there selected by party insiders, that’s fine, just vote in the general for whomever you think is the best out of a wide range of options. It’s far harder for corrupt party insiders to game the system in this scenario–for example, it’d be harder to have a place in all parties and setup the candidates you want so you win no matter what. It’s only a problem because we have exactly two parties that matter. Treating multiple parties as private organizations who can nominate whomever they want under any system they want would be fine.
That’s not the only thing you just said that I disagree with, it’s just an objective fact and it’s pretty much what the rest of your comment is based on.
We know that you obnoxious bitch. No go back into your cave, nobody wants you here. We would literally rather have the decrepit half-dead old man then Trump or you.
This is your hourly reminder that the general election is nothing but a popularity contest and all the real voting power is with the electoral college members who can vote however they like even against their states general pop vote.
Its a puppet show for adults to make the politically minded feel important. Every single canidate who makes it to the ballots is bought and paid for. Vote however you like, or not at all. It doesn’t matter, and hasn’t mattered for decades.
That isn’t really so, faithless electors have never been likely, the occasional faithless elector has had nearly no impact on elections, and a recent (2020 I believe) Supreme Court ruling made it clear that they are not allowed.
There are many issues with the general election. The electoral college is the original gerrymandering set up by our founding white supremacists, and the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system makes sure that general elections only give the public minimal choice between two major party candidates. We desperately need to reform the system.
But voting in the general election remains necessary, to minimize harm, and voting in the primary election is vital, as the only place we get any real chance at a say. If we want to reform the system, dropping out if it is the surest way to fail. It’s exactly what the major parties want you to do.
No, it’s worth noting that it was lesser evil voting in a sense that got Hitler appointed. The Social Democrats blocked with the Conservative Hindenburg, who won. Hindenburg then appointed Hitler Chancellor.
One wonders what would have happened if the Social Democrats had blocked with the Communists in a left slate, or at least gotten concessions from the Conservatives.
I’d need to have much more of a background in that era of Germany to start speculating like that. We might as well talk about Hitler being accepted into Art School or whatever that butterfly effect idea was.
Choosing to support the right wing guy, Hindenburg, that didn’t really believe in democracy who in less than 2 years later appoints the guy who ends democracy is not a big stretch of cause and effect.
I’m saying I am not familiar enough with the party structure and how collations needed to be formed to be comfortable to speculate. You may be right, you may be wrong. I don’t know. You’re not the first person I’ve seen say it.
I’m a leftist and if I were going to vote for a Uniparty candidate, it’d probably be trump, on account of not literally denying genocide while actively preventing an end to said genocide. Seriously, if your logic for Biden over trump involves the word fascism, go ahead and explain exactly how America could get more fascist than we are right now. Nothing is more inherently fascist than committing genocide
Lmao, at the gop debate, they were literally talking about deporting people if they talk shit about Israel. Do you really think Trump is going to be the Savior of Palestine?
I didn’t say I iked him, I said he isn’t already guilty of genocide, unlike Biden. Trump very well might also commit genocide. But we know for sure Biden would, because he is openly supporting it right now.
America has always supported fascism abroad; genocide, military coups to overthrow democratic governments, invading countries to conquer land and extract resources.
The thing is though there’s usually a clear separation between domestic and foreign policy. Bomb the children in the middle east, not the ones in Los Angeles. Not saying this is right, just that’s been the U.S’s take in general.
So Trump and domestic fascism is different in a tangible way, it introduces fascism locally, and I don’t think individuals or groups that are that openly fascistic will start supporting democracy or proletarian causes overseas.
Voting for domestic fascism as a way to curb fascistic foreign policy approaches probably won’t work out too well.
You’re taking as given that trump would be more fascist domestically. But why? I mean, it doesn’t matter where you genocide someone. So Biden is already reaching the heights of fascism. The only thing more fascist than staging an unjust coup is committing genocide. I don’t think it’s a bold stance to say that I’d rather see a 2nd J6 than a 2nd Trail of Tears. America is going to come out just fine from the first J6, however the natives absolutely did not come out just fine from the trail of tears.
If the calculus is literally just “vote for the less fascist one”, I don’t see any way that that’s not trump. Biden has already green lit the end goal of fascism to begin with. Hopefully this is the year Americans stand up to our masters though and don’t let them lower the bar for president to “not literally helping commit a genocide… Yet.” Because I certainly do not have high hopes for the idea of trump actually standing up to our genocidal ally. He is just obviously more likely to do so than Biden.
America is already guilty of one genocide, we need to do everything we can to ensure it doesn’t become 2.
To answer your first question, the attempted coup. Biden didn’t encourage and rally his supporters to storm Congress. He doesn’t have the backing of white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Trying to seize power domestically via a group of fascists is more domestically fascistic than not doing that.
Also, even if Trump suddenly becomes a leftist ally and pulls out all U.S involvement in Israel, they’ll still be genociding Palestinians. You can’t put literally 100% of the blame of the Palestinian ethnic cleansing on the U.S, when it was actually started originally by British imperialism and is perpetuated by the terrorist state of Israel.
Voting for Trump as a vote against fascism seems wildly misinformed to me. The first Trump presidency already stacked the Supreme Court enough to overturn Roe. If he becomes President again, it’s well within the realm of possibility that he pardons Jan 6th offenders, pardons himself, and they seize power permanently in the U.S.
I get your hope that while we’re all being subjected to a new fascist dictatorship, that somehow his pure leftist heart changes the behavior of the imperial core and we pull out of Israel, but even if that happens Palestinians will still be genocided. We’ll just also have more sociopolitical regression (gay/trans people will be outlawed, the bit of social services we have will be gutted, capitalist exploitation will reach new heights, etc.)
I think US support is critical to Israel being able to genocide, and without it, it may not be capable of genocide at all, given the politics of the region as a whole. Iran wouldn’t stand idly by (not that they’re necessarily allies against genocide, but for their own interests). I don’t know what trump would do, but he did pull us out of Afghanistan, and his politics aren’t as tied to the elites’ interests as Bidens are. Trump cant profit off the genocide or anything, and he does seem to be somewhat anti war in cases he can’t profit off of it. Sure, he might attempt another coup, but that seems favorable to doing nothing while our government aids in a genocide. I’ll take a 2nd J6 over a 2nd trail of tears any day.
Oh yeah they’re everywhere. Granted they aren’t flying flags off their oversized pickups so they’re a bit harder to notice, but they’re definitely hanging around the comment sections.
I’m not sure how historically accurate that is. I mean, Hitler was appointed, not elected right? NSDAP members were elected, that is how a parliamentary system works.
Also the 1933 German elections were the result of a massive campaign of violence and intimidation against opposition parties and voters. I would hardly call that “duly elected”.
Think of it as like: if we had 100x as many Proud Boys in the US, and they were posted at every polling location to decide who gets to vote or not…
It’s complicated but basically the chancellor (not nsdap) selected hitler as a way of trying to give him some power (because nsdap was still the biggest party after the 1932 election) so he’s happy but not enough where he could get out of control.
I dislike Biden for many reasons but he isn’t actively encouraging domestic terrorism, so yeah, I’d say it is. You have to understand your little shitstain set the bar lower than humanly thought possible.
Trump era had people being pulled off the streets into unmarked black vans, literally the bogeyman they used on name growing up about secret police. It wasn’t better, certainly. My concern, is that on one side they’re actively setting fires that can burn us all down, and on the other now, they’re letting those same fires burn, and it’s still burning people. We still have camps on the border. We still haven’t rolled back to Obama-era Cuba restrictions, we still haven’t seen any effort to lessen police funding and it’s oversized control of the budgets of nearly every city in the country. In fact, we’ve seen further money put into police to further militarize them. We haven’t seen Biden demonizing cop city protestors, but he hasn’t done shit in their favor either. We haven’t seen him putting money into food banks to help with record food insecurity. Nothings happening around housing, and most of us are spending over half our income on just rent.
Like, fuck man. Is the best choice really between active destruction and slow decimation?
No, he’s just actively encouraging genocide, which is totally fine and good with you I presume? People just like you are the reason hitler was able to take power. Nothing trump ever did reached the level of denying and supporting genocide. I’d rather have an idiot in power than a figurehead for very smart and very evil people pulling the strings.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but both Biden and Trump are promoting the same genocide. The difference is Biden’s support is quite unfavorable, while Trump’s base is riled up by the prospects of war and killing brown people. Hell, House Republicans are trying to expulse all Palestinians from the country.
Trump is not supporting the genocide to nearly the same degree as Biden. Also, we all know trump is all talk. Bidens words should always be taken more seriously than Trump’s, and Biden is the one capable of taking action. And he hasn’t. Nobody should reasonably expect anything of Trump in 2023, while on the other hand, Biden is the president right now, and has a duty to act. Biden is responsible for the genocide, trump is not.
Ah yes, the rampant sexism of Democrats claiming that the only reason an extremely unlikable woman who cheated in her primary lost is because of sexism.
She fucking LOST!!! Why the fuck do you think her getting 3 million more votes matters? Bernie would have won. We know this for a fact, by comparing contemporary polling data for both candidates with what actually happened. Trump is 100% the fault of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
Acting as if dislike of Hilary is solely due to sexism is either simple-minded ignorance or dismissive of people that aren’t your enemy.
I voted for her, but not because I thought she was a good and honest person. I don’t think that at all, and would rather Bernie have won the nomination. She was way more qualified and way less of a dangerous wildcard than Trump, so she got my vote but not everyone saw it that way unfortunately.
Among the current Repugs I’d pick Hailey now, but none of them will get my vote in the general.
I have had so many conversations with people who insist that they want women in positions of political power who can’t name one woman in power that they don’t hate. Generally they don’t seem to have the same problem with men. So I have long since stopped talking people’s assertions in the subject at face value
It’s majority sexism against a strong woman with power. The vitriol against her was unmatched. To this day people blame her for hearsay or flat out fabrications of things she supposedly did that other Politicians, namely Trump, were proven guilty of. It’s incredible when you look down through the list. The Bush and Trump Administrations both violated the same data handling rules by using private communication mechanisms and commit countless crimes surrounding it; Yet Hillary is the one to get the most criticism despite nothing being covered up. I had a list years back that Trump was guilty of nearly everything the Clintons were accused of. Crazy.
Please go back to whatever crevice you hide in between elections. You and your ghouls’ enabling of fascists like him is what allowed him to win in the first place. Against you.
Also Hitler wasn’t ‘duly elected’, maybe you should ask your beloved mentor Henry Kissinger for history lessons before that piece of shit croaks and makes the world a better place.
I love how most of the comments here are about how much everyone hates Hillary rather than about what she actually said. I get it that people hate her, but let’s be real folks; Trump is the only relevant clear and present danger here. Bitching about Hillary seems pretty pointless at this point.
No, by ending the primaries early, and by feeding her debate questions in advance, and 15 other things I’ve forgotten by now that we saw proof of in her emails.
Yep, you can blame the Dems and Clinton herself 100% for that one, given that we know Bernie would have won. She is directly responsible for things being as bad as they are.
It makes my head spin that people think Bernie lost because he couldn’t overcome the most standard political maneuverings of the Democrats, and yet he would somehow overcome the political maneuverings of the Republican party which plays far dirtier than the Democratic party does. Does everyone forget the Bush Campaign spreading rumors that John McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually an illegitimate Black child from an affair? Or how about when they turned John Kerry’s service in Vietnam into a something he only did for fame?
I hear you. What she said is correct. The thing is, this person is so unlikeable that there’s no way she can help. No matter how sharp you are, or how good of an elected official you’ll be (and I do think she would have been extremely good at her job if she was elected (I did vote for her)), you must have charisma to be effective in politics.
I honestly believe in my heart that if she paid millions for widespread TV ads with her saying “do not vote for Donald Trump” it would help him.
Again, you are focusing on her rather than on what she actually said. That’s what I find so telling and unfortunate. Are we really so shallow and politically inept that we can’t hear a message simply because we dislike the messenger?
It seems like you are telling me yes, that’s exactly how shallow and politically inept we are.
If so, that sucks, especially since you are almost certainly correct.
Add comment