the problem with your argument is that Republicans have not been reasonable since 2016 and even seem to take pride in this. As such the attempt to sell them as reasonable falls flat.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Absolutely not. Frankly, the enabling act is the perfect evidence of how wrong you are.
There were attempts by those parties to work with the Nazis leading up to the Enabling Act because there wasn't a majority and their government could not function at all. The parliament was split into 3 segments that would not work together: the Nazis, the Communists, and everyone in between. The Nazis were much more powerful than the Communists, but the two were a symbiotic pair, growing themselves off of the opposition to the other, actually quite aware that is what they were doing. Antifa vs groups like the Proud Boys are a recreation of this, Antifa more literally drawing from the same organization in Weimar Germany, attempting to push voters towards extreme positions by propagation of hate and violence.
But anyway, 3 groups: Nazis, Communists, and everyone else. At the time of the enabling act, there were 647 deputies: 288 Nazis, 81 Communists, 278 of everyone else. Nobody could establish a majority without including either the Nazis or Communists, there just weren't enough others to do that. The only thing they could do to try to run a functioning government was to work with one of those two, but neither could be given the helm, cause they both intended to dissolve the Republic anyway. So the right-wing parties tried to work on getting the Nazis to moderate unsuccessfully, and the left-wing parties tried to get the Communists to moderate unsuccessfully, and the deadlock persisted.
Which brings us to the Enabling Act. If, as you say, the DNVP and Zentrum were repeated allies of the Nazies, the Nazis could have formed a majority with either one of them. Either of those parties voting with the Nazis would give them the full power to govern, the Enabling Act would have been unnecessary. That didn't happen. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the President (who funny enough also won his spot with a plurality rather than a majority because the Communists took their all or nothing stance) without the support of any party other than the Nazis themselves. Then the Reichstag Fire happened, whether you think it another misguided act of Communist accelerationism or a false flag by the Nazis, the result is the same, civil liberties were suspended under the Reichstag decree, and the Nazis arrested all of the Communists, and then began arresting the SPD. By the time of the vote, the outcome was foregone: if the Nazis couldn't get the vote they needed, they were going to arrest and imprison as many people as it took to get the vote they needed. Thus, the decision at the vote was not "do you want to give Hitler absolute power to enact law without the consent of parliament?" Rather, the question was "do you want to be in prison when Hitler gains that power".
Unless you truly believe that 8 entire other political parties over the course of a few weeks went from refusing to seat Hitler as chancellor to granting him dictatorial powers unanimously, the vote on the Enabling Act and the mass arrests and intimidation necessary to reach it should illustrate vividly that no other parties were playing ball with Hitler in that moment.
You're going in circles. You think us unreasonable because you think us unreasonable, which you only think cause you already think us unreasonable. There is no logical beginning to your stance, it's just a preconceived idea handed to you by people who shill for the Democrats.
This is some utterly spectacular mental gymnastics. I don't know how you can type this drivel with a straight face.
They voted to imbue Hitler with dictatorial powers. There's no getting around that, and those paragraphs of simplistic sophistry don't come close.
"Without their support"? It was von Papen's (of Zentrum) initiative.
They held the national power they did because of local coalitions with DNVP.
So no, they didn't obstruct his rise until the enabling act was unavoidable. They facillitated it long before; empowered his party locally and handed him his position. Then voted to imbue him with dicatorial powers.
Last edited:
‘I’m just a girl in Canada trying to get everyone their vibrators’: Why a Toronto sex toy store got a letter from the U.S. Department of War
“I’m just a girl in Canada trying to get everyone their vibrators,” co-founder Grace Bennett said.
Not really. Trump simply has never been anything resembling a statesmen who reaches out across the isle or who behaves reasonably.
Like even without taking into account the coup, was Trump's conduct after his electoral defeat anything resembling reasonable? Blindly insisting he secretly won and wanting it overturned despite having absolutely nothing to go on?
Or Trump putting plaques on Biden and Obama's presidential paintings slandering them. You think that's reasonable behavior?
Or him and that filth Zelensky ambushing Zelensky in the White House?
Having Musk get his filthy paws on the government and firing countless people doesn't strike me as reasonable behavior either.
Trump claims grounds for "termination" of U.S. Constitution
The former president's latest unfounded claim of "massive fraud" has left fellow Republicans grappling once again with how to respond.
www.cbsnews.com
Yeah, it's totally reasonable to call for the termination of the Constitution because you lost an election.
So you are declaring that circumstance is entirely irrelevant when inconvenient to you.
Like, if I put a gun to your head and demanded you say you hate Jews, would you feel claims about your antisemitism are justified?
A party that blocked him from or removed him from positions of power on multiple occasions, and refused to cooperate with the Nazis. A party that he was in some senses a member of but even before Hitler was involved he backstabbed shamelessly when convenient, named him the "Ephialtes of the Centre Party".
A man whose scheme was to get himself appoint vice chancellor under Hitler and then use Hitler's behavior as justification to overthrow him and install a military dictatorship under himself instead, only to end up the one put under arrest while many of his closest allies were slaughtered.
No, that doesn't qualify as Zentrum working with the Nazis.
He didn't call for the termination of the constitution, and you know it.Trump claims grounds for "termination" of U.S. Constitution
The former president's latest unfounded claim of "massive fraud" has left fellow Republicans grappling once again with how to respond.
Yeah, it's totally reasonable to call for the termination of the Constitution because you lost an election.
Slandering Donald Trump is your entire personality. How can you call that behavior unreasonable?
Because recognizing a corrupt businessman and demagogic far right politician isn't slander. Nor is blaming him for his outright treason towards Europe.
Its just saying it how it is.
No: I'm stating that you've given a curated and self-serving overview of circumstances that don't justify collaboration with Nazis.
These parties were not forced to collaborate with Nazis. They chose to. Either in the hope of success for their own nationalist ambitions, or out of political miscalculation.
"In some senses a member of"? He was a member, no senses about it-- albeit a bit of a rebel, often siding with the more conservative parties against the moderate wing. He was its member until his Chancellorship. Just before which he resigned... so his Chancellorship was instead supported by the two other biggest conservative parties.
But sure, he wasn't a member when he requested Hitler be appointed.
Then the enabling act. In which Zentrum too voted to hand Hitler dictatorial powers.
Oh, here's the stupider thing. The schools and workplaces were shut 6 weeks out of 2 years. You did not need to wear masks for most of that time. The Australian economy went up as business boomed. It did the opposite of what Fox News predicted
We treasoned you losers 250 years ago, get over it.
Oh, so you're just ignorant of history. The Enabling Act wasn't voted for out of political ambition. That vote was people trying not to be murdered by a party that had just suspended habeus corpus for the express purpose of imprisoning their political rivals.
There was less deaths than normal over 2020 and 21 because things like dementia did not lead to pneumonia, communicable diseases were not communicated, a reduction is domestic violence and suicides, etc.
There was also a spike in all crimes in 2022.... because the numbers were low in 2020/1
Here's the thing. I was kinda of understanding of Fox's point at the start of the pandemic and what they were saying is what I would have predicted. I looked at the data and noticed I was wrong so changed my mind. (I don't think Fox did, but I would not be willing to say until the next pandemic. Which will probably be in the 2030s.)
Edit: You can be wrong with your predictions. You not changing once new data appears is the problem
I don't recall any alliances with the Russians to start legalizing war in Europe around that time nor do I recall the White House being infested with vermin who all but write in official policy papers that Europe is their enemy.
From the actual text of his Truth post:
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNS, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
Don't insult me by lying so blatantly, you clown.
Here's the deal, straightforward:
You did nothing at all special, you have the circumstantial luck of being an island disconnected from the world with a relatively low population and easily stopped travel in a climate and season that avoided early spread entirely by accident. You have convinced yourself that you were just way better at pandemic prevention that you are now willing to blind yourself to the actual statistics just to maintain a poorly founded sense of pride.
I want to just tell you that you don't know how to read, but telling you that won't help you understand, cause you don't know how to read, so I'll explain.
He wanted to be declared the winner, or have a new election to decide. This would go against things in the constitution, unless you do something incredibly roundabout like make the opponent the Speaker of the House and then impeach and remove the whole new administration at once. There is definitely precedent in other legal frameworks in the states or elsewhere in the world for new elections to correct a fraudulent election, and definitely a moral argument that such a thing is justified, provided you believe the election was genuinely fraud.
That post very obviously desires overstepping constitutional election laws to replace the result of the election. Interpreting that as "terminate the constitution" is absolutely psychotic nonsense. If you say "he said all, not any", I'm throwing you in the pit with the people who insist you say "may" instead of "can".
I'm not ignorant of coercion. I'm also well aware that more principled parties resisted it, and that the conservative parties were not the primary targets, for reasons that are obvious to honest observers.