United States Politics Thread 47

[MacAnDàil]

Seeing film of ICE agents (provocateurs) attempting too foment insurrection, I'm left wondering. Why don't the states use their national guards to help temporarily close down the ICE facilities being used for such purposes and arrest the gang members for conspiracy with President Trump for such crimes or more particular offences? (I'm thinking of artillery support if ICE agents attempt point defence.) The Presidents immunity from prosecution shouldn't protect his co-conspirators, even if it applies to crimes against state law.

Cowardice or prudence depending on how you look at it?

Stephen Miller accidentally let the cat out of the bag.
- https://bsky.app/profile/demsec.bsky.so ... mndf2res26

This is harmless, right? Trumpers like it. Anti-Trumpers knew it.

Middle-of-the-roaders neither knew nor liked it.

I'm surprised no one mentioned this one: https://innersight.news/news-single/nas ... on-mission

It appears that it is that NASA is one of the many US government agencies affected by the government shutdown.

[rotting bones]

Middle-of-the-roaders neither knew nor liked it.

Some policies are more polarizing than others, and invading cities for supporting political opponents is as polarizing as it gets.

It appears that it is that NASA is one of the many US government agencies affected by the government shutdown.

Yes, it's a crisis for space science, as were the earlier budget cuts.

BTW, a Far Right politician just won the Nobel Peace Prize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Corina_Machado https://youtu.be/ks9uDtd7Msc Why is it wrong to describe these people as Hitler when so many people have been called Caesar, leftist leaders have been accused of "Bonapartism", etc?

[Travis B.]

BTW, a Far Right politician just won the Nobel Peace Prize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Corina_Machado https://youtu.be/ks9uDtd7Msc Why is it wrong to describe these people as Hitler when so many people have been called Caesar, leftist leaders have been accused of "Bonapartism", etc?

Maybe because the Holocaust, the most egregious example of industrialized genocide in history (even if there have been other examples of genocide with a similarly proportional death toll), occurred under Hitler's watch, so describing these people as Hitler relativizes and minimizes the Holocaust? Conversely, both Caesar and Bonaparte were largely not genocidal in their actions, and many people in history openly adopted 'Caesar' as a title, such as subsequent Roman emperors (and the German and Russian words for 'emperor' are directly descended from 'Caesar').

[rotting bones]

Maybe because the Holocaust, the most egregious example of industrialized genocide in history (even if there have been other examples of genocide with a similarly proportional death toll), occurred under Hitler's watch, so describing these people as Hitler relativizes and minimizes the Holocaust? Conversely, both Caesar and Bonaparte were largely not genocidal in their actions, and many people in history openly adopted 'Caesar' as a title, such as subsequent Roman emperors (and the German and Russian words for 'emperor' are directly descended from 'Caesar').

She is a narcissistic political leader who supports genocide. Why can't we call attempted Hitlers Hitler? Why must they be a Hitler who has fully realized their ambition? We don't use that standard for Bonaparte.

[Travis B.]

Maybe because the Holocaust, the most egregious example of industrialized genocide in history (even if there have been other examples of genocide with a similarly proportional death toll), occurred under Hitler's watch, so describing these people as Hitler relativizes and minimizes the Holocaust? Conversely, both Caesar and Bonaparte were largely not genocidal in their actions, and many people in history openly adopted 'Caesar' as a title, such as subsequent Roman emperors (and the German and Russian words for 'emperor' are directly descended from 'Caesar').

She is a narcissistic political leader who supports genocide. Why can't we call attempted Hitlers Hitler? Why must they be a Hitler who has fully realized their ambition? We don't use that standard for Bonaparte.

By that count, anyone who does not specifically denounce Netanyahu becomes a 'Hitler', which vastly dilutes the significance of the crimes of the Nazis by equating just about everyone one does not like with them.

[rotting bones]

By that count, anyone who does not specifically denounce Netanyahu becomes a 'Hitler', which vastly dilutes the significance of the crimes of the Nazis by equating just about everyone one does not like with them.

I'm specifically reserving that word for political leaders who explicitly support genocide. I dislike many kinds of people. Consider Yunus, who is not Hitler:

Source: https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2025/10 ... d-america/

Yunus, on the other hand, lectured the United Nations on the need for what he calls social businesses. As he explained to me when I met him in Dhaka earlier this year, he believes Western socialism hides poverty by giving people subsistence without letting them grow. Also, unrestrained capitalism values profits above all else.

I disagree that business grows societal wealth. Profit extraction exploits workers by making them work unreasonably hard under the threat of making them unemployed, removes their ability to control their lives, creates crashes through the business cycle, etc.

This is why workers in capitalist economies demonstrate so little personal growth. Instead of building them up, it breaks them down. I don't think business leaders demonstrate personal growth either. They're usually monsters. The "moral ones" especially tend to resemble the Godfather.

[alice]

Perhaps we need a new more accurate word to use in place of "Hitler", so that "Hitler" becomes unambiguous.

[keenir]

She is a narcissistic political leader who supports genocide. Why can't we call attempted Hitlers Hitler? Why must they be a Hitler who has fully realized their ambition? We don't use that standard for Bonaparte.

By that count, anyone who does not specifically denounce Netanyahu becomes a 'Hitler', which vastly dilutes the significance of the crimes of the Nazis by equating just about everyone one does not like with them.

I'm specifically reserving that word for political leaders who explicitly support genocide.

But then you have the same problem that you just voiced: why can only people who have achieved their political ambitions be called Hitler?

[Travis B.]

I should note that I would not call even many leaders who have committed genocide, such as Stalin (e.g. the genocide of the Ingrian Finns), 'Hitler'. The Holocaust was special in its industrialization of genocide, as I said, such that it cannot be equated with many more pedestrian cases of genocide (e.g. the Rwandan genocide, which was mostly committed by machete-wielding militia members in a much more hands-on fashion) even if the proportional death toll is similar. To broadly compare génocidaires in general with Hitler would be to deny this, much the less to call people 'Hitler' simply because they support Israel but are not génocidaires by any reasonable count themselves.

[Travis B.]

I should also note that calling everyone one doesn't like who happens to not be opposed to Israel 'Hitler' comes across as hyperbolic, and ends up weakening not strengthening your arguments, along with inevitably reducing the rhetorical strength of the invocation of National Socialism, especially when repeated.

[Travis B.]

From reading the Wiki article on Machado, my impression of her is that her own politics are center-right, not far-right, but she has misguided views of foreign countries' politics like those of Trump or Israel.

[rotting bones]

From reading the Wiki article on Machado, my impression of her is that her own politics are center-right, not far-right, but she has misguided views of foreign countries' politics like those of Trump or Israel.

She supports genocide. I linked that article to show her support for Trump, etc.

I should note that I would not call even many leaders who have committed genocide, such as Stalin (e.g. the genocide of the Ingrian Finns), 'Hitler'. The Holocaust was special in its industrialization of genocide, as I said, such that it cannot be equated with many more pedestrian cases of genocide (e.g. the Rwandan genocide, which was mostly committed by machete-wielding militia members in a much more hands-on fashion) even if the proportional death toll is similar. To broadly compare génocidaires in general with Hitler would be to deny this, much the less to call people 'Hitler' simply because they support Israel but are not génocidaires by any reasonable count themselves.

I don't know of many genocidal leaders who wouldn't industrialize it if they could. Not many countries are simultaneously wealthy and angry enough to invest that level of industrialization into genocide. The Tsar couldn't, but he still managed to wipe out 95 - 97% of Circassians. Was he Hitler? Israel can't afford it because they are heavily reliant on foreign support. They will transition to those tactics if more people like this come to power in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Fin ... _Palestine In fact, Israeli policy is more hostile than you might think: https://x.com/asadabukhalil?ref_src=tws ... r%5Eauthor Apparently, Netanyahu is a long time terrorist.

(and the German and Russian words for 'emperor' are directly descended from 'Caesar').

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_K ... _the_title

[Travis B.]

From reading the Wiki article on Machado, my impression of her is that her own politics are center-right, not far-right, but she has misguided views of foreign countries' politics like those of Trump or Israel.

She supports genocide. I linked that article to show her support for Trump, etc.

I should note that I would not call even many leaders who have committed genocide, such as Stalin (e.g. the genocide of the Ingrian Finns), 'Hitler'. The Holocaust was special in its industrialization of genocide, as I said, such that it cannot be equated with many more pedestrian cases of genocide (e.g. the Rwandan genocide, which was mostly committed by machete-wielding militia members in a much more hands-on fashion) even if the proportional death toll is similar. To broadly compare génocidaires in general with Hitler would be to deny this, much the less to call people 'Hitler' simply because they support Israel but are not génocidaires by any reasonable count themselves.

I don't know of many genocidal leaders who wouldn't industrialize it if they could. Not many countries are simultaneously wealthy and angry enough to invest that level of industrialization into genocide. The Tsar couldn't, but he still managed to wipe out 95 - 97% of Circassians. Was he Hitler? Israel can't afford it because they are heavily reliant on foreign support. They will transition to those tactics if more people like this come to power in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Fin ... _Palestine In fact, Israeli policy is more hostile than you might think: https://x.com/asadabukhalil?ref_src=tws ... r%5Eauthor Apparently, Netanyahu is a long time terrorist.

Are both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump 'Hitler' for their support of Israel? And if so, if they are both 'Hitler', wouldn't that imply that they are equally evil (and also equally evil to Netanyahu and to Hitler himself)? Is everyone who happens to support Israel in some way then equally and absolutely evil? And after you have decided that most people you don't like, aside from exceptions like Yunus who you have decided that you don't like but who don't support Israel, are equally and absolutely evil by virtue of being 'Hitler', how will you differentiate them when you do need to distinguish how evil they are? Or will you introduce relative levels of 'Hitler-ness'? And will then 'Hitler' become a vague word meaning 'people I don't like who support Israel'?

[rotting bones]

Are both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump 'Hitler' for their support of Israel? And if so, if they are both 'Hitler', wouldn't that imply that they are equally evil (and also equally evil to Netanyahu and to Hitler himself)? Is everyone who happens to support Israel in some way then equally and absolutely evil? And after you have decided that most people you don't like, aside from exceptions like Yunus who you have decided that you don't like but who don't support Israel, are equally and absolutely evil by virtue of being 'Hitler', how will you differentiate them when you do need to distinguish how evil they are? Or will you introduce relative levels of 'Hitler-ness'? And will then 'Hitler' become a vague word meaning 'people I don't like who support Israel'?

A politician can support Israel without being Hitler. There is a minority of Israelis who genuinely oppose genocide, but support the country of Israel. These people are not Hitler. I myself do not support a complete removal of Israel, so some radical leftists would call me a Zionist. Supporting Israel is not what makes someone Hitler, only specifically conducting genocide or aiding and abetting it. Currently, genocide is being conducted with Israeli nationalist rhetoric. Supporting the rhetoric that is used in genocide is supporting genocide.

By that standard, Harris is Hitler because she supported a foreign policy of sending weapons to Israel while it was conducting genocide, which falls under the category of aiding and abetting.

Trump is farther to the right of that. Hitler was an idiot who deluded himself into thinking that conducting a genocide of minorities would strengthen Germany and allow it to take over the world. Trump is a violent narcissist who is disappointed in himself and the world. While Hitler represented an end of non-Germany threat, and Netanyahu represents and end of non-Israel threat, I honestly believe that Trump represents a genuine end of world threat, including America. This is what puts Trump in the same category as Cthulhu. Phcthulhu naflfhtagn: https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/R%27lyehian#Grammar

[Travis B.]

In this context I would distinguish degrees of 'Netanyahu-ness' rather than a fixed category of 'Hitler', with Netanyahu having maximal 'Netanyahu-ness' and other people having varying degrees of 'Netanyahu-ness' depending on their level of support for Netanyahu's policies.

[malloc]

Are both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump 'Hitler' for their support of Israel? And if so, if they are both 'Hitler', wouldn't that imply that they are equally evil (and also equally evil to Netanyahu and to Hitler himself)?

Perhaps it works like the different levels of infinity that Georg Cantor described. Harris is countably Hitler whereas Trump is uncountably Hitler.

[bradrn]

As a rule I don’t tend to get involved in these discussions, but I feel obliged to state my opinion that if you find yourself seriously believing that ‘Harris is Hitler’ (or any variation thereof), your perspective on the world is deeply distorted. There are a very large number of blatantly obvious differences between the two — it’s past midnight here so I shan’t give a full list, but I’m sure that everyone here is fully capable of working them out on their own.

[Richard W]

Perhaps it works like the different levels of infinity that Georg Cantor described. Harris is countably Hitler whereas Trump is uncountably Hitler.

One only needs countably many levels of Hitlerishness if the levels are totally ordered.

[Ketsuban]

I feel like the fact malloc is the one who delivered the sick burn should have clued everyone in that this conversation is going nowhere useful.

[bradrn]

I feel like the fact malloc is the one who delivered the sick burn should have clued everyone in that this conversation is going nowhere useful.

Oh, it’s just that I long ago gave up on getting anywhere useful with rotting bones, whereas malloc is still worth engaging with.