Unfortunately, we often see the exact same argument used by both socialists and some of the more extreme Bernie Sanders fans today with regards to Trump.
Why do you consider this unfortunate?
First of all it is not just those groups. Are you aware that the same comparison has been made by Holocaust survivors like Anne Frank's step-sister, national leaders such as the president of Mexico, and prominent conservatives like Glenn Beck? It isn't just a few socialists who are concerned.
That said, it would be unfortunate if the assertion had no basis in reality.
But does it? According to political scientists, the one trait that is most likely to predict you supporting Trump is how much you tend towards authoritarianism. This is why extremely authoritarian groups such as the KKK and neo-nazis have come out in support of Trump. Extreme authoritarianism certainly matches Hitler.
Next there is the question of truthfulness. According to Politifact, over 2/3 of Trump's public statements are lies. In fact he's more likely to issue "pants on fire" lies than to say something that is true or mostly true. (See http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ for a source.) Furthermore when he lies and is challenged on it, he shows no regard for the truth. Instead he repeats his lies over and over again, very forcefully. This "Big Lie" technique was a classic trademark of Hitler's.
What else is characteristic of Hitler? Extreme nationalism! Do I need to enumerate instances?
How about war mongering? Oh boy. So far Trump has promised to bomb North Korea, Syria and Isis. He has also suggested bombing Iraq and starting a trade war with Mexico to get them to pay for the wall he wants.
What about mass deportion? Hitler promised to deport the Jews, then killed them when nobody else wanted to take them. Trump promises to deport about 11 million people from the USA. How do you think that will work in practice?
You apparently think that Trump/Hitler comparisons are unfortunate. I consider it a quick way of identifying all of the characteristics that Trump has which make me afraid of the possibility of his being President.
Trump's foreign policy speech:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...
"I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must fight to win. I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary – and will only do so if we have a plan for victory ... Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce it. However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are signs of strength ... I was totally against the War in Iraq ... The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies."
Trump and Sanders are the most isolationist, and least "war mongering" candidates.
What about mass deportion? Hitler promised to deport the Jews, then killed them when nobody else wanted to take them.
Trump promises to deport about 11 million people from the USA. How do you think that will work in practice?
Not even sure how to respond to this. No matter what, the illegal immigrants won't be deported, because they have the American right to due process, and 12 million court cases will take a while to get through. If you think Trump will systematically execute them, please explain how you envisage that happening. Illegal immigration currently costs American taxpayers between 88 and 100 billion dollars per year and many people are upset about that. Those people are not Nazis.
Finally, Hitler was a socialist who campaigned for universal health care and unemployment insurance, increased education spending, the plunder of a traditionally wealthy class of society, and economic protectionism.
If that reminds you of anyone, please consider that drawing parallels to Nazi Germany is not always meaningful or conclusive.
The original research had a list of traits for authoritarianism. Your article splits the same group into two, authoritarians and populists. OK, so Trump supporters are on the populist side of that split..and within the original research's definition of authoritarians.
More to the point, everything worrying about the tendency is worrying about BOTH authoritarians AND populists.
On Trump's foreign policy speech, note that his claim to have been publicly against the Iraq War is false. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/... for verification. Furthermore everyone that I said he said he would bomb he HAS in fact said he would bomb.
That he expressed the sentiment of being a peaceful sort who does not intend to start fights, well of course he would. You can find many similar statements from dictators like Hitler. Don't look at his statements about how he wants you to think he'll act. Instead look at how quickly he suggests violence whether it is against countries (I'd bomb North Korea) or individual people (I'd like to to punch him in the face).
On mass deportation, you're right that it will be a mess. However the attempt to deport them is going to get ugly.
On Hitler's domestic policies, you are of course drawing parallels to Bernie Sanders. However the parallels continue to Trump. Trump is publicly for universal health care, unemployment insurance, and economic protectionism.
You are right that drawing parallels to Nazi Germany is not always meaningful or conclusive. BUT it is not always meaningless or irrelevant either.
> Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers between 88 and 100 billion dollars
It seems to me they're the ones doing a lot of the manual labor in this country. Does that account for the rental income they pay to landlords that in turn pay property taxes? How about sales taxes? Or taxes paid using fake or shared social security numbers?
I know some people that may have been illegal or visa overstays at some point who eventually became citizens. Their economic activity didn't change much and their children are heading to UC colleges. That doesn't seem like a burden to me. Interesting too that the states with the most illegal immigrants are the largest in terms of GDP.
And by the way, the majority of immigrants from south of the border are Christians just looking for work and a better life; if that's worth anything to you. It's a shame that there are people that think building a wall is going to solve their problems. It won't.
> Does that account for the rental income they pay to landlords that in turn pay property taxes? How about sales taxes? Or taxes paid using fake or shared social security numbers?
Yes. Total federal receipts, including income, social security, and employer taxes total 9 billion. State and local taxes, including property and sales taxes total 4 billion.
By the way, the implication that I am simply prejudiced against the immigrants is not well received. There is a measurable economic burden, on the order of $1,000 per American household. Please do not make such accusations.
You're wrong that illegal immigrants are a burden. You say that you don't like the implication of being prejudiced but you use a source designated as a hate group by SPLC[1]
Illegal immigrants do not qualify for the majority of social services.
"The amount that state and local governments spend on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdictions"[2]
So, illegal immigrants do hard manual labor for little pay and zero or close to zero benefits and you come along and try to convince people of the opposite. What do you call that if not prejudiced? Were you just misinformed?
Also, here is a map of US ancestry and I think it's relevant because it makes it clear that almost all Americans have foreign ancestry, including you.
The "hate group" label from the SPLC has been reduced to a label used for any right wing or socially conservative organization. Ben Carson and the Family Research Council have both been labeled as hate groups, when neither have promoted hatred in an organized manner.
It is a meta-analysis of this type of study, and although they do not draw a conclusion, the numbers reported are in line with the FAIR article.
Finally, I am still frustrated by the implication of your final remark. I am proud of the American immigrant heritage, and am in full support of legal immigration. Not only that, but this is exactly the type of accusation that started the debate in the parent - you are convinced that I am racist against foreigners, that I will be ashamed if you bring up my foreign ancestry, when this could not be further from the truth, and only serves to simplify my position so that it can be dismissed more easily.
No where does it say illegal immigrants are a $1000+ per household burden. And none of the studies are even remotely in line with your original source. The CBO report shows that in most studies illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than what they receive in benefits. Other studies show that to be slightly less with some variance. However many of those studies make arbitrary assumptions on tax compliance and may not account for related economic activity.
Your wanton misrepresentation of facts makes for a very poor case against your prejudice and for your claim of benevolence towards immigrants.
The burden is on you to prove prejudice or benevolence. As it would require more than a little insight into motivation, I can't see how you could meet the burden.
I also think the (unwarranted) is targeted enough to break HN rules.
I never made either claim. I do, however, question the motivation of others when they make egregiously false claims. It's a natural response for those who think for themselves.
For the love of Christ, Chris2048. I've spoken to rjeli outside of HN where he admitted his post was 'BS.' We both decided we'd rather not waste our time on frivolous argument on largely arbitrary metrics. Why you decided to interject is completely beyond me. You weren't part of the original discussion and you've consistently failed to produce a relevant polemic. You're just sullying comment threads. Knock it off.
You misunderstood me, I agree with you- I meant it is unfortunate that some (very rare, very odd) Bernie Sanders supporters may vote for Trump over Hillary, with their rationale being that Trump will be a disaster, and strong liberals will dominate the next election, while this is similar to how many Germans thought before Hitler's own rise to power.
The person you replied to was talking about the unfortunate situation of some communists and socialists supporting Hitler over the respective competing party. It's analogous to Bernie supporters saying they'd vote Trump over Hillary or vice versa.
They didn't support him. They basically made the statement that Hitler would mess things up badly enough for voters to turn away, and that they would get their chance then.
As it happens, they might have been close to getting it right, but they underestimated just how ruthless and exploitative Hitler would be. If it wasn't for the way the Reichstagsfire was exploited and followed up with using lies and coercion to line up the other parties save the social democrats (the communists that had not been arrested following the Reichtagsfire were prevented from taking their seats) to vote for the Enabling Act, the NSDAP would very possibly have slid back into obscurity - they never got close to a majority on their own, and their support in polls were showing signs of decline by the time the Enabling Act gave Hitler dictatorial powers.
Why do you consider this unfortunate?
First of all it is not just those groups. Are you aware that the same comparison has been made by Holocaust survivors like Anne Frank's step-sister, national leaders such as the president of Mexico, and prominent conservatives like Glenn Beck? It isn't just a few socialists who are concerned.
That said, it would be unfortunate if the assertion had no basis in reality.
But does it? According to political scientists, the one trait that is most likely to predict you supporting Trump is how much you tend towards authoritarianism. This is why extremely authoritarian groups such as the KKK and neo-nazis have come out in support of Trump. Extreme authoritarianism certainly matches Hitler.
Next there is the question of truthfulness. According to Politifact, over 2/3 of Trump's public statements are lies. In fact he's more likely to issue "pants on fire" lies than to say something that is true or mostly true. (See http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ for a source.) Furthermore when he lies and is challenged on it, he shows no regard for the truth. Instead he repeats his lies over and over again, very forcefully. This "Big Lie" technique was a classic trademark of Hitler's.
What else is characteristic of Hitler? Extreme nationalism! Do I need to enumerate instances?
How about war mongering? Oh boy. So far Trump has promised to bomb North Korea, Syria and Isis. He has also suggested bombing Iraq and starting a trade war with Mexico to get them to pay for the wall he wants.
What about mass deportion? Hitler promised to deport the Jews, then killed them when nobody else wanted to take them. Trump promises to deport about 11 million people from the USA. How do you think that will work in practice?
You apparently think that Trump/Hitler comparisons are unfortunate. I consider it a quick way of identifying all of the characteristics that Trump has which make me afraid of the possibility of his being President.