Putin = Hitler

1. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

      

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Putin is a murdering dictator. How can you be so ridiculously flippant about his actions?
      
      Vladimir Putin’s special brand of evil

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "Is Vladimir Putin uniquely evil?"
         
         "Or is his reputation for evil one that is conjured up by old cold war conspiracy theorists ... ?"
         
         Putin is:
         1. authoritarian
         2. repressive
         3. revanchist
         4. imperialistic
         5. not interested in Western-style democracy

         replyreport
   2. 59

      CHRIS57posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      In terms of being responsible for the death of innocent people, Hitler may be in the front row, but then, after all the Pol Pots, Stalins, and you name them,
      
      eventually you find prominently
      - President George W. Bush,
      - President Obama
      - President Reagan
      
      then a lot of nothing, possibly President G.H.Bush..
      
      and then eventually among others
      Vladimir Putin.
      
      Especially if put this specific number on a time scale, lets say killings per year..
      Comparing Putin with Hitler is ridiculous.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         You left out the USA's "War on Drugs", Chris, police brutality, the prescribing of drugs not tested for a condition and with 'sudden death" as a side effect that is also going on in these United States.
         
         Here it is not a person but the system we blindly follow but it is about the same thing, a "killing field".

         replyreport
2. 70

   mike102771posted 5 years ago

   I would say it was more like
   Putin = (Saddam Hussein+ Nukes)

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I never said Hitler = Putin. That was her invention. Are we really going to quibble over which murdering dictator is just enough better than another that we should "get along" with him?
      
      https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/340 … ost4029358

      replyreport
3. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   You said:
     "I suppose you would have supported "getting along" with Hitler back in the day?"

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I did. Where did I say they are equal? They are both murdering dictators, though.

      replyreport
4. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   So getting along with Putin is the same as getting along with Hitler?
   
   Maybe you could explain what you meant.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Did you read about Putin? Do you still think it is a good idea to "get along"with him? Since you didn't define what "get along" means, I am assuming it means treating him in the manner that Trump treats him, since that is the context of the conversation.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         how is he influencing Trump?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Read. If you are not aware, I'm not going to waste my time.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               guess you don't know.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Think what you want. If you're still in the 30% Trump base, you're not paying attention.

                  replyreport
5. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   And he is influencing Trump how?

   replyreport
6. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   prolly, he's not.

   replyreport
7. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   The fact is:
   "Trump, whose 2016 election campaign is being probed for possible collusion with Russia, has said repeatedly he wants to have a good relationship with Washington’s former Cold War foe, despite tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine, Syria and alleged election meddling around the world.
   Trump has denied any collusion with Russia."
   FROM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1K01GX

   replyreport
8. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   A good relationship for the sake of our safety.
   A policy of keeping friends close but enemies, closer, perhaps.

   replyreport
9. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Getting along with Hitler would not have had any advantage whatsoever.
   In this case, there is an advantage.
   
   "The plain truth is that Russia is too big and too important a nation for any U.S. president to simply refuse to deal with. And because of that, it’s to our mutual benefit for America and Russia to no longer be enemies.
   
   Sure, our interests don’t overlap enough to consider a wide-ranging partnership or an alliance. But we can work together on some things, even if we will inevitably be opposed on others."

   replyreport
10. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    "... America is clearly in a commanding position in any confrontation with Russia.
    
    Russia is in a state of relative decline that won’t be easy to halt. Its economy is a tinderbox, thanks to Western economic sanctions, poor planning, and oligarchs who are more inclined to fill their own pockets than turn Russia into the economic powerhouse it should be.
    
    As Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pointed out some years ago, Russia is more of a giant gas station than anything else, with no global brands or truly innovative products to sell or showcase.
    
    With declining demographics and real questions over who will succeed Putin when he leaves office, Russia is clearly a troubled state – and no match for a resurgent America."
    
    FROM:
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/ … thing.html

    replyreport
11. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Russia like any major  nation player should have the opportunity to participate in  today's economic world . It is P.C. media politics and Russia's external marxist activism that has made them a "bad player" to other nations. They should be and are being dealt with diplomatically by this administration .
    
    Pres. Obama ignored Russia's bad behavior like most other rogue nations , it was left to Trump to clean up the Obama /Clinton/ DNC / Russia  corrupted  behaviors , I do not think we are done with the investigations or legal ramifications yet .

    replyreport
12. 79

    Credence2posted 5 years ago

    I pinch my nose in disgust at the dissemination of so much rightwing nonsense. A bottomless pit, as it were. Trump is an syncophantic- cowardly piece of a man. Trump is expressing admiration for tyrants like Putin, because subconsciously, he wants to have the power in the US, that his buddy Vlad, enjoys in Russia.
    
    Only idiots who can't see through a "window" could consider Putin a benign world leader.
    
    All this nonsense of blaming Obama and Democrats for a rainy day is falling on more deaf ears by the day.
    
    The Blue Wave is coming, right winger, to wash you and your dreams away, so you had better hold on to something. And you can "clean your sheets" when you wake up to a new reality.
    
    A Democratic House will stop Trump or slow him down enough, so that much of his agenda will be dead on arrival.
    
    This thread and its direction was p*ssing me off, and I could remain silent no longer.
    
    But, I am not keen on conservatives in general and hold Trump in contempt in a way that I have not held any man holding this office previously.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, Credence, you and me both, and a whole lot of others. He will be gone.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       I get what you are trying to say, but as a right of center independent and former Republican, I don't think it's about a blue wave.
       
       It's about people who read, think and see the world as it is and not as the extremist propaganda on Fox News wants us to think.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Well said. Some people are turning to the blue side because the red has gone crazy, not because they're suddenly more liberal.

          replyreport
       2. 79

          Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No offense meant, but I am tired of all of the accomodationists explanations for Trump and the behavior of his administration. What will happen in November 2018 is not unusual for this period in a President's term. It always seem to happen that things turn against the party in power, such as what we saw as recently as 2010.
          
          I blame the Republican Party for accomodating this disgrace of a man out of fear and cowardice. I have to look at his demographic support and the levels and realize that with Right nudging here and there, a relative "Stone Age" could return here rather quickly.
          
          I consider the upcoming midterms as a battle and a crossroad as to whether we come to our senses or continue descending into madness.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             No offense taken. I'm tired of them too.
             
             I also blame the Republican Party. That's one reason why I'm no longer a Republican. 

             replyreport
    3. 77

       Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       And you do not see the big picture.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          And you have bought into all of Trump's  "deep state " conspiracy theories without question, hook, line and sinker?
          
          Putin is only different from Hitler based upon opportunity and logistics, that is all . The part of the picture that you miss is that they share both being authoritarian tyrants, with a didain for democratic government. Why go to war when Putin can dupe a simpleton like Trump without firing a shot?
          
          So, I am open, what is "The Big Picture"?

          replyreport
          1. 87

             MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             Having been a student of Russian and Soviet history in college, I equate Putin more with Stalin than Hitler. Stalin didn't care whom he murdered to get in and keep his power, while Hitler aimed his at the Jews.

             replyreport
             1. 79

                Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                That could well be an accurate assessment. But, I certainly would not want to be compared with Stalin either, as you say, in many aspects he was worse than Hitler. His brutality was downplayed as he was on the "winning side" after WW II.

                replyreport
                1. 87

                   MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   I agree. Neither were known to play nice.

                   replyreport
13. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    You ... "pinch your nose in disgust at the dissemination" of truth. ...  You hold Trump (and the truth) "in contempt, in a way you have not held any man holding this office previously."
    
    You believe Trump:
    
    "is syncophantic"
    
    "is cowardly"
     
    "wants to have the power in the US, that his buddy Vlad, enjoys in Russia."
    
    and that Putin is not a, "benign world leader."
    
    
    You declare that a "Blue Wave" is coming"... to flood out those who know the truth and hold freedom dear with a fast approaching tyranny.
    
    and that a, "Democratic House will stop Trump and promote ..." this dreadful new reality/tyranny.
    
    This thread and its direction was" p*ssing you off."
     
    
    Well, good to know!
    
    Thanks 

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

       You're welcome, whatever Kathryn. I have yet to be convinced that voting anything other than democrat next November is in my interests.

       replyreport
       1. 77

          Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          ... apparently you will not even sniff at it.

          replyreport
          1. 79

             Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

             I know their ( Trump and the Republicans) record, and there is nothing NEW to discover

             replyreport
             1. 87

                MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                +1,000,000!

                replyreport
       2. 87

          MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I agree with Credence and Promisem both, but I'm just hoping that maybe a third party can come up with a viable candidate. I guess I'm an independent now because I haven't renewed my membership in the Democrat Party. They are becoming too socialistic for me.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             Politicians in the major parties raise trial balloons on a regular basis about the possibility of running as independents. The most recent example is Senator Ben Sasse.
             
             https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senator-be … can-party/
             
             But they never get enough support from the middle to take that chance. There are still more people who affiliate with the two parties than people who don't.

             replyreport
             1. 87

                MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I think the Libertarian weakness in the last presidential election was their candidates. They had two reputable and respected politicians, at least on a local or state basis, but these men had as little understanding of international politics as Trump does. As you both indicate, they also had the disadvantage of being third party.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   It's the Libertarians who now control the Republican Party.

                   replyreport
                   1. 87

                      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      You are equating Libertarians with the Tea Party. So far I haven't gotten that impression.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Actually, there is a strong connection. If you do some online searches, you will find plenty of links between the Tea Party and the Koch brothers.
                         
                         The Kochs are the wealthiest and most politically active Libertarians in America.
                         
                         "Organisations tracking money in politics say the Kochs' biggest impact in the midterm elections will be from funding and providing logistical support to such groups as Americans for Prosperity (AFP), one of the biggest Tea Party groups." -- The Guardian
                         
                         https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/ … h-brothers

                         replyreport
          2. 79

             Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

             The problem is that over 150 years the addition of a successful third party in American politics has not been forthcoming.
             
             I think from the standpoint of Trump and the GOP, any restraint upon the abuses of the Capitalistic system is "Socialism". I certainly do not want to get totally Left and Pinko, but as we are stuck with two parties, it is not hard for me to choose the party that is the least radical and dangerous in my opinion. And that certainly is not the Republicans right now.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                We may be stuck with two parties, but we can certainly vote for anyone in either party who is not an extremist.
                
                One of the most freeing things in my life was the first time I didn't vote 100% Republican.
                
                After that, I voted for the person I thought was best for the job, regardless of whether they were Republican or Democrat.
                
                Credence, I know you don't like the Republican Party, but there are some good Republican politicians.

                replyreport
                1. 79

                   Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   Promisem, being Republican, in principle means subscribing to a certain ideology view and political platform. That view and platform I do not agree with, otherwise I would be hearing a lot more angst about Trump among Republicans who more than often, if anything, complain about Trump's style over his substance. But I have issues with both. I have to support the side who principles and ideas are closest to my views of the nation and world, at large. So, I have to confess that unless there is a glaring exception, I have to come to the conclusion that anyone supporting the GOP way and so defined the by the label, will most probably not get my vote.
                   
                   I can't afford the luxury of evaluating each man, individually, regardless of party affiliation.

                   replyreport
14. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    Trump is countering the blue wave of socialism. Thats the big picture. You like higher taxes and stagnant, dying, stopping-to-a-stand still economy? And taxes, taxes and ever more taxes?
    
    Where will the democrats stop once they get what they want?
    
    OH, I care ... but not in the way you want to  F O R C E  me to care.

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

       More "trickle down", an 80's lady, huh?
       
       The unemployment numbers have been coming down for 7 years all during President Obama's watch. It is just that the baffoon that you worship is quick to take credit from the work of others, "pure Trump"
       
       The middle and lower classes will bear the brunt of the eventual tax increases while he allows the wealthy to raid the treasury. Nobody is fooled here.
       
       What the Democrats want is more parity in the system, obviously that is not what you, Trump nor the GOP in general want.
       
       But, there is no middle ground with a Rightwinger. It doesn't matter what the Right wants, we will hobble Trump permanently with a Democratic House, no FORCE necessary....

       replyreport
       1. 89

          GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Just like a school track meet with hurdles. You were blazing through Cred - until you snagged that middle hurdle.
          
          How are the wealthy "raiding" the treasury - relative to your context of the tax cuts?
          
          More "parity?" as in "fair share?"
          
          GA

          replyreport
          1. 79

             Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

             this was an important question for me to attempt to answer. When tax cuts as proposed by the Republicans cannot balance the books by cuts in spending which is impossible politically, where do the GOP get the money? Is it cuts to Social Security and the "Safety Net" to give inordinate tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy? That is raiding the treasury.
             
             Parity is the control of the oligarchical tendencies of the Republican Party and the Right. To control their ability to "buy" influence in Washington as the end run against popular sovereignty.
             
             As you have been able to ascertain, I don't trust the wealthy/corporate influences that seek to gather more wealth and unelected power unto themselves at my expense.
             
             Elizabeth Warren is proposing legislation to limit the influence of lobbyists and of Congressmen that move into that role once they step down from office. Let us see who is what side and why?

             replyreport
             1. 89

                GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                We are not going to agree that tax cuts equate to raiding the Treasury Cred, and you noted the reason why.
                
                I do not accept that is impossible to control spending to balance a tax cut.
                
                I just think it is hard to do so, and our politicians don't have the courage to do it. And so far, no president's actions have been able to force them to do so.
                
                Even your point about the wealthy/corporate influences prove this point. Not only do politicians fail to do the right thing for fear of losing votes, many times they won't do the right thing because they get money or support to get more votes by not doing the right thing. (notice I left out the 'bought' politicians aspect)
                
                If you don't want the cost of tax cuts to be at your expense - then mount a charge to oust the politicians that won't do their job, instead of blaming Republicans, (or where ever the tax cuts come from), for allowing citizens - like yourself - to keep more of their money.
                
                GA

                replyreport
                1. 79

                   Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   Controlling spending? Ok, GA, so whose ox do we gore?
                   
                   How about that fat, greedy, military industrial complex? Will the conservatives seriously entertain that?
                   
                   I will vote for that if this can be a solution for reducing spending...

                   replyreport
                   1. 89

                      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      Sure thing, let's go after that waste and fraud in the military/industrial complex.
                      
                      But first we have to determine the guidelines. Here is an example of the type of conundrum we might face - it's not as simple as a $400 toilet seat.
                      
                      "A plane was developed for the Navy. Production facilities built, workers hired, budget funded, prototype built - but in the interim, Navy needs changed, Pentagon budget priorities changed, (from cuts?), and the Navy decided the plane was no longer the best choice, and doesn't want it.
                      
                      But, the production of this plane determines the survival of the company which is the lifeblood of the jobs and economy of the state.
                      
                      Which way do you think the state's Congressmen should vote? A savings for the nation's budget, or a devastation of the state's budget? Would your answer be affected if you were a resident of that state?
                      
                      If I were a resident of that state, I would want my representatives to vote to keep the plane - even knowing I was being selfish. So, is this example waste that should be cut?
                      
                      This type of scenario, on varying scales, is reality in a lot of states. Whether it is a base or a production facility, military spending is a very large economic factor in many states. Crucially so.  Is the macro consideration the only right one?
                      
                      GA

                      replyreport
                      1. 79

                         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         I know that it is more complicated, I worked in Government contracting for most of my career. But I hear of circumstances where Congress wants to appropriate funds for weapons systems that even the Armed Forces say that they don't need. I worked in an environment where agency funding had to be spent at any cost by the October 1 deadline or they risk not having the same amount of funds apportioned to them in the next fiscal. Federal agencies operate in this manner. There is a culture of waste that is part of the system, maybe we can start there.
                         
                         When Obama talked about "stimulus" conservatives virtually had a baby in complaining about "Socialism" and make work jobs. That was hardly the case as much of the nation's physical infrastructure is crumbling. How is this any different, building planes that we don't need? At least that bridge that is rebuilt will serve a purpose. Wasteful spending is still just that.
                         
                         It is hard to say about how the Congressman should vote, but promoting pork anywhere is not going to get us where we need to go. How can I speak of austerity for anyone else, if I am not willing to abide with the principle when I am affected? That is the problem, GA, everybody is voting to keep the plane, a plane that is not needed by the military. So, when you get down to it, this is a form of "welfare" that we don't seem to hear as much about.

                         replyreport
                         1. 89

                            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            Yeah, but, but, sputter and mumble
                            
                            That was my point Cred. I agree with you. And your comment, without any negative connotations on that "pork," illustrates what I meant when I said most politicians lack the courage to do what is right - for the nation.
                            
                            The Congressmen that do the right thing and vote down that plane will probably lose their seat. How many do you think we could count on to put country before reelection?
                            
                            Bringing it back to the original point, how can we get Congressmen to cut spending to match income - without voting out enough to set the example?
                            
                            I am completely supportive of representatives that carry their constituents desires, needs, and welfare all the way to the final decision. But, when it comes to that final decision, I want their decisions to put country before state no matter how much it may hurt me. (easy for me to say - as a forum commentator)
                            
                            GA

                            replyreport
                            1. 79

                               Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               I can't trust individual Congress people to think on the big picture. What is the function of the OMB?
                               
                               If 5 states are working on procurement for one Navy Jet, seems like the Executive Branch is responsible for culling out waste and redundant material requests from the agencies and departments under its control. So the wasteful requests, should ideally, never reach Congress for funding in the first place. It is a big job, but someone has to do it. DoD budget people will have to support to the satisfaction of the OMB why we building the same plane in 5 states?
                               
                               Maybe, allowing the President a "line item veto" ability to aid in attacking pork and otherwise wasteful spending is an option whose time has come.

                               replyreport
15. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    Step one:
    Tax the  rich, feed the poor 'til there are no rich no more.
    
    Step two
    Tax everyone else til there are only the poor/ we are all poor.
    
    THEN WHAT? I ASK IN ALL SINCERITY?

    replyreport
16. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    There are also those who compare Trump to Hitler.
    Oh, my gosh!
    
    LIES!
    
    Trump is NOT part of the deep state.
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTsJjITlXzw

    replyreport
17. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    Liberalism is morphing into leftism. That's the problem.

    replyreport
18. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

    No More Clicks From Me Here.
    
    NMCFMH

    replyreport
19. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    Anyone who reads history actually knows that Socialism , Naziism and Hitlers regime all melded easily together , Even though the left in America todays associates conservitism somehow with nazi's?

    replyreport
20. 81

    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    He's not a leftist, and so, I prefer him to US leftists. He's got his flaws, but at least they aren't left wing extremist flaws.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Tell me your not praising Hitler .  leftists today are however more dangerous than Hitler , Why ?   Because they have no excuses whatsoever for being completely uninformed of our history ,  except perhaps they've never been required to actually finish reading a history book .Those with such ignorance of history cause a repeating of such disasters as WWII  again and again and again  .

       replyreport
       1. 77

          Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          +1

          replyreport
21. 76

    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago

    I'm sure Trump has killed more people than Putin. To compare either ones death toll to Hitler, they are empire amateurs right now.
    
    Just give Trump enough rope and a dollar crash to hang America. Trump has the world record in law suits. He can beat Hitler death record when given a chance.
    
    Trump says US and Russia realationships is worst than ever.

    replyreport