He aint no Hitler but he sure isn't what this wolrd needs.

You do know that the US is becoming the laughing stock of the world... your so called great democracy is just a joke.

You're right. Mussolini is a much more valid comparison.

BTW Hitler said the exact same thing about jews. He didn't tell the german people that he wanted to kill them, he told them that he wanted to deport them to palestine.

You guys know that Abraham Lincoln wanted to send Africans back to Africa right?
In 1854 he said his first instinct would be "to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia".

You know what I find to be the laughing stock of the World? Having No-Go zones, right on your own backyard and your authorities/Police doing nothing about it. Having your woman’s raped by outsiders and your authorities/Police doing nothing about it .…… all in the name of liberalism.

Do I think that Trump wants to kill millions of people or anything like that? No. I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

At the same time though, his rhetoric is dangerous. When a candidate wants to claim that a whole group of people is composed of rapists and drug dealers (and a few good people I assume), or that we should only be letting certain religious groups into the country, or that maybe we should register a group of people... Well, that's just stuff that we should be VERY cautious about.

Rationalizations are attempts made by individuals to justify behavior. I am not sure how what I stated is a rationalization of the West because it does not justify any particular action and merely recounts history. In comparison, the narrative provided by the Nazis was used as justification to scape-goat the Jewish people. Moreover, there is written evidence (largely in the form of treaties) that demonstrate the unfair weight being put on Germany through forced reparation payments by Britain and France. Also, it was not the Jewish people that banned exports of German products (I assume you are refering to the huge trade deficit problem that emerged in the late-1920s early-1930s) but rather much of the export deficit was attributed to the Great Depression, which significantly reduced both foreign investment in Germany and trade with the United States (Germany was also not properly reintegrated in Europe at the time, which again stifled trade growth).

In addition, Germany was not the only one that collapsed under the pressure of losing WWI, the Ottomen Empire also collapsed during the same period (though I would argue that they actually started collapsing during the first Balkin Wars period) except the Turkish people decided to scape-goat the Armenians and Greeks. Even in more recent times we have seen similar scape-goating. For example, after the collapse of Yugoslavia, the Serbians started to target Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. Scape-goating occurs because for many people it is simply much easier for people to blame all of their troubles (which are often quite complex and out of their control) on a certain group of people; the same is happening right now in parts of Greece, where the EU and IMF are pushng the country so hard that a small group of disenchanted people are turning to the extreme far-right (scape-goating ethnic minorities) and extreme far-left (scape-goating those who are better off) options.

Also, just to play devil's advocate, even if a minority of Jewish bankers did decide to make Germay suffer that would still not justify racializing an entire group of people and subjecting them genocide. I would strongly suggest you start speaking with and/or recounting the stories of Holocust survivors and victims, I believe that you will realize that the vast majority of them were not bankers or involved in the financial sector (some of them were too young to even know what the banking sector was). I also believe that we should look at and judge people individually as opposed to create groups that fit specific narratives.

Thank you.

Here is the full quote along with other excerpts from the speech:

"If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days".

As you mentioned Lincoln's first instinct was to send the Black people back to Africa. However, he understood that such a plan was not practical and that they would not be able to live there and sustain themselves.

"What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon".

In this statement he mentions that he would not hold anyone in slavery but he did not have adaquate answers to common questions such as freeing them but not extending rights to them would be in their best interest. However, he admits that he does not have all the answers and thus he cannot criticize people for bringing up these questions and making their own points.

"What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals".

Here Lincoln mentions that his opinion was that black people could not be made poltically or socially equal. Moreover, he goes on to say that the electorate would not support him even if his opinion and the most just option was to grant them full rights.

"It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South".

Lincoln concludes that a system of emnacipation should be adopted but due to the uncertainties and political realities he would fault the South for adopting such a system at a more slow pace.

Going through this entire speech, one would be mistaken to assume that Lincoln promised the electorate that he would free the slaves and then deport them to the South. Rather his point was that his initial instinct was to free and deport but through further thought he realized that such a plan would not be sensible. Through this speech we can see how Lincoln was attempting to thoughtfully balance morality, practicality and political reality. He also acknowledged the complexities of the situation and realized that there were no simple answers. At the end of the speech he does mention however that gradual progress does need to be made and freedoms needed to be granted. In 1860s, Lincoln expressed his desire to extend voting rights to black individuals.

You cannot compare Lincoln to Trump in this situation, because while the former realized that his own primal instincts of deporting former slaves would not be practical (and he would later advocate granting them voting rights) the latter outright believes in deporting 11+ million people. If Americans were to apply Lincoln's balanced thought process to the illigal immigration situation today then they would be advocating an option for providing a pathway to citizenship for the people already here while at the same time working to increase border security and mandating that employers use systems such as e-verify.

I'm pretty chilled actually. It's only when I look out the window and see the extremist lefties and righties that I flip out.

StarOcean said: I avoid politics like the plague and am not associated with any political group, but I'm not sure calling people "Libertards" is appropriate not sure how it's usually handled, but even if you can say it, you'll probably be losing support of people who may very well agree with your opinion... Anywhore, yes people probably shouldn't compare him to Hitler. However we live in a world obsessed with hyperbole in order to gain attention and recognition. You can always pull the Godwin's Law card on people who compare him to Hitler if that makes you feel better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

I do my best to avoid namecalling. It's usually a one time thing.