You would struggle to find a single example for any of those. Find two inflammatory quotes for each.

There hasn’t been a day in the last decade that Trump wasn’t making the news for a new insanely inflammatory remark—including in the last 48 hours. To help you remember when that was: that’s when he called for War on an American city, using the visual language of Apocalypse Now, a movie about war crimes. That was in the same breath as his new “Secretary of War” detailing that war would be violent, pro-active and excessive. This is true for almost everyone in his cabinet: daily dehumanizing remarks, threats, calls to attack.

One vs. many thousands: There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.

You want to prove me wrong? Give me one date, a single date in the last ten years and if I can’t find Trump publicly insulting to someone that day, I’ll concede.

The only examples of call to violence you can find are people quoting Trump and his enablers, or mocking their style. Those horrible things you read? Those insanely callous dismissal of Charlie Kirk, victim of gun violence? Those are quotes of Charlie Kirk, reacting to mass shootings.

You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.

▲

Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-]

See in another branch. However, regarding this:

> There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.

Not really.

One can only agree with this statement if he considers that calling Trump and his supporters Nazis, fascists, racists, etc, is not an inflammatory rhetoric, but a totally acceptable objective truth that just truthfully describes them. (Btw, do Nazis deserve to be shot on sight?)

However, if one doesn't consider this an objective truth, but a violent dehumanizing rhetorics, then suddenly he finds that one side routinely smears the other in the worst ways possible, and that the total amount of such rhetoric vastly drowns the messaging from another side.

> You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.

That's a nice straw man you made. Please, refrain from messaging me again, if you don't plan to argue in good faith.

▲

bertil 3 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

paulryanrogers 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Technically Trump had a book collecting Hitler's speeches, not "Mein Kampf". Though I think the underlying point stands, Trump is a fan of Hitler and has learned from him how to whip crowds into a populist frenzy.

▲

Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

3 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

bertil 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From Wikipedia: > In 1973, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Trump Management, Donald Trump and his father Fred, for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices.[3][31]

> Testers from the New York City Human Rights Division had found that prospective black renters at Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while prospective White renters were offered apartments at the same buildings.[32] During the investigation, four of Trump's agents admitted to using a "C" (for "colored") or "9" code to label Black applicants and stated that they were told their company "discouraged rental to blacks" or that they were "not allowed to rent to black tenants," and that prospective Black renters should be sent to the central office while White renters could have their applications accepted on site. Three doormen testified to being told to discourage prospective Black renters by lying about the rental prices or claiming no vacancies were available.[33][34] A settlement was reached in 1975 where Trump agreed to familiarize himself with the Fair Housing Act, take out ads stating that Black renters were welcome, give a list of vacancies to the Urban League on a weekly basis, and allow the Urban League to present qualified candidates for 20% of vacancies in properties that were less than 10% non-White.[32][35]

> Elyse Goldweber, the Justice Department lawyer tasked with taking Trump's deposition, has stated that during a coffee break Trump said to her directly, "You know, you don't want to live with them either."[36]

> The Trump Organization was sued again in 1978 for violating terms of the 1975 settlement by continuing to refuse to rent to black tenants; Trump and his lawyer Roy Cohn denied the charges.[37][38][39] In 1983 the Metropolitan Action Institute noted that two Trump Village properties were still over 95% White.[40]

In what world your argument is anything but clutching at straws?! Get a grip, he openly hates Black and Latino people and has never been shy about it. The fact he came to an out-of-court agreement, and immediately had to come back… It’s so beautiful that your richly referenced note forgot that point.

> Like, anyone, who calls for unity is surely fascist.

No, but people who threatens to napalm-bomb a major city in their own country because the mayor isn’t in their party; people who threaten to court-martial any soldier who express an opinion critical of an influencer outside of the chain of command; people who call law enforcement officers to throw political opponents in a jail without due process… Those might be fascist. And that’s just this week.

Obama and Harris were not selling access to enrich themselves with the loincloth of crypto, for example. That’s a little different than century-old symbol about Unity between States…

Yes, billions of people noticed in horror the entire Republican Party in congress applauding a Nazi salute, twice, and yes, a handful of people used the same word to describe it. Do you really think lessons on grammar is the point to make here?! Because for someone who talks so much about how much you don’t like that Hilter guy, you seem to raise no qualms in your very detailed note with having with so many people in your party applauding that gesture. If you worried about people not thinking for themselves, I’d start there.

▲

Andrew_nenakhov 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm glad that you conceded that you blatantly lied about Trump having Mein Kampf on his night stand, thank you for this.

> In what world your argument is anything but clutching at straws?! Get a grip, he openly hates Black and Latino people and has never been shy about it. The fact he came to an out-of-court agreement, and immediately had to come back… It’s so beautiful that your richly referenced note forgot that point.

Yeah, right. You had to dig up a case from 50+ years ago, that concerned a policy likely was not directed from the top but was enacted by some middle managers, and which was corrected, and act like I'm grasping the straws and not you.

Then you try to strengthen your argument with a blatant claim that Trump openly hates Black and Latino people, when in fact in his public speeches he frequently says that he loves them. You will, of course, fail to provide a single quote by Trump that would prove your outlandish claim.

And also, I struggle to understand how could this horrible vile racist man significantly increase his support amond Black and Lation voters. [0]

> No, but people who threatens to napalm-bomb a major city in their own country because the mayor isn’t in their party; people who threaten to court-martial any soldier who express an opinion critical of an influencer outside of the chain of command; people who call law enforcement officers to throw political opponents in a jail without due process… Those might be fascist.

So, how many major cities were napalm-bombed?

How many soldiers were court-martialled?

How many political opponents were thrown in jail without due process?

We did, however, see one political execution this week, but the murdered man was definitely not a Democrat.

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/22/nx-s1-5199119/2024-election-e...

▲

bertil 2 days ago | parent [-]

You think there’s a material difference between Mein Kampf and the guys speeches? That’s where you are going to draw the line?

	▲	Andrew_nenakhov a day ago \| parent [-]
		I’m rather confident you’re not really familiar with Charlie Kirk’s speeches. Sounds like you’re attacking a caricature pieced together from carefully edited snippets you saw on social media. Next time you feel the urge to denounce someone, please take the time to study their actual views. I can’t claim to know Kirk’s entire body of work -- just watched a couple of debates and his RNC speech -- but since of us two I’m the one who’s actually read Mein Kampf, I can say with a significant degree of confidence their views could hardly be more different: Hitler pushed authoritarian control, racial hierarchies, and expansionist wars. Kirk was advocating for small-government conservatism and anti-woke culture fights. Even Barack Obama, with his big-government moves, like the ACA or his stimulus plans, had more in common with Hitler’s state-heavy policies, than Charlie!

▲

dmbche 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	bertil 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It’s kind of hilarious how he called Orwell to deny something as blatant as Trump’s racism and immediately copied some absurd talking points from the darkest echo chambers of the internet. Denying that Trump is fascist because The United States, dealing with a Civil War, used wreaths as a symbol of unity is a particularly sophomoric attempt at turning bad puns into arguments. You have to live in particularly deep dungeons to think that’s not laughable.