The very appropriate parallel to Germany in the '30s

McRocket said:
Okay...

'1- Imposing martial law and seizing voting machines in swing states was a vigorous debate in the Oval. It almost happened.
2 - Trump tried to pressure an election official to "find" just enough votes for him to win an entire state. A principled official said no. Trump is getting those people replaced with loyalists and election deniers
3 - Republicans almost succeeded in sending fake electors to certify the election
4 - Republicans almost succeeded in running fake audits in swing states
5 - Dan Quayle is the only person who talked VP Pence out of rejecting election results and sending them back to the states, despite enormous pressure from Trump, his admin, and his supporters. Had Pence bailed on that, the election would have been rejected.'

1 - no it did not. The military refused. You made that up.
2 - that happened. But It did not work and no one with a decent brain took Trump seriously. Everyone I know laughed at the recording. It was NEVER close to succeeding.
3 - IMPOSSIBLE to prove. You made that up.
4 - Impossible to prove. You made that up. How the fuck do you measure 'almost' in this case?
5 - You have NO FUCKING WAY of knowing who talked to Pence about it. NONE. Unless Pence says so under oath - it means NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Pence said it was Quayle who gave him that final assurance. But you need it under OATH?

The military didn't "refuse" anything - because Trump never gave the order.

How is "fake electors" impossible to prove? IT HAPPENED.

This is what I mean about 'round and 'round. You're not interested in learning anything here. You just want to win an argument. That's it. You have closed your ears.

I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you. I hope that what I started this thread about never happens.
 
BartenderElite said:
Pence said it was Quayle who gave him that final assurance. But you need it under OATH?
Click to expand...
You said 'Dan Quayle is the only person who talked VP Pence out of rejecting election results' That is not the same as what you said.
And I am not buying ANYTHING you say on this without a link.

The military didn't "refuse" anything - because Trump never gave the order.
Click to expand...
YES THEY DID. They told the press that they would not get involved with upending the 2020 election.

How is "fake electors" impossible to prove? IT HAPPENED.
Click to expand...
Then prove it did. Ohhh riiiight. You can't.
 
BartenderElite said:
You don't think that Republicans tried to send fake electors?

Say yes. If I provide that link, will you stop posting here for 6 months?
Click to expand...

They probably did.

It is irrelevant.
What matters is if that action would have succeeded.
And there is NO LEGAL EVIDENCE THAT IT COULD.
Nor have you proven that it could have succeeded.
And that is my point.
It does not matter what Trump wanted.
It matters what is possible under the Constitution.

Now answer my questions you fucking coward and historical ignoramus:

1) did Hitler gain dictatorial power, legally under German law in the 1930's?
Yes or no?


2) is it legal in the present Constitution for a POTUS to gain absolute, dictatorial powers?
Yes or no?
 
BartenderElite said:
LOL

"They probably did."

Why am I debating w/ someone who doesn't even know current events?
Click to expand...

Now answer my questions you fucking coward and historical ignoramus:

1) did Hitler gain dictatorial power, legally under German law in the 1930's?
Yes or no?


2) is it legal in the present Constitution for a POTUS to gain absolute, dictatorial powers?
Yes or no?
 
BartenderElite said:
What a waste of time. The OP stands.
Click to expand...

Look folks.

1) he does not even (seem to) know that Hitler LEGALLY took dictatorial powers in 1930's Germany.

2) he does not even (seem to) know that the Constitution does not allow for the dictatorial powers that BartenderElite says Trump might get in 2024.

3) when asked to back up the points in the OP?
He gives NOTHING.
He refuses to give links to back up ANYTHING he has said in the OP.

4) he keeps talking about Trump wanting dictatorial powers.
Well duh!
EVERY, FUCKING POLITICIAN wants dictatorial powers.

5) and he seems completely ignorant of the fact that just because a politician wants dictatorial powers.
Has nothing to do with that politician actually getting dictatorial powers.
The US Constitution will not allow such a thing.

He is obviously trying to fear monger either for attention or because he is too stupid/knowledgeable to know what an ass he is making of himself.




I thought Bartender Elite had more brains than this.

I was wrong, sadly.
 
Last edited:
McRocket said:
Look folks.

He does not even know that Hitler LEGALLY took dictatorial powers in 11930's Germany.

He does not even know that the Constitution does not allow for the dictatorial powers that BartenderElite says he might get in 2024.

When asked to back up the OP?
He gives NOTHING.
He refuses to give links to back up ANYTHING he has said in the OP.

Basically, BartenderElite is totally and completely full of excrement on this.

He is obviously trying to fear monger either for attention or because he is too stupid/knowledgeable to know what an ass he is making of himself.
Click to expand...

You're a dope.
 
BartenderElite said:
Do you really need a "link" to something like Trump pressuring an election official to "find votes?" Are you truly not aware of that? Or fake electors? Or the discussion of martial law?

If you're not, you shouldn't even be on a thread like this. You shouldn't even be on a political message board.
Click to expand...

Parallels between 1938 Germany and today:

Misusing government to go after political opponents.

Cheating in elections.

Gun registration.

Massive increases in Socialism.

Disarming the populace.

Propaganda instead of free press.

Silencing of dissenters in the public square.

Yeah, it IS looking like 1938 Germany, but this is America and it all will blow up in the Democrats' faces spectacularly.
 
BartenderElite said:
I provided a lot to back up the OP.

I just remembered - you're the same guy who said Putin wouldn't invade the Ukraine, literally a day before he did.

Maybe this can be a teachable moment for you. Things you do not think are possible - are. Take a pause and consider that.
Click to expand...

Upon reflection?
I remember doing no such thing.
DUH!!!
 
Last edited:
BartenderElite said:
I provided a lot to back up the OP.
Click to expand...

Then answer these SIMPLE questions:

(he has refused to at least 3 or 4 times already)

1) did Hitler gain dictatorial power, legally under German law in the 1930's?
Yes or no?


2) is it legal in the present Constitution for a POTUS to gain absolute, dictatorial powers?
Yes or no?


He won't dare. He is too much of a coward because he knows it destroys his argument.
 
McRocket said:
Holy SHIT - STRAWMAN OR WHAT!!!!!!!

And I admitted I was 100% wrong.
And it was a prediction.
Not a statement of fact.
DUH!!!

But - in my defense - just about every, single military web site worth a nickel said the same thing.

And what the fuck does Putin invading Ukraine have to do with Trump becoming a dictator and Nazi Germany (where Hitler LEGALLY became a dictator)?

Answer - nothing.
Click to expand...

Re: the bolded question - something you thought was a remote possibility, wasn't. And happened.

Maybe that's something to learn from?

No disrespect - but you are naive to think that what happened in '30s Germany could not happen here, today.
 
Last edited:
Nothing "destroys" my argument. You think the Constitution protects us, always. I think a strong leader w/ followers in positions of power can circumvent that.

We disagree. You've been wrong before, on something major. I haven't.
 
BartenderElite said:
Re: the bolded question - something you thought was not possible, was. And happened.

Maybe that's something to learn from?

No disrespect - but you are naive to think that what happened in '30s Germany could not happen here, today.
Click to expand...

And show us all where I said that it was impossible for Russia to invade Ukraine?
 
BartenderElite said:
Nothing "destroys" my argument. You think the Constitution protects us, always. I think a strong leader w/ followers in positions of power can circumvent that.

We disagree.
Click to expand...

I told you...he does not have the guts to answer these two simple questions.

Then answer these SIMPLE questions:

(he has refused to at least 3 or 4 times already)

1) did Hitler gain dictatorial power, legally under German law in the 1930's?
Yes or no?


2) is it legal in the present Constitution for a POTUS to gain absolute, dictatorial powers?
Yes or no?


You've been wrong before, on something major. I haven't.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
That I was wrong on something major.
And you 'haven't' ever been.

I guarantee that you cannot.
Which means you are wrong.

Which proves that you are wrong on something major.
Which disproves you own statement.

OUCH!!!
You did not think that one through too well, did you?

This is getting fun.
 
Nah - this wasn't fun. You kept moving goalposts, demanding different things.

Hitler rose to power legally. That's the point. You didn't watch the 1/6 hearings and have no idea how close we came to the Constitution being ignored - you have basically admitted that.

Like I said: you just want to win the argument at this point. You're not willing to listen, or consider any other possiblities. You have something that many on here have - a complete inability to admit when you're wrong.
 
McRocket said:
I told you...he does not have the guts to answer these two simple questions.

Then answer these SIMPLE questions:

(he has refused to at least 3 or 4 times already)

1) did Hitler gain dictatorial power, legally under German law in the 1930's?
Yes or no?


2) is it legal in the present Constitution for a POTUS to gain absolute, dictatorial powers?
Yes or no?




Prove it.
That I was wrong on something major.
And you 'haven't' ever been.

I guarantee that you cannot.
Which means you are wrong.

Which proves that you are wrong on something major.
Which disproves you own statement.

OUCH!!!
You did not think that one through too well, did you?

This is getting fun.
Click to expand...

Lordy I am NOT trying to get in the middle of this, but Bartender is a she. That is all.
 
BartenderElite said:
Nah - this wasn't fun. You kept moving goalposts, demanding different things.

Hitler rose to power legally. That's the point. You didn't watch the 1/6 hearings and have no idea how close we came to the Constitution being ignored - you have basically admitted that.

Like I said: you just want to win the argument at this point. You're not willing to listen, or consider any other possiblities. You have something that many on here have - a complete inability to admit when you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Says the woman who typed above:

'I just remembered - you're the same guy who said Putin wouldn't invade the Ukraine, literally a day before he did.'

And now?
She can not even show where this hypothetical statement I made is?

So...where is this hypothetical statement, BartenderElite?


And you said you 'haven't' ever been wrong on something major?
Like falsely, accusing someone of something?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top