One reason we like Trump for POTUS

[berg80]

Kamala might not be as stupid as some but her inability to consistently communicate in logical meaningful sentences made her look dumb.

Have you been following trump's wildly inconsistent, at times profane, factually inaccurate, confused, contradictory social media posts about the Iran war?

 

[berg80]

Isolationism does not keep Americans safe from foreign rogues and dictators. Remember 9/11.

AI Overview

Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, often termed "America First" isolationism, prioritizes national interests over global commitments, characterized by skepticism of alliances, protectionist tariffs, and a reluctance toward nation-building.

 

[berg80]

Hillary and Kamala both came off as cackling old women with low moral characters. In spite of lack of voter IDs to secure elections from fraud they both lost.

trump is a pathologically lying, serial sexual predator who stole money from a charity and had an affair with a porn actress weeks after his wife gave birth to their child. Then he tried to keep the affair quiet by paying the porn star hush money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

TDS bias is driving some leftists loony.

Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you, must be "loony" or "TDS" or some other childish bullshit.

Grow the **** up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can't admit to his lies. They don't want to be in a position in which they may ask themselves, "what ELSE has he lied about?"

That would open up Pandora's Box, and it could end up leading to the biggest lie of all, the "rigged election".

They can't have that. No way. It's too personal. Hell, they've let it destroy families, marriages and friendships.

Imagine that people are completely incapable of looking at all the lies and seeing them.

And people wonder how Germany ended up being Nazi.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary and Kamala both came off as cackling old women with low moral characters. In spite of lack of voter IDs to secure elections from fraud they both lost.

Well, I've always said the US should move into the twentieth century, at least, and get Proportional Representation.

But.... Trump comes across as a corrupt guy who insults everyone.

People didn't vote FOR TRUMP. They voted AGAINST Trump and Kamala, or Hillary. People are often fed up with the system, the corruption, the lies. And some voted against a woman, because they can't handle that.

And supposedly there's all this voter fraud, and yet Trump won. Well, that kind of puts a spoke in your argument. If you're going to do voter fraud, you at least make sure you WIN.

But no.... just shout "voter fraud" don't provide evidence, don't provide anything. Just shout, like a ******* moron.

 

[Mac1958]

Imagine that people are completely incapable of looking at all the lies and seeing them.

And people wonder how Germany ended up being Nazi.

Your post sparked some curiosity in me, so I went to ClaudeAI. I don't think of this groups as Nazis, as that was merely a specific, twisted subset of Fascism. I think of them as neofascists.

But I wonder how many really are, and how many are just going along. So I asked Claude:

MAC: Looking back at Nazi Germany: What are the best estimates of the percentage of the German population who were literally ideological Nazis, as compared to the percentage of those who either (a) didn't fully understand what they were enabling or (b) was not paying close attention and just went along with it?

======

CLAUDE: This is a genuinely important historiographical question that scholars have debated seriously for decades. Here's a synthesis of the best current thinking:

---

The Spectrum of Complicity in Nazi Germany​

Committed Ideological Nazis — roughly 10–20% of the population​

Most historians estimate the true believers — those who actively embraced Nazi racial ideology, the Führerprinzip, and the eliminationist program — at somewhere between 10% and 20% of the adult population. This includes:

• NSDAP members (the party peaked at ~8.5 million members by 1945, roughly 10–12% of the adult population), though many joined for career/social reasons rather than ideology
• SS, SD, and Gestapo personnel — hardcore ideological enforcers
• The Alte Kämpfer ("old fighters") who joined before 1933 — about 1 million people who were generally the most committed believers

Historian Robert Gellately (Backing Hitler, 2001) argues this number was actually higher and more knowing than people assumed — that ordinary Germans were broadly aware of concentration camps and broadly supportive of persecution.

---

Active Collaborators / Opportunists — roughly 20–35%​

A large middle layer participated, enforced, or benefited without necessarily being true ideological believers. This includes:

• Bureaucrats who processed deportation orders
• Businessmen who used slave labor
• Neighbors who reported Jews to authorities
• Police and soldiers who carried out atrocities out of careerism, peer pressure, or authority-following

Christopher Browning's famous study Ordinary Men (1992) shows how Reserve Police Battalion 101 — middle-aged, non-elite men — carried out mass shootings in Poland despite being explicitly given the chance to opt out. Very few did. Browning attributes this largely to conformity, peer pressure, and situational factors rather than deep ideology.

Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" concept fits here — the machinery of genocide was largely operated by people who weren't monsters but were not paying moral attention.

---

Passive Bystanders / "Going Along" — roughly 40–50%​

The largest group were people who:

• Were not politically engaged
• Focused on daily survival, especially after the war began
• Benefited passively from the persecution of Jews (confiscated property, removed economic competition) without seeking it out
• Accepted regime propaganda without critical scrutiny
• Were afraid to dissent (which was genuinely dangerous)

Daniel Goldhagen (Hitler's Willing Executioners, 1996) controversially argued this group was more ideologically motivated than historians like Browning admitted — that a deep cultural "eliminationist antisemitism" was widespread. Most historians regard Goldhagen's thesis as overstated, but he forced a productive reckoning with passive complicity.

---

Genuine Resisters / The Disengaged — roughly 5–15%​

Actual resistance was tiny. Estimates of people involved in any form of active resistance range from perhaps 1–2% of the population. A larger group (~10–15%) was privately skeptical or disengaged but did nothing to resist. Underground networks (like those hiding Jews) involved remarkably few people.

---

Key Takeaway from Historians​

The emerging scholarly consensus, shaped by Gellately, Browning, Peter Longerich, and others, is something like:

Most Germans didn't need to be fanatical Nazis to enable the regime. Indifference, conformity, fear, opportunism, and selective attention were sufficient — and those are very ordinary human traits, not exceptional ones.

The regime was also masterful at keeping the most graphic details just obscured enough that people could choose not to fully know — what historians call "knowing without knowing." Most Germans knew Jews were being "removed" and treated brutally; far fewer had explicit knowledge of the gas chambers until very late.

This is why the question remains so morally uncomfortable — the Nazi regime's success depended less on a nation of fanatics than on a nation of people doing what most populations in most places tend to do: defer, comply, and look away.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your post sparked some curiosity in me, so I went to ClaudeAI. I don't think of this groups as Nazis, as that was merely a specific, twisted subset of Fascism. I think of them as neofascists.

But I wonder how many really are, and how many are just going along. So I asked Claude:

MAC: Looking back at Nazi Germany: What are the best estimates of the percentage of the German population who were literally ideological Nazis, as compared to the percentage of those who either (a) didn't fully understand what they were enabling or (b) was not paying close attention and just went along with it?

======

CLAUDE: This is a genuinely important historiographical question that scholars have debated seriously for decades. Here's a synthesis of the best current thinking:

---

The Spectrum of Complicity in Nazi Germany​

Committed Ideological Nazis — roughly 10–20% of the population​

Most historians estimate the true believers — those who actively embraced Nazi racial ideology, the Führerprinzip, and the eliminationist program — at somewhere between 10% and 20% of the adult population. This includes:

• NSDAP members (the party peaked at ~8.5 million members by 1945, roughly 10–12% of the adult population), though many joined for career/social reasons rather than ideology
• SS, SD, and Gestapo personnel — hardcore ideological enforcers
• The Alte Kämpfer ("old fighters") who joined before 1933 — about 1 million people who were generally the most committed believers

Historian Robert Gellately (Backing Hitler, 2001) argues this number was actually higher and more knowing than people assumed — that ordinary Germans were broadly aware of concentration camps and broadly supportive of persecution.

---

Active Collaborators / Opportunists — roughly 20–35%​

A large middle layer participated, enforced, or benefited without necessarily being true ideological believers. This includes:

• Bureaucrats who processed deportation orders
• Businessmen who used slave labor
• Neighbors who reported Jews to authorities
• Police and soldiers who carried out atrocities out of careerism, peer pressure, or authority-following

Christopher Browning's famous study Ordinary Men (1992) shows how Reserve Police Battalion 101 — middle-aged, non-elite men — carried out mass shootings in Poland despite being explicitly given the chance to opt out. Very few did. Browning attributes this largely to conformity, peer pressure, and situational factors rather than deep ideology.

Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" concept fits here — the machinery of genocide was largely operated by people who weren't monsters but were not paying moral attention.

---

Passive Bystanders / "Going Along" — roughly 40–50%​

The largest group were people who:

• Were not politically engaged
• Focused on daily survival, especially after the war began
• Benefited passively from the persecution of Jews (confiscated property, removed economic competition) without seeking it out
• Accepted regime propaganda without critical scrutiny
• Were afraid to dissent (which was genuinely dangerous)

Daniel Goldhagen (Hitler's Willing Executioners, 1996) controversially argued this group was more ideologically motivated than historians like Browning admitted — that a deep cultural "eliminationist antisemitism" was widespread. Most historians regard Goldhagen's thesis as overstated, but he forced a productive reckoning with passive complicity.

---

Genuine Resisters / The Disengaged — roughly 5–15%​

Actual resistance was tiny. Estimates of people involved in any form of active resistance range from perhaps 1–2% of the population. A larger group (~10–15%) was privately skeptical or disengaged but did nothing to resist. Underground networks (like those hiding Jews) involved remarkably few people.

---

Key Takeaway from Historians​

The emerging scholarly consensus, shaped by Gellately, Browning, Peter Longerich, and others, is something like:


The regime was also masterful at keeping the most graphic details just obscured enough that people could choose not to fully know — what historians call "knowing without knowing." Most Germans knew Jews were being "removed" and treated brutally; far fewer had explicit knowledge of the gas chambers until very late.

This is why the question remains so morally uncomfortable — the Nazi regime's success depended less on a nation of fanatics than on a nation of people doing what most populations in most places tend to do: defer, comply, and look away.

It doesn't take that many. Especially in electoral systems like FPTP where there isn't much choice.

The Nazis had Proportional Representation, but one where small parties were getting in. Germany's PR leads to 6 parties -ish, Denmark's leads to 10 parties. In 1932 there were 14 parties, all but 6 had less than 10 seats which led to chaos.

 

[Mac1958]

It doesn't take that many.

Yep. That's the way it usually goes. All that's needed is the right people in the right places, and a pliant populace.

"History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme".

 

[Harry Dresden]

Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you, must be "loony" or "TDS" or some other childish bullshit.

Grow the **** up.

thats the way you act whenever someone disagrees with you....how are you any different?...

 

[markef]

Have you been following trump's wildly inconsistent, at times profane, factually inaccurate, confused, contradictory social media posts about the Iran war?

After decades of failing to stop the 'death to America' loudmouthed Muslim terrorists in Iran, the US is finally achieving great success under the sharp-tonged, promise- and threat-keeping, no-nonsense President Trump.

 

[markef]

AI Overview

Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, often termed "America First" isolationism, prioritizes national interests over global commitments, characterized by skepticism of alliances, protectionist tariffs, and a reluctance toward nation-building.

Commies have a long history of stomping on faces of helpless citizens under their tyrannical rules, but Trump is seriously hindering the commies in the USA seeking to overthrow God Bless America so they can fundamentally transform the nation into the image of a third-world Marxist hellhole. Are Americans willing to vote for liars who promise them free stuff like groceries, bus fares, and child care? Yes, stupid Americans are willing to vote for liars who promise them all sorts of things they will never be able to deliver.

 

[markef]

trump is a pathologically lying, serial sexual predator who stole money from a charity and had an affair with a porn actress weeks after his wife gave birth to their child. Then he tried to keep the affair quiet by paying the porn star hush money.

As bad as Trump may seem to be to many, Kamala and Hillary were obviously much worse to more voters who elected Trump over the cackling duo.

 

[markef]

Well, I've always said the US should move into the twentieth century, at least, and get Proportional Representation.

But.... Trump comes across as a corrupt guy who insults everyone.

People didn't vote FOR TRUMP. They voted AGAINST Trump and Kamala, or Hillary. People are often fed up with the system, the corruption, the lies. And some voted against a woman, because they can't handle that.

And supposedly there's all this voter fraud, and yet Trump won. Well, that kind of puts a spoke in your argument. If you're going to do voter fraud, you at least make sure you WIN.

But no.... just shout "voter fraud" don't provide evidence, don't provide anything. Just shout, like a ******* moron.

Some political analysts have strange takes on election results.