Yellowtail

I had six tow-motors that did this twenty years ago.

The left really does not care about what the families of dead soldiers think because they generally not on the left. All the left cares about is maintaining power. They call Trump out for “bone spurs”, but don’t care about Clinton running away to Canada or Biden’s “asthma”. Remember they spit on Viet Nam vets when they came home. They called George W. Bush a draft-dodger for being in the National Guard, but stolen valor Walz is a proud 24-year veteran, and don’t you dare point out how many times he’s lied about his service. The left only cares about the left. They can say virtually anything, and the press (the propaganda wing of the Democrat party) will run cover for them. Harris does not even have to lie, the press lies for her.

It is amazing how he bloviates paragraph after paragraph without answering a question. Probably an education major.

Why do you not support your claims?

What has been fact checked and is misinformation? Born in California, fact Moved to Canada where she went to high school, fact Both parents had PhDs, fact I know you want to think of her as the child of poor, immigrant single mother, but that is just a phony campaign story. Her father was a Marxist Economic professor, and her mother was a cancer researcher, both at Stanford. Her father left when she was (I think) eight, and she has never even been close to being poor.

That's what I thought. Go with God brother.

What has been fact checked and is misinformation? Born in California, fact Moved to Canada where she went to high school, fact Both parents had PhDs, fact I know you want to think of her as the child of poor, immigrant single mother, but that is just a phony campaign story. Her father was a Marxist Economic professor, and her mother was a cancer researcher, both at Stanford. Her father left when she was (I think) eight, and she has never even been close to being poor.

Well, that's crystal clear

Trump's References to Hitler and Potential Implications: The concern isn't just about owning or reading "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes. It's about the broader context in which Trump has been associated with authoritarian tendencies and inflammatory rhetoric that some find troublingly reminiscent of historical fascist ideologies. When a public figure like Trump acknowledges owning a book like "Mein Kampf," it raises questions about what influence those ideas might have on his thinking and policies. Given the gravity of Hitler’s legacy, any reference to his work or ideology by a contemporary political leader can be unsettling, particularly if it aligns -What authoritarian tendencies and inflammatory rhetoric? -And who is associating Trump with authoritarian tendencies and inflammatory rhetoric? Implications of Trump's Acknowledgment of Owning the Book: The acknowledgment of owning "Mein Kampf" could be seen as problematic because it might suggest either a fascination with or a willingness to engage with the ideas contained in the book beyond mere academic interest. The potential implications include concerns about whether Trump might admire or be influenced by the tactics and ideologies that Hitler espoused, particularly regarding propaganda, control of public opinion, and authoritarian governance. This is especially troubling given Trump's own contentious relationship with the media, his polarizing rhetoric, and accusations of inciting division. It could be seen as problematic by who, the left? Harris’ father was/is a Marxist Economist, I assume she has at least read and likely owns copies of “Capital” and the “Communist Manifesto”. Why is this not problematic? Why Reading "Mein Kampf" Might Be Unjustified or Unacceptable: While reading "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes isn’t inherently wrong, the context in which a political leader references or acknowledges the book matters. For a figure like Trump, who has been accused of authoritarian tendencies, references to Hitler’s work can be seen as particularly inappropriate or alarming. It’s not just about the act of reading the book, but how that knowledge is applied or interpreted in a political context. If it appears to influence policy or rhetoric in a way that echoes harmful ideologies, it becomes a cause for concern. -Who is accusing Trump of authoritarian tendencies, what might those tendencies be, and what references to Hitler’s work? Specific Concerns Raised About Trump’s Use of the Text: The specific concerns relate to the potential normalization of extremist ideas and the possibility that Trump might find inspiration in the propaganda techniques or authoritarian practices described in "Mein Kampf." This is particularly worrying given Trump's sometimes divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, which has drawn comparisons to the methods used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate power and control public discourse. The fear is that Trump's acknowledgment of owning the book might not be purely academic, but could reflect a deeper alignment with some of the strategies employed by historical dictators to manipulate public opinion and maintain power. -Potential normalization of what extremist ideas? -What propaganda techniques or authoritarian practices described in "Mein Kampf" might Trump find inspiration in? -Who finds Trump's rhetoric divisive and inflammatory? -Who is drawing comparisons to the methods used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate power and control public discourse? -Who is afraid that Trump's acknowledgment of owning the book might not be purely academic? I hope this clarifies the concerns and why these issues are significant when discussing Trump’s references to such a historically charged text. -It does not. These are the questions I asked: 1. Why don't you go over Trump’s references to Hitler and how they may reflect on his political stance? You did not provide a single quote from Trump. 2. Why don't you explain the potential implications of Trump's acknowledgment of owning a copy? You only provided a list of things that might happen, and nothing that indicates anything on the list has any significant probability of happening. 3. Why do you not provide a few reasons why reading it is inherently unjustified or unacceptable. Again, you do not seem to provide a reason why reading anything is inherently unjustified or unacceptable, except to say that something might happen. Do you think reading books about homosexuality will turn people into homosexuals? 4. Why don't you outline the specific concerns raised about Trump’s use of the text? Again, you claim there is possibility. Is that not what you would call possibiliter ergo probabiliter, which is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted simply because it is possible?

Did you even read my post before you called me a liar? This was my post: So with all the benefits of illegal immigration, why is Harris pretending she is going to stop it? Why does she not defend her open border polices? I did not now, nor have I ever accused any US politician saying: "I defend open borders". You should apologize, but of course you won't.

My favorite line in the "The Bob Newhart Show", was: "Sit Whitey!" Do you remember the episode?

Funny how my recent posts about Hitler and Goebbels' propaganda have generated so much hype with so few words—and so many illogical fallacies: Red Herring: By shifting the focus to the general practice of reading "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes, you divert attention from the specific concern about Trump's use of the text and its implications. This red herring distracts from the original criticism regarding Trump’s references to Hitler and how they may reflect on his political stance. Why don't you go over Trump’s references to Hitler and how they may reflect on his political stance? False Equivalence: Your argument implies that because it is reasonable for leaders and politically interested individuals to read "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes, it is equally reasonable to overlook the potential implications of Trump's acknowledgment of owning a copy. This creates a false equivalence between the academic study of historical texts and the potential endorsement or association with problematic ideologies. Why don't you explain the potential implications of Trump's acknowledgment of owning a copy? Appeal to Tradition: The response suggests that it makes sense for leaders and politically interested individuals to read "Mein Kampf" as if it’s a standard practice. This appeal to tradition assumes that because something has been done or accepted in the past, it is inherently justified or acceptable, without addressing the specific concerns about how Trump’s use of the text might be perceived. Why do you not provide a few reasons why reading it is inherently unjustified or unacceptable? Straw Man: By framing the argument as whether it makes sense for anyone to read "Mein Kampf," you might be misrepresenting the original critique, which is more about the potential implications of Trump's references rather than the general practice of reading historical texts. You try to weaken the argument by shifting the focus and failing to address the specific concerns raised about Trump’s use of the text. Why don't you outline the specific concerns raised about Trump’s use of the text?

The left says the border is closed, so you show them it is open. The left then blames the open border on the evil Republicans for not passing a POC border bill, so you show them that the POC border bill would let almost two million illegals into the country. Then the left claims that illegal immigrants are great for the economy, so you show them that while illegal immigrants benefit the rich, they hurt the poor. Then the left calls you a stupid MAGA Trumpist, so you show them that they are going to lose the election unless illegal immigration is stopped. So the left all become border hawks and insist they always have been.

Do really know so little about the duties of the President of the United States? The President has a constitutional requirement to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." which makes him the top-ranking law enforcer in the country. Remember, the Attorney General is appointed by, reports to, and serves at the pleasure of the President. You seem extremely intelligent and well informed, I'm surprised you did not know that.

So you are against illegal immigration and want the illegal aliens deported, yes?

But laws were broken, certainly someone should pay!

And you do not think people in law enforcment should read the manifestos of mass murderers.

Let's have an honest discussion here. Biden did not seem to have any difficulty getting the border closed the moment it looked like it could cost him the election.

I think 5,000 a day (almost two million a year) was the trigger. Why not post a link to the actual bill rather than the analysis done by a group that depend on immigration for its survival?

So you think Biden should be prosecuted for the classified documents he stole?

Do you not think it makes sense for every world leader, and most anyone interested in politics to read Mein Kampf?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. It is two different discussions. It is hard to get support for legal immigration when millions of illegals are flooding into the county. What does everything have to be "comprehensive"? Why can we not get bills past one page at a time?

How about ceasing the BS. Trump was not in office and any Republican that voted for it would likely lose their seat in the next election. That's why they did not vote for it. Again, the bill Biden tried to get passed would do nothing but process the illegal aliens into the country more quickly and help get the illegal aliens legalized and subsidized as quickly as possible. Only a few "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans supported it. The bill was a POC. That is why it was stopped. The intent of the bill was clear, and it was not to stop illegal immigration. Rather than relying on the leftist propaganda NBC spews out, why not just read the bill? Actions - S.4361 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Border Act of 2024 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws. There is nothing stopping Congress from passing any law they like in regard to regulating abortion and allowing it right up until the moment of birth. Neither is there anything stopping anyone from amending the Constitution to make abortion a right.

While I agree that the quota system needs to be updated, I doubt very much immigration attorneys would be who to ask about it. They have a vested interest. In any event, legal immigration is a completely separate issue from illegal immigration and border control. Unlike what the press would have you believe; most people do not have an issue with legal immigration.