[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Camelza]

Why people support Trump? Is this some short of joke, or protest? Because I don't find it funny at all.

Some people are angry enough at the Republican leadership that they want to make them worry. No one has cast a vote for Trump that counts for anything yet.

I guess, though the fact that such a controversial (to put it kindly) figure has the support of large parts of the electorate is worrying.

Some people are angry enough at the Republican leadership that they want to make them worry. No one has cast a vote for Trump that counts for anything yet.

Being honest for a moment, I think it's because they view Trump as incorruptible or, at least, harder to corrupt.

Trump has made it a very big deal that he's running this out of his own pocket and isn't accountable to some big money puppeteer who has him dancing on their strings. That resonates. Everyone's kind of tired of watching politicians who basically act as proxies for their backers.

That is not a really healthy political reasoning.

[Grave_n_idle]

My disbelief at Ben Carson is growing. He says that the Holocaust happened because Jews didn't have guns. http://time.com/4067501/ben-carson-holocaust-popeyes/

To be fair to that man, that isn't exactly a new concept. There's quite the difference between interpreting his comment as meaning "the Jews provoked the Holocaust by not having guns" versus "the Holocaust would have turned out much differently if every Jew was packing a military grade assault rifle when the SS came for them".

The first statement is crazy. The second statement is patently true. I'd bet good money he meant the latter.

It's a silly argument, and Carson should be ashamed to make it. The Nazis were not externally imposed on Germany - they were a populist movement. The enemies of the Nazis having more guns wouldn't have changed the complexion of Nazi Germany, because the allies of the Nazis would have had more guns too.

[Northern Davincia]

To be fair to that man, that isn't exactly a new concept. There's quite the difference between interpreting his comment as meaning "the Jews provoked the Holocaust by not having guns" versus "the Holocaust would have turned out much differently if every Jew was packing a military grade assault rifle when the SS came for them".

The first statement is crazy. The second statement is patently true. I'd bet good money he meant the latter.

It's a silly argument, and Carson should be ashamed to make it. The Nazis were not externally imposed on Germany - they were a populist movement. The enemies of the Nazis having more guns wouldn't have changed the complexion of Nazi Germany, because the allies of the Nazis would have had more guns too.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories.” -Adolf Hitler

The Nazis were certainly externally imposed on Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, and plenty of other nations.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's a silly argument, and Carson should be ashamed to make it. The Nazis were not externally imposed on Germany - they were a populist movement. The enemies of the Nazis having more guns wouldn't have changed the complexion of Nazi Germany, because the allies of the Nazis would have had more guns too.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories.” -Adolf Hitler

He was also a painter.

Equally relevant. i.e. not.

[Northern Davincia]

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories.” -Adolf Hitler

He was also a painter.

Equally relevant. i.e. not.

Of course the Nazis' enemies having more guns would have changed historical events. Otherwise, Germany wouldn't have outlawed Jews from owning firearms. It's quite obvious that the last thing the Nazis wanted was for their enemies to defend themselves.

[Rusozak]

Donald Trump's rating on this poll truly scares me. There's a lot of candidates that aren't fit for office and wouldn't do a good job, but Trump is the only one I truly fear as a potential president.

[Grave_n_idle]

He was also a painter.

Equally relevant. i.e. not.

Of course the Nazis' enemies having more guns would have changed historical events.

Don't be silly. The Nazi's enemies were outnumbered, and the military and paramilitary were on the side of the state.

There may have been a few more deaths (and I mean, a few) - but it's silly to imagine it would have ultimately ended any differently. Like I said - it was a populist movement - armed citizens are irrelevant.

[Northern Davincia]

Of course the Nazis' enemies having more guns would have changed historical events.

Don't be silly. The Nazi's enemies were outnumbered, and the military and paramilitary were on the side of the state.

There may have been a few more deaths (and I mean, a few) - but it's silly to imagine it would have ultimately ended any differently. Like I said - it was a populist movement - armed citizens are irrelevant.

There are plenty of revolutions that have been fought, wherein the revolutionaries (often commoners, and not soldiers) were outnumbered, all the while using inferior weaponry. Even the smallest resistance can change the outcome. There was no other reason to ban guns from the Jews, because if they could defend themselves, some likely would.

[Gauthier]

Of course the Nazis' enemies having more guns would have changed historical events.

Don't be silly. The Nazi's enemies were outnumbered, and the military and paramilitary were on the side of the state.

There may have been a few more deaths (and I mean, a few) - but it's silly to imagine it would have ultimately ended any differently. Like I said - it was a populist movement - armed citizens are irrelevant.

A government that can be stopped in its tracks by a group of armed people is a government that can be overthrown by a group of armed people.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Of course the Nazis' enemies having more guns would have changed historical events.

Don't be silly. The Nazi's enemies were outnumbered, and the military and paramilitary were on the side of the state.

There may have been a few more deaths (and I mean, a few) - but it's silly to imagine it would have ultimately ended any differently. Like I said - it was a populist movement - armed citizens are irrelevant.

Let's see, listing ways that those deaths might have been relevant.

1) More guff aimed at Hitler from High Command over his mental decision to carry out the Holocaust in wartime, given the greater military resources that would have to be diverted to cart away an armed versus unarmed population.

2) The delay of the Final Solution as the opportunity cost of destroying said armed population weighed on the saner mind of Hitler early in the war, resulting in less total deaths during said Final Solution as the time of implementation was curtailed.

3) Greater civilian German knowledge of and resistance to the Holocaust and deportation of their neighbors. Yes, Nazism was a populist movement- but it never enjoyed anything like majority support objectively, and the difference between your neighbors disappearing in the night versus a gun battle as the SS tries to disappear them may have increased anti-Nazi sentiments by making obvious exactly what was happening.

4) The removal of wartime assets from vital North African/Soviet fronts by the madman Hitler in order to carry out his pet plan, hastening the end of the war by depriving the German military of much needed resources. War ends earlier, less dead. Or even success of German General Staff rebellion in face of Hitler's lunacy. Extent of utility of weapons or not, a population with more guns is as a rule of thumb harder to herd into death camps.

5) Greater SS and Nazi casualties during the rounding up of undesireables for extermination. Even if we assume a generous rate of, oh, one casualty per twenty Jews killed, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead or wounded Nazis. Impact on the war, likely non-negligible, especially as armed conflict in Jewish neighborhoods diverts military assets and disrupts civilian infrastructure.

So, how are you justifying any of those potential scenarios as not "ultimately different"?

[Grave_n_idle]

Don't be silly. The Nazi's enemies were outnumbered, and the military and paramilitary were on the side of the state.

There may have been a few more deaths (and I mean, a few) - but it's silly to imagine it would have ultimately ended any differently. Like I said - it was a populist movement - armed citizens are irrelevant.

Let's see, listing ways that those deaths might have been relevant.

1) More guff aimed at Hitler from High Command over his mental decision to carry out the Holocaust in wartime, given the greater military resources that would have to be diverted to cart away an armed versus unarmed population.

2) The delay of the Final Solution as the opportunity cost of destroying said armed population weighed on the saner mind of Hitler early in the war, resulting in less total deaths during said Final Solution as the time of implementation was curtailed.

3) Greater civilian German knowledge of and resistance to the Holocaust and deportation of their neighbors. Yes, Nazism was a populist movement- but it never enjoyed anything like majority support objectively, and the difference between your neighbors disappearing in the night versus a gun battle as the SS tries to disappear them may have increased anti-Nazi sentiments by making obvious exactly what was happening.

4) The removal of wartime assets from vital North African/Soviet fronts by the madman Hitler in order to carry out his pet plan, hastening the end of the war by depriving the German military of much needed resources. War ends earlier, less dead. Or even success of German General Staff rebellion in face of Hitler's lunacy. Extent of utility of weapons or not, a population with more guns is as a rule of thumb harder to herd into death camps.

5) Greater SS and Nazi casualties during the rounding up of undesireables for extermination. Even if we assume a generous rate of, oh, one casualty per twenty Jews killed, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead or wounded Nazis. Impact on the war, likely non-negligible, especially as armed conflict in Jewish neighborhoods diverts military assets and disrupts civilian infrastructure.

So, how are you justifying any of those potential scenarios as not "ultimately different"?

You missed the part where armed Jews would have summoned Jehovah god to fight the Nazis, and invented teleportation to escape the Holocaust.

That's how the game of 'making stuff up' works.

You're also ignoring the fact that Jews often did have chances to fight back, and didn't. Whether this is because of their religion, pacifism, fear... is irrelevant. Arming people who historically don't fight back is a non-event.

So let's assume that maybe arming some of the other people might have made a difference... but, again - looking at the actual history, even when in a position to fight back, other Germans didn't. They let the Jews, the Gypsies, the homosexuals be taken - and they kept hoping they'd be left in peace. That's even ignoring the fact that as populists, the Nazis actually had the support of the people.

There's simply no reason to believe your fairy stories.

[Conserative Morality]

1) More guff aimed at Hitler from High Command over his mental decision to carry out the Holocaust in wartime, given the greater military resources that would have to be diverted to cart away an armed versus unarmed population.

Or they'd have more support for the matter, seeing as there would be an element in their own country which they largely blamed Germany's woes on being heavily armed and able to strike at any moment. That turns it from a matter of pure racism to a strategically racist decision.

3) Greater civilian German knowledge of and resistance to the Holocaust and deportation of their neighbors. Yes, Nazism was a populist movement- but it never enjoyed anything like majority support objectively, and the difference between your neighbors disappearing in the night versus a gun battle as the SS tries to disappear them may have increased anti-Nazi sentiments by making obvious exactly what was happening.

"Greater civilian German knowledge"?

You mean prophetic visions? Or do you assume a low level of anti-semitism among the interwar German population?

Jews were being rounded up and put in camps quite openly long before they mass-extermination campaigns began.

[Diopolis]

1) More guff aimed at Hitler from High Command over his mental decision to carry out the Holocaust in wartime, given the greater military resources that would have to be diverted to cart away an armed versus unarmed population.

Or they'd have more support for the matter, seeing as there would be an element in their own country which they largely blamed Germany's woes on being heavily armed and able to strike at any moment. That turns it from a matter of pure racism to a strategically racist decision.

3) Greater civilian German knowledge of and resistance to the Holocaust and deportation of their neighbors. Yes, Nazism was a populist movement- but it never enjoyed anything like majority support objectively, and the difference between your neighbors disappearing in the night versus a gun battle as the SS tries to disappear them may have increased anti-Nazi sentiments by making obvious exactly what was happening.

"Greater civilian German knowledge"?

You mean prophetic visions? Or do you assume a low level of anti-semitism among the interwar German population?

Jews were being rounded up and put in camps quite openly long before they mass-extermination campaigns began.

Indeed. While a case can be made that the final solution was not common knowledge, at least among civilians, it would have been patently obvious to anyone paying attention that the jews were, at the very least, being ethnically cleansed.

[Blakk Metal]

To be fair to that man, that isn't exactly a new concept. There's quite the difference between interpreting his comment as meaning "the Jews provoked the Holocaust by not having guns" versus "the Holocaust would have turned out much differently if every Jew was packing a military grade assault rifle when the SS came for them".

The first statement is crazy. The second statement is patently true. I'd bet good money he meant the latter.

It's a silly argument, and Carson should be ashamed to make it. The Nazis were not externally imposed on Germany - they were a populist movement. The enemies of the Nazis having more guns wouldn't have changed the complexion of Nazi Germany, because the allies of the Nazis would have had more guns too.

Are you seriously saying the Nazis won a majority?

[Conserative Morality]

Are you seriously saying the Nazis won a majority?

In a Democratic election? No. Insofar as the majority of the population supported the regime more than passively tolerating it? Yes.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Let's see, listing ways that those deaths might have been relevant.

1) More guff aimed at Hitler from High Command over his mental decision to carry out the Holocaust in wartime, given the greater military resources that would have to be diverted to cart away an armed versus unarmed population.

2) The delay of the Final Solution as the opportunity cost of destroying said armed population weighed on the saner mind of Hitler early in the war, resulting in less total deaths during said Final Solution as the time of implementation was curtailed.

3) Greater civilian German knowledge of and resistance to the Holocaust and deportation of their neighbors. Yes, Nazism was a populist movement- but it never enjoyed anything like majority support objectively, and the difference between your neighbors disappearing in the night versus a gun battle as the SS tries to disappear them may have increased anti-Nazi sentiments by making obvious exactly what was happening.

4) The removal of wartime assets from vital North African/Soviet fronts by the madman Hitler in order to carry out his pet plan, hastening the end of the war by depriving the German military of much needed resources. War ends earlier, less dead. Or even success of German General Staff rebellion in face of Hitler's lunacy. Extent of utility of weapons or not, a population with more guns is as a rule of thumb harder to herd into death camps.

5) Greater SS and Nazi casualties during the rounding up of undesireables for extermination. Even if we assume a generous rate of, oh, one casualty per twenty Jews killed, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead or wounded Nazis. Impact on the war, likely non-negligible, especially as armed conflict in Jewish neighborhoods diverts military assets and disrupts civilian infrastructure.

So, how are you justifying any of those potential scenarios as not "ultimately different"?

You missed the part where armed Jews would have summoned Jehovah god to fight the Nazis, and invented teleportation to escape the Holocaust.

That's how the game of 'making stuff up' works.

You're also ignoring the fact that Jews often did have chances to fight back, and didn't. Whether this is because of their religion, pacifism, fear... is irrelevant. Arming people who historically don't fight back is a non-event.

So let's assume that maybe arming some of the other people might have made a difference... but, again - looking at the actual history, even when in a position to fight back, other Germans didn't. They let the Jews, the Gypsies, the homosexuals be taken - and they kept hoping they'd be left in peace. That's even ignoring the fact that as populists, the Nazis actually had the support of the people.

There's simply no reason to believe your fairy stories.

You're going to lead with arguing ad adsurdum? That's your response? Please, at least be intellectually honest if you're going to post.

As for your statement that "other Germans" didn't fight back, you are, inadvertently or not, ignoring tens of thousands of Germans who were killed by the Nazis for doing just that.

Anyway, the Jews didn't resist militarily because they couldn't- they didn't have the arms, or the inclination at the time. But if they did have the arms, we're still looking at a different picture. That's my "fairy stories". What are yours? The Jews deserved it because their culture is pacifistic, so no other course in history could have been taken?

[G-Tech Corporation]

1) More guff aimed at Hitler from High Command over his mental decision to carry out the Holocaust in wartime, given the greater military resources that would have to be diverted to cart away an armed versus unarmed population.

Or they'd have more support for the matter, seeing as there would be an element in their own country which they largely blamed Germany's woes on being heavily armed and able to strike at any moment. That turns it from a matter of pure racism to a strategically racist decision.

3) Greater civilian German knowledge of and resistance to the Holocaust and deportation of their neighbors. Yes, Nazism was a populist movement- but it never enjoyed anything like majority support objectively, and the difference between your neighbors disappearing in the night versus a gun battle as the SS tries to disappear them may have increased anti-Nazi sentiments by making obvious exactly what was happening.

"Greater civilian German knowledge"?

You mean prophetic visions? Or do you assume a low level of anti-semitism among the interwar German population?

Jews were being rounded up and put in camps quite openly long before they mass-extermination campaigns began.

I'll admit I didn't follow the pronouns in your first point, so I can't address it. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

As far as your second point, sure, everyone knew the Jews were being taken away. But the difference between knowing people are going somewhere else at the government's behest and knowing the government is killing them is night and day. Case in point; if Americans saw their government sending police officers to arrest known illegal immigrants and deport them, that's a completely different matter than armed police killing said immigrants in a hail of gunfire. Or armed resistance to said killings by said immigrants.

[Conserative Morality]

I'll admit I didn't follow the pronouns in your first point, so I can't address it. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

Germans largely blamed the Jews for such-and-such faults over the past 20, 30, 400 years (fuggin European anti-semitism).

The Jews are thus perceived as a negative element that should not be trusted.

Arming them would make them more dangerous, and thus not only untrustworthy, but able to be a threat.

German officers, having learned from WW1 that partisans are terribly unhelpful bastards, would likely not oppose striking first before the Jews could organize and cause trouble on a larger scale while they're trying to focus on campaigns outside of Germany.

As far as your second point, sure, everyone knew the Jews were being taken away. But the difference between knowing people are going somewhere else at the government's behest and knowing the government is killing them is night and day. Case in point; if Americans saw their government sending police officers to arrest known illegal immigrants and deport them, that's a completely different matter than armed police killing said immigrants in a hail of gunfire. Or armed resistance to said killings by said immigrants.

You see, that's the thing, though. The German population didn't know and, in many cases, simply did not care. Hell, there are people who wouldn't care here in the States, and we don't run massive propaganda campaigns dehumanizing immigrants.

Simply arming every Jew wouldn't've made any major difference in the end, and it's questionable if it would've even made a minor difference.

When the DHS come to arrest Johnny the illegal immigrant, do you think he's going to answer his door with his AK and get mowed down on a matter of principle? Or is going to try to run, or argue his way out, or accept detainment either as a transit point to returning to normal life or as a better alternative than getting shot up?

[The United Territories of Providence]

Speaking objectively, since there is a non-zero chance I'd vote for the GOP nominee...Donald Trump may be...Donald Trump, but Ben Carson is the most absurd candidate in the cycle. On either side. It scares and amazes me that with so little media coverage (positive coverage at least), he polls 2nd to the "front runner"....what's going on with the party? Surely there are outsiders and populists who can make statements and form policies that are reasonable yet conservative. I don't even mean milquetoast moderation like Kasich, or faux moderation like Bush...but social and fiscal conservatism. What does it say about the party when 4 sitting United States Senators, The runner up for the 2012 nomination, and 7 Governors...can't hold a candle to a neurosurgeon who seems to have foot in mouth syndrome?

He said our Healthcare law was worse than slavery, homosexuality is a choice because...you know...prison, and as an evangelical christian who claims to be lead by faith...he said Muslims were unqualified for the presidency because they can't separate their beliefs from the job and Islam is inconsistent with America but he'd vote for a Muslim if they supported Christian principles and "the Judeo-Christian values America was founded on". Then my personal favorite, when asked if Barack Obama was a "Real black president" he says "he is black and the president".

[Grave_n_idle]

You're going to lead with arguing ad adsurdum? That's your response? Please, at least be intellectually honest if you're going to post.

You made a bunch of stuff up. I pointed out you'd made a load of stuff up, and I made some stuff up too.

While my examples were absurd (as were yours) - that's not actually what an ad absurdum fallacy is.

As for your statement that "other Germans" didn't fight back, you are, inadvertently or not, ignoring tens of thousands of Germans who were killed by the Nazis for doing just that.

I'm not ignoring it. For the most part, Germans were complicit, and when they fought back - as even your source says - it was decentralised political strategy and the occasional act of disorganised sabotage.

Anyway, the Jews didn't resist militarily because they couldn't- they didn't have the arms, or the inclination at the time.

When Jews did have the opportunity to fight back, they still tended not to. And I'm not saying it's something that's specific to Jews - it's a phenomenon seen over and over again, among just about every population.

But if they did have the arms, we're still looking at a different picture. That's my "fairy stories". What are yours? The Jews deserved it because their culture is pacifistic, so no other course in history could have been taken?

No, 'the Jews deserved it' isn't my story. (Indeed, if you review my post history and search for my ethnic origins, you'll see I'm Jewish on one side of my family, and of Gypsy origin on the other side - those people would have been my people).

My story is that the Nazis were a popular and populist party (this requires no reaching for hypotheticals), and that the Jews and other Germans either didn't resist, actively or passively accepted it, or engaged in token resistance. That's not something I'm having to speculate (unlike yours) - that's just what happened.

[Marylandonia]

On the other GOP frontrunner, there is this from GQ:

http://www.gq.com/story/fuck-ben-carson

[Hydesland]

My story is that the Nazis were a popular and populist party (this requires no reaching for hypotheticals), and that the Jews and other Germans either didn't resist, actively or passively accepted it, or engaged in token resistance. That's not something I'm having to speculate (unlike yours) - that's just what happened.

I did study German history briefly, and my recollection is that there was absolutely no consensus about whether the Nazis were actually popular, or whether the citizens were too terrified to criticize the party or do any form of dissent due to the country essentially being under a massive police state, with the gestapo hanging people for things as minor as listening to swing music.

[Diopolis]

Speaking objectively, since there is a non-zero chance I'd vote for the GOP nominee...Donald Trump may be...Donald Trump, but Ben Carson is the most absurd candidate in the cycle. On either side. It scares and amazes me that with so little media coverage (positive coverage at least), he polls 2nd to the "front runner"....what's going on with the party? Surely there are outsiders and populists who can make statements and form policies that are reasonable yet conservative. I don't even mean milquetoast moderation like Kasich, or faux moderation like Bush...but social and fiscal conservatism. What does it say about the party when 4 sitting United States Senators, The runner up for the 2012 nomination, and 7 Governors...can't hold a candle to a neurosurgeon who seems to have foot in mouth syndrome?

He said our Healthcare law was worse than slavery, homosexuality is a choice because...you know...prison, and as an evangelical christian who claims to be lead by faith...he said Muslims were unqualified for the presidency because they can't separate their beliefs from the job and Islam is inconsistent with America but he'd vote for a Muslim if they supported Christian principles and "the Judeo-Christian values America was founded on". Then my personal favorite, when asked if Barack Obama was a "Real black president" he says "he is black and the president".

That last thing seems like a reasonable answer to an absurd question.

[Ashmoria]

Speaking objectively, since there is a non-zero chance I'd vote for the GOP nominee...Donald Trump may be...Donald Trump, but Ben Carson is the most absurd candidate in the cycle. On either side. It scares and amazes me that with so little media coverage (positive coverage at least), he polls 2nd to the "front runner"....what's going on with the party? Surely there are outsiders and populists who can make statements and form policies that are reasonable yet conservative. I don't even mean milquetoast moderation like Kasich, or faux moderation like Bush...but social and fiscal conservatism. What does it say about the party when 4 sitting United States Senators, The runner up for the 2012 nomination, and 7 Governors...can't hold a candle to a neurosurgeon who seems to have foot in mouth syndrome?

He said our Healthcare law was worse than slavery, homosexuality is a choice because...you know...prison, and as an evangelical christian who claims to be lead by faith...he said Muslims were unqualified for the presidency because they can't separate their beliefs from the job and Islam is inconsistent with America but he'd vote for a Muslim if they supported Christian principles and "the Judeo-Christian values America was founded on". Then my personal favorite, when asked if Barack Obama was a "Real black president" he says "he is black and the president".

That last thing seems like a reasonable answer to an absurd question.

its as terrible a question as "is the president a Christian?" is.

"yes" is the only answer and I don't think it would satisfy the person asking it.

[Trump Stumper]

Why people support Trump? Is this some short of joke, or protest? Because I don't find it funny at all.

Because there are people who are sick with the bureaucrats in Washington, and people want someone like me to kick them out, like I'm going to kick out the Mexican rapists.

You're too much of a lightweight to understand, so you're fired.

Make America Great Again!