BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Oldbear83 said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Osodecentx said:
From WaPo:
He spreads hate online and fans pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars
The far-right influencer Nick Fuentes has pocketed roughly $900,000 from "fanatical" donors since the start of 2025. Some superfans see him as part of their families.
He has no ads or sponsors. The show is completely funded by fans. At the end of every show, fans send money with a message or question and he responds to it. It's good stuff
Do you agree with Nick regarding Trump? Do you agree with him regarding JD Vance and his geet wife? Are you gonna vote Dem as he has suggested in the midterms? Do you think Hitler was awesome, like Nick?
Probably, but he talks about Trump and JD Vance every night so you need to be more specific.
As for voting, I'll probably sit out. I'm not voting Republican unless they're America First. I'm done with the MAGA-class, they're goyim. Philly is deep blue so it doesnt really matter anyway.
Using awesome as an adjective, as defined by Oxford, I think Hitler was awesome.
Thanks. Let me clarify. It appears Nick no longer supports Trump, and I know he's said he will not vote for Vance, in part, because his wife is a "geet," which is a slang or derogatory term for an Indian. Do you feel the same? Would you refrain from voting for someone because he or she is married to a different race?
So you are not voting Republican in the midterms unless they are "America First," however, you define that. What about in the general in 2028? Ok seeing another lefty get elected rather than someone like Vance or Rubio?
Merriam Webster defines "Awesome" as "inspiring awe," with "awe" described as "veneration and wonder." Other dictionaries have described "awesome" as "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc."
With these definitions in mind, in what ways do you find Hitler worthy of "veneration, wonder," and an "overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration"?
Yeah, I no longer support Trump or his movement, for the most part.
As it stands currently, I will not vote for JD Vance as I believe he's a plant from Silicon Valley (Peter Thiel). As for Usha, if I had to guess she probably supports birthright citizenship as she is an anchor baby herself. So does Vance actually support ending birthright citizenship or is this another one of his "flip-flop" opinions?
America First is essentially the same ideas of MAGA, but maybe more focus on race and anti-interventionist ideas. Think of James Fishback. 2028 is too far to worry about though.
We've talked about Hitler before so I won't repeat myself. He's one of the great men of History, I like him more than Stalin, less than Napoleon.
I don't like Donald Trump as a person, but he is not only the elected President, he's the only leader I see actually trying to fix this mess. The others make a lot of noise, usually for their own ego (like Senator Graham), while some may mean well but lack follow-through or the ability to build enough support to advance action.
I think 2028 will take care of itself. The primaries, at least on the GOP side where there is still some attempt to let voters choose, will test candidates' ability to make their case, and Vance, Rubio or whomever wants the nomination will shake out through the process.
As for Hitler, I think people miss the distinction between definition of words and connotation of words. The word 'awesome' may have a variety of definitions, but in common parlance the word 'awesome' is clearly used to show strong approval. Anyone using that word to describe the leader of the Nazi Party and its subsequent industrial murder of innocents, would therefore legitimately be considered to be a Nazi in spirit.
The GOP is experiencing a lot of changes right now, it's better to go through it now than later. I predict the party will be more united in 2028.
But I agree, I don't like playing the word definition game, it's silly and I have made my opinion clear on Hitler/Nazis. I think skinheads are cringe, but the actual Nazis were an impressive people. I thought it went without saying but I don't support locking innocent people in disease-ridden labor camps. Unfortunately those things tend to happen in war.
So the Holocaust is just kind of a thing that "tends to happen in war," in your opinion? Sounds like you believe we can't really blame Germany or Hitler's fault, or at least we should give them a bit of a pass for it, since it happens in war, and all.
The labor camps were originally intended for political prisoners, they evolved as things escalated, particularly the war. It's sad that regular civilians had to die but this is not exclusive to Germany.
FDR threw the Japanese into camps, Stalin threw his opponents into the Gulag, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and threw his opponents into jail.
The highlighted statement is an interesting choice of words. Did the Jews "have" to die, in your book? Did Hitler "have" to round up the Jews in Germany, Czechoslovakia and the rest of German-occupied Europe and put them in concentration camps? I would argue he did not. I would be interested to hear what you think.
As for FDR, yes he did, and it was one of the great potmarks on his presidency. That said, FDR didn't send any of the Japanese to the gas chambers, nor did he put them in conditions in which they starved to death and died of disease. So there is a significant distinction between what Hitler did to the Jews, and what FDR did to the Japs.
With respect to Stalin, indeed, I would argue he was just as evil as Hitler, and certainly a heinous person (like Hitler) not worthy of any respect or awe.
Hitler didn't have to round up anyone, nor did any of the other respective leaders.
At face value, Hitler rounding up Jews with intention of throwing them into death camps is pretty nefarious, nor do I support it. However, I do question the actual number of deaths as well as the methods used. It's worth a discussion.
You say "at face value" it was "nefarious," which suggests that you believe if we dig deeper, what Hitler did may not have been so nefarious. Can you explain?
And does it make Hitler did less nefarious if, say, only a million Jews died in the gas chambers? Does it mitigate or excuse some of his conduct, in your mind?
Hm, good question. What's the difference between the Holocaust, Holodomor, Trail of Tears, and Irish Potato Famine?
If the Irish Potato famine was even slightly intentional by the British, shall we treat them the same as Nazis? Or does size and scale matter more than intent?
Well, I can think of several key distinctions:
We know for sure that Hitler and the Nazi leadership intentionally murdered Jews. We have the documents evidencing his support for the Final Solution, as well as eye-witnesses testimony wherein Nazi leadership clearly called for the genocide of the Jews, as they saw it as the only way to rid the world of what they considered a scourge - the Jewish people.
With respect to Holdomor, we know that it was a man-made famine, but we don't have the clear and unequivocal evidence that Stalin understood the end result. Now, I don't put it past him - he was every bit as evil as Hitler - but there isn't the unequivocal evidence and writings that directly establish intentionality.
The same can be said of the Trail of Tears. Did Andrew Jackson (an awful man, IMO) know that it would lead to mass deaths of Indians? Potentially. Jackson was a bad person, IMO, but we really have no direct evidence that he was intending to kill Indians, as we clearly do with the Nazis. That said, I would say that the world views the Trail of Tears as despicable, much like it does the Holocaust.
Same goes for the Irish Potato Famine. In fact, we don't even know if that famine was man-made. That was caused by blight running through the potatoes.
So, the big distinction between all of these tragedies is the evidence of intentionality. We know the Germans intended to ethnically cleanse the world of Jews, and we have documents supporting that, in addition to eye-witness accounts from Nazi leadership.
But it does seem from your comments that you're not happy with the amount of attention the Holocaust gets as compared to other tragedies. I am curious as to your motivations. Can you tell us why it is important to engage in moral equivalency when it comes to the Holocaust? Do you feel the need to downplay the Holocaust, and if so, can you tell us why? I really am curious as to the underlying motivations.
