Donald Trump made a claim at his rally on Saturday that had people worrying about what he meant. Trump, who spoke in Mosinee, Wisconsin, was called out by CNN for a "lie" about transgender kids. But he also made another statement that caught the attention of political observers on social media, ...
  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.worldEnglish
    173·
    2 months ago

    “I better win or you’re gonna have problems like we’ve never had. We may have no country left,” Trump said at his weekend swing-state rally. “This may be our last election. You want to know the truth? People have said that. This could be our last election.”

    It’s always projection with him and his supporters.

    Side note: the thumbnail on this article has priceless meme potential.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    71·
    2 months ago

    The GOP seemed like it might have been turning against Trump (since, you know, he lost). And then it didn’t, and everyone was back to groveling at his feet. They had his name in lights at the RNC as if he was Roxy from Chicago.

    They deserve the candidate they ran with.

  • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
    67·
    2 months ago

    Since 1930s Germany is mentioned, it also didn’t really work there. Hitler only won with 35 percent of the popular vote. So Trump in the US is already more popular as Hitler was then.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      That statement kind of elides the whole electoral and legislative structure of the Weimar Republic at the time, though. It was a parliamentary system (whose legislative body was - and was again, after the fall of the Third Reich - the Reichstag). So in point of fact, though the NSDAP (the Nazi Party) received a plurality of the votes in the WR’s last three elections, nobody “voted for Hitler”. So the analogy of political tribalism being leveraged by a fascist party with a fascist cult-of-personality head actually holds up a good bit better than the numbers you present here might lead one to assume.

      It’s fair to point out that the NSDAP sort of formed around Hitler, where as the GOP (“Weimar” Republicans? Might have to start using that as a sneaky jab in conversation, hah) was subsumed by Trumpism, but all he really did was to turn the quiet parts of their platform up to 11 and emphasize populist and tribal (not as in “First Nation”) sentiments. However, I’d argue that that makes the GOP/Trump combination a good bit more insidious than the NSDAP - especially considering how much the GOP loves to lean on the technically-true-but-deeply-misleading line of “we’re the party that ended slavery”, since it utterly ignores the ideological shift of the party over the intervening 160 or so years.

      Note: absolutely none of this should be construed in any way as Nazi apologia. It is simply a technical clarification on the system of government and the electoral and leadership-selection mechanics that existed in the Weimar Republic at the time, and my thoughts as to how that matches up with some parts of our current situation, in terms of the political analogies.

      • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
        11·
        2 months ago

        Absolutely correct, as a German it just irks me that the popular belief about Hitler Germany was that all Germans were in favour of it. Many very much weren’t, at least at the beginning before all media was turned into a pure propaganda apparatus.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 months ago

        France is a bit more analogous. The left had the most votes and Macron just appointed the conservatives to be Prime Minister.

    • Blackout@fedia.io
      20·
      2 months ago

      Kind of scary to think if we had parliamentary type elections Trump has a dedicated 35. There may be a larger coalition of liberal parties still but this election wouldn’t be the moratorium of Trump as we hope it turns out. Him and his party would win a substantial amount of seats.

      Then you see the example Macron in France just set. Overwhelming liberal victory and he’s handing the PM spot to a very old, homophobic conservative.

      • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
        20·
        2 months ago

        Hitler could only take over because the conservatives were more afraid of the communists and thought they could control Hitler and use him. He used them instead.

        Something similar seems to happen again now in Germany.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
          15·
          2 months ago

          Hitler Trump could only take over because the conservatives were more afraid of the communists the left and thought they could control Hitler Trump and use him. He used them instead.

          As the other comment or noted, that still works for trump. That’s basically 2016 in a nutshell

        • Blackout@fedia.io
          11·
          2 months ago

          That kind of talk has been consistent with the conservatives now too. The big bad scary socialist coming to the white house to destroy the economy. Same playbook. My point stands

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        8·
        2 months ago

        Hitler only became Chancellor because “moderates” were more afraid to form a coalition with leftists than allow a fascist to rise to power. Sound familiar?

        If we had a parliamentary system, we would have been able to organize a much larger coalition against Trump, especially the second time around.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    53·
    2 months ago

    Well, it made me turn off ad blockers then the ads crashed my tab.

    But it sounded like it’s republicans overacting and mad at democrats because we’re “letting” trump run instead of a candidate who would have a better chance to beat Kamala?

    They’re just jealous we dropped our geriatric candidate and they couldn’t.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      101·
      2 months ago

      They’re just jealous we dropped our geriatric candidate and they couldn’t.

      to be honest the GOP lost the chance to be free of Trump when their senators refused to convict him after the Jan 6 impeachment.

      They could have been free of him. they could have put this party above their own personal power. but nope. They chose this. They chose him over america.

      They chose an insurrectionist asshole. a misogynist. a racist. a rapist. a bigot in every way. A geriatric fascist prick.

      which, all this besides, Trump could back out any time he wanted to. just like Biden did. But that also would put America before his own personal power.

      TL/DR:

      THEY DESERVE EACH OTHER

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        2 months ago

        I mean, they also could’ve convicted him after his first impeachment, too. Or they could’ve 25th’d him, or they could’ve not stacked the Federal judiciary with partisan traitors like Judge Cannon, or any number of things that would’ve entailed acting in good faith for the good of the country instead of blatantly trying to seize power at all costs. They had plenty of chances and rejected them all.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          2 months ago

          all of which happened before the Jan 6 impeachment and senate trial. They and him are the same.

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        2 months ago

        to be honest the GOP lost the chance to be free of Trump when their senators refused to convict him after the Jan 6 impeachment.

        I think they lost their chance when he won in 2016. He has so thoroughly captured their base that ousting him would certainly lose them the next several elections, if they ever could fully recover. That’s not to say it’s not 100% on the GOP, he’s the consequence of decades of pandering to the far-right. I’m convinced they could have gotten rid of him before 2016 as well, but the conservatives thought they could control Hitler again and now he’s got them by the balls.

      • ...m...@ttrpg.network
        2·
        2 months ago

        …well, he can’t back out: his 2016 win was the unintentional outcome of a failed media campaign gone awry, and everything since then has been a mad scramble to avoid prosecution for all the laws he broke along the way and to keep uncle vlad’s kompromat at bay…

        …once he loses executive immunity or outlives his usefuless, his whole world comes crashing down: you’ve seen the panic in eyes since late 2016, and most of the remaining GOP have since come along for the same ride…

  • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    2 months ago

    The relevant:

    “I better win or you’re gonna have problems like we’ve never had. We may have no country left,” Trump said at his weekend swing-state rally. “This may be our last election. You want to know the truth? People have said that. This could be our last election.”

    Eh. The article goes on to quote pundits who claim he’s threatening voters – that if he doesn’t win, he’s gonna do something to end democracy.

    Seems kind of overblown to me. First, Trump would have to do something (laugh) and second, this is normal posturing. If you elect the other person, it’s doom and gloom, if you elect me it’s 4 more years of good times. These folks would have watched LBJ’s Daisy and concluded that LBJ was planning to nuke the country if he didn’t win.

    People trying to make sense of Trump’s incomprehensible blather are always gonna come out looking silly.

      • Skvlp@lemm.ee
        19·
        2 months ago

        Exactly. Trump is projecting. His lot will move to end elections if they win, so they accuse the opponent of wanting to end elections.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      everyone is overcomplicating this imo. in the context of the last 3.5 years, clearly this is just trump saying democrats will “steal” every future election if he doesn’t win this year.

      • rayyy@lemmy.world
        16·
        2 months ago

        saying democrats will “steal” every future election

        It goes way beyond that. His threats are intended to evoke all sorts of emotions and fears - that’s why he keeps them so vague. An accomplished conman like him knows how to work his marks.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 months ago

          it is. caught on after Biden called him that. as jabba the cunt is someone who loves seeing and hearing his own name everywhere, some people use ways other than his name to refer to him. TFG is one of them.

          of course there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be interpreted as this fucking guy/goon/git etc

        • ...m...@ttrpg.network
          2·
          2 months ago

          …i’ve always read it as the former guy but presumed that folks embrace the ambiguity of that f*cking guy…

          • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
            2·
            2 months ago

            I could have worded it a little better, some may have read it as he’ll be in office soon (no longer former) where I meant it as he’s more former than former, the former guy once removed, or something.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    8·
    2 months ago

    “Outside of 1930s Germany I am not aware of that working anywhere else,” Richards added.

    Um, no, that works all over the place.