Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[TheNewNo2]

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

Hoo boy...

 

[EM2]

His button is not 'much bigger'. He just has much smaller hands.

 

[NSEFAN]

Hoo boy...

So we are currently at the stage of "my dad will beat your dad up no problem!!"

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Churchill was hated by his own party, opposition party, and press. Feared by King as reckless, and despised for his bluntness. But unlike Neville Chamberlain, he didn't retreat. We had a Chamberlain for 8 yrs; in @realDonaldTrump we have a Churchill.

Did this man conveniently forget about the fact that Churchill loved the Empire and who could arguably be compared to the Nazis? If my history is correct, Hitler partially modelled his treatment of Jews after British treatment of Indians, people who Churchill didn’t particularly like.

 

[DarloRich]

Did this man conveniently forget about the fact that Churchill loved the Empire and who could arguably be compared to the Nazis? If my history is correct, Hitler partially modelled his treatment of Jews after British treatment of Indians, people who Churchill didn’t particularly like.

eh? which world do you live in? While the British Raj wasn't the most benign of regimes I am fairly certain we didn't round up people and gas them by the million...................

EDIT - plus whichever yank was wibbling on was wrong. Trump is unlike Churchill in almost every conceivable way. Mind you Trump, like Churchill, has changed sides a couple of times

 

[TheNewNo2]

Did this man conveniently forget about the fact that Churchill loved the Empire and who could arguably be compared to the Nazis? If my history is correct, Hitler partially modelled his treatment of Jews after British treatment of Indians, people who Churchill didn’t particularly like.

No, he just never knew. That's nuance and Trump doesn't do nuance. He's a senile old man who no one has never told no to.

As a side note, Trump used to keep a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

eh? which world do you live in?

I wish I could say one that wasn’t destroying itself and being aware of it while doing absolutely nothing about it. Sadly I don’t, I live in the same world as you where people just aren’t worth saving at this point.

No, he just never knew. That's nuance and Trump doesn't do nuance. He's a senile old man who no one has never told no to.

As a side note, Trump used to keep a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed.

I don’t expect them to have known really, even if they did it wouldn’t have been a very convenient for them to say it.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wish I could say one that wasn’t destroying itself and being aware of it while doing absolutely nothing about it. Sadly I don’t, I live in the same world as you where people just aren’t worth saving at this point.

What’s that got to do with you comparing Churchill to Hitler?!

I’m a strident anti-imperialist and in no way would I compare Hitler and Churchill and suggest they are similar. Madness.

 

[TheNewNo2]

What’s that got to do with you comparing Churchill to Hitler?!

I’m a strident anti-imperialist and in no way would I compare Hitler and Churchill and suggest they are similar. Madness.

One can quite easily compare the two. They were similar. They both led their countries through WW2, they were both excellent orators, they served in their country's military, they are both remembered in a mostly one-dimensional way.

But yeah, we're all going to die. Still, a nuclear attack was one of my predictions in the 2018 predictions thread, so as the flesh is seared from my bones in a nuclear firestorm, I will at least die knowing I was right.

 

[trash80]

eh? which world do you live in? While the British Raj wasn't the most benign of regimes I am fairly certain we didn't round up people and gas them by the million...................

Wasn't it Iraqi Kurds who Churchill has gassed?

 

[ainsworth74]

so as the flesh is seared from my bones in a nuclear firestorm

You hope. Whilst there are certainly enough weapons left to ensure an end to civilisation my concern these days is that there aren't enough left to ensure that most will die quickly during exchange of nuclear weapons and instead will have to suffer death by radiation sickness, disease and starvation instead.

 

[ainsworth74]

Wasn't it Iraqi Kurds who Churchill has gassed?

No that was Saddam.

Churchill was, however, a strong proponent of using them:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

Source

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

One can quite easily compare the two. They were similar. They both led their countries through WW2, they were both excellent orators, they served in their country's military, they are both remembered in a mostly one-dimensional way.

In bold, that is definitely the case in this country. Hitler is mostly viewed and taught as the evil psychopath with no single good bone in his body while Churchill is a perfect hero who strongly stood against everything Hitler stood for and is a national treasure everyone should love. As a matter of fact, Hitler had a bit of good in him as a person, but he was very reserved and only really showed it to those closest to him. If you were to go back and ask Eva Braun and I don't think she'd say he was a terrible person (which, to some, kind of reflects on the type of person she is). Churchill also wasn't perfect, in fact as a person I've not heard the best things about him either, such as him being in favour of the use of gas or possibly being a bit of a drunk.

For the most part, Hitler and Churchill aren't viewed for the kind of people they were in private, but rather what they did in public, as with everyone likely would. But strictly speaking, it doesn't matter, because Churchill will always be viewed as a hero because history is decided by the winners. Stalin for example isn't viewed anywhere near as poorly as Hitler despite twice the number of people being killed, and on the whole Communists aren't seen as bad as Nazis despite the total death count being over 100 million with the former (but any supporter will tell you it wasn't really Communism). Even the atrocities of the British Empire don't seem to be taught in any schools, it certainly wasn't taught to me when I did history. I didn't even know they ran a third of the world until year nine.

All this is because history was won by our side, and as such it is often taught in a very one-sided manner. They'll teach you about the gas chambers, but never about the gulags, and they'll also never tell you who actually invented concentration camps in the first place. Dare I even say that good and evil aren't constant either, but rather defined by those in power?

 

[kermit]

Is it a sign of our collective weary resignation to the situation in America, that this thread has been dormant since Wednesday, despite all that has happened? Trump has now tweeted that he is "A very stable genius". It feels like we are entering the most dangerous phase yet of this mad, mad presidency.

 

[nlogax]

Is it a sign of our collective weary resignation to the situation in America, that this thread has been dormant since Wednesday, despite all that has happened? Trump has now tweeted that he is "A very stable genius". It feels like we are entering the most dangerous phase yet of this mad, mad presidency.

Nothing he does or says surprises me anymore. Since November 2016 I've gone through denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance and I'm now at 'meh, at least three more damned years of this, pass me the single malt'.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Is it a sign of our collective weary resignation to the situation in America, that this thread has been dormant since Wednesday, despite all that has happened? Trump has now tweeted that he is "A very stable genius". It feels like we are entering the most dangerous phase yet of this mad, mad presidency.

It is a problem. The reason Trump got through the election is that he had so many scandals there wasn't time to focus on any one of them the way email security became a major topic. We as humans have limited capacity for outrage. It's not that Trump is any less outrageous - in fact, as I saw someone comment earlier, the way he started his campaign (saying that Mexicans were rapists, John McCain wasn't a war hero) was actually him on good behaviour.

This is how Trump wins. He exhausts the rest of us.

 

[kermit]

It is a problem. The reason Trump got through the election is that he had so many scandals there wasn't time to focus on any one of them the way email security became a major topic. We as humans have limited capacity for outrage. It's not that Trump is any less outrageous - in fact, as I saw someone comment earlier, the way he started his campaign (saying that Mexicans were rapists, John McCain wasn't a war hero) was actually him on good behaviour.

This is how Trump wins. He exhausts the rest of us.

Spot on. A very persuasive and perceptive analysis.

 

[fowler9]

I have read some exerts from this recent book about him that are at least very concerning. We get the government we deserve though so in general it is probably all of our fault. It would be foolish to think the same doesn't happen in our country. Our foreign minister is a f**king joke. We are actively trying to leave one of the biggest trading blocks in the world and buddy up with Trumps Murica which is never going to happen because they are also isolationist. When the world ends I just hope its quick and I'm drunk. This will probably happen soon given the leader of the free world is Tweeting, "Tweeting" for f**cks sake that he has the most powerful nuclear button. It is like someone took Doctor Strangelove and made him more insane.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Compare the intellectual ability of the Donald and Churchill ? - no comparison.

Churchill's love of a cigar, fine brandy and good food makes him rather more likeable than a man who apparently retires to bed at 6pm - has 3 TV screens on the go and decides policy by Twitter , - and supposedly exists on junk food. (and who apparently never reads anything)

Depressing to say the least [

 

[Groningen]

Donald Trump gets his views in the morning mainly from Fox and friends.

 

[ainsworth74]

Donald Trump gets his views in the morning mainly from Fox and friends.

I'm sure someone did an excellent comparison whereby something would be mentioned on Fox and Friends and sure enough a short while later he'd Tweet about it. And it happens again and again and again.

 

[Bromley boy]

They were similar. They both led their countries through WW2, they were both excellent orators, they served in their country's military, they are both remembered in a mostly one-dimensional way.

But that could be said of many leaders of that era. It doesn't make them similar.

Churchill was, however, a strong proponent of using them:

This is true but it should be remembered that Churchill was an upper-class Victorian who lived through the height of empire, the Boer War and the First World War. It's hardly surprising that he held views which, although unpalletable to modern standards, would have been considered mainstream at the time.

That in no way makes him comparable to Hitler and the Nazis as some have on this thread. Oswald Mosley on the other hand...

 

[Busaholic]

To compare Churchill with Hitler is akin to comparing Abraham Lincoln with Trump : breathing the same air and having the same bodily functions about sums it up.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

To compare Churchill with Hitler is akin to comparing Abraham Lincoln with Trump : breathing the same air and having the same bodily functions about sums it up.

I can't speak for Lincoln and Trump, but Churchill and Hitler have a little more in common than basic organic functions. I am currently reading this article on the BBC, and it certainly brings up a few things to think about.

In regards to racial hierarchy and eugenics...

Churchill certainly believed in racial hierarchies and eugenics, says John Charmley, author of Churchill: The End of Glory. In Churchill's view, white protestant Christians were at the top, above white Catholics, while Indians were higher than Africans, he adds. "Churchill saw himself and Britain as being the winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy."

"The mitigation would be that he wasn't particularly unique in having these views," says Richard Toye, author of Churchill's Empire, "even though there were many others who didn't hold them."

Soames thinks it is ludicrous to attack Churchill. "You're talking about one of the greatest men the world has ever seen, who was a child of the Edwardian age and spoke the language of [it]."

And Churchill's views on race were incomparable to Hitler's murderous interpretation of racial hierarchy, Toye says. "Although Churchill did think that white people were superior, that didn't mean he necessarily thought it was OK to treat non-white people in an inhumane way."

In regards to use of gas...

Churchill has been criticised for advocating the use of chemical weapons - primarily against Kurds and Afghans.

"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued.

These quotes have been used by critics such as Noam Chomsky to attack Churchill.

But the controversy is misplaced, says Warren Dockter, a research fellow at the University of Cambridge and the author of Winston Churchill and the Islamic World. "What he was proposing to use in Mesopotamia was lachrymatory gas, which is essentially tear gas, not mustard gas."

In regards to the treatment of Jews...

In 2012 there were objections to a proposed Churchill Centre in Jerusalem on the basis that he was "no stranger to the latent anti-Semitism of his generation and class".

Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, countered that "he was familiar with the Zionist ideal and supported the idea of a Jewish state".

But being anti-Semitic and a Zionist are not incompatible, says Charmley.

"Churchill with no doubt at all was a fervent Zionist," he says, "a fervent believer in the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own and that state should be in what we then called Palestine."

But he also "shared the low-level casual anti-Semitism of his class and kind", he says. If we judged everyone of that era by the standards of 21st Century political correctness, they'd all be guilty, he notes. "It shouldn't blind us to the bigger picture."

That's just part of the whole article, but these are some key points that one could use to argue the case that Churchill is somewhat comparable to Hitler. I will let you read the whole article yourself and make your own choice as to what arguments you think hold the most ground, but there's no doubt he's a controversial figure for some people.

 

[Bromley boy]

I can't speak for Lincoln and Trump, but Churchill and Hitler have a little more in common than basic organic functions. I am currently reading this article on the BBC, and it certainly brings up a few things to think about.

In regards to racial hierarchy and eugenics...



In regards to use of gas...



In regards to the treatment of Jews...



That's just part of the whole article, but these are some key points that one could use to argue the case that Churchill is somewhat comparable to Hitler. I will let you read the whole article yourself and make your own choice as to what arguments you think hold the most ground, but there's no doubt he's a controversial figure for some people.

Anyone arguing Churchill was similar to Hitler in any meaningful way needs to check their history. Churchill wasn't a fascist, a national socialist, nor a dictator.

In 50 or 100 years time people will look back on our views today with very different eyes. All of the views discussed in the article seem unpalletable by our modern standards but would not have been seen as particularly extreme or even unusual in Churchill's time. Eugenics was a popular theory during the first part of the 20th century, including in the UK and US, and was by no means exclusive to Nazi Germany.

The use of gas seems to be concerned with tear gas rather than (lethal) mustard gas (Churchill would have been well aware of the difference having lived through WW1).

Even the cited attack on Churchill's anti Semitsm merely notes he was "no stranger to the latent anti-Semitsm of his generation and class" (my emphasis).

Churchill was a high born Victorian, conservative politician and member of the British political establishment during the early part of the 20th century. He would have undoubtedly held views that today we would consider mysogynistic, racist, and just about every other ist and ism under the sun.

As I said earlier Oswald Mosley is a far better example of a contemporary aristocratic British politician with striking similarities to (and publicly expressed support for) Hitler.

As for a spivvy Labour candidate trying to score political points by attacking Churchill in 2015, well that speaks volumes about his own ignorance and how far the Labour Party has fallen.

 

[Cowley]

To compare Churchill with Hitler is akin to comparing Abraham Lincoln with Trump : breathing the same air and having the same bodily functions about sums it up.

Absolutely.

Churchill adapted and changed over his lifetime and regretted the mistakes that he’d made when in a position of power as a young man.
It was all they could do to stop him leading the soldiers onto the beaches in Normandy when the Allies were ready to push back into Europe.
He can be criticised for some of the things he did, but if he hadn’t been who he was when he was, then Europe and in fact the world, would be a far far darker place nowadays.

That custard cream that’s in the White House now, thankfully hasn’t got the wit or intelligence to carry through many of the (vindictive) policies that he’d like. He’s behaving exactly like what he actually is, which is a spoilt overgrown child that nobody’s ever said No to.
This week has actually been properly damaging for him (thankfully) and in my opinion (for what it’s worth), I think he’s now firmly holed below the waterline.
The phrase ‘give someone enough rope to hang himself with’ springs to mind.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think he’s now firmly holed below the waterline.

If the Russia enquiry really delivers the goods, he might end up doing time.

Prison would be a far more fitting place for Trump than the White House.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can't speak for Lincoln and Trump, but Churchill and Hitler have a little more in common than basic organic functions. I am currently reading this article on the BBC, and it certainly brings up a few things to think about.

In regards to racial hierarchy and eugenics...



In regards to use of gas...



In regards to the treatment of Jews...



That's just part of the whole article, but these are some key points that one could use to argue the case that Churchill is somewhat comparable to Hitler. I will let you read the whole article yourself and make your own choice as to what arguments you think hold the most ground, but there's no doubt he's a controversial figure for some people.

I think you need to read more thoroughly. On racial hierarchy and eugenics, the article says "The mitigation would be that he wasn't particularly unique in having these views”. A lot of people held these views.

On gas, he was talking about tear gas, not a deadly gas.

On Jews, the article says Churchill merely represented the latent antisemitism of his generation and class.

Churchill was not a particularly unusual person for his time. He was absolutely not like Hitler in any meaningful way, and to suggest he is wouldn’t be a comparison I would expect an educated adult to make.

 

[Cowley]

If the Russia enquiry really delivers the goods, he might end up doing time.

Prison would be a far more fitting place for Trump than the White House.

I could see him getting sectioned after that weird statement about being a stable genius or whatever he said today.
He’s a man so out of his depth that it’s currently only his arrogance keeping him afloat. The water’s seeping in more and more quickly though.

 

[Busaholic]

Of course, Lincoln's end is known, whereas Trump's isn't (yet). It won't occur while he's watching a theatrical production, but then this whole last year has been like a theatrical production, alternately farce and tragedy. If he himself were to suffer a tragic end the tears might be in short supply.