Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[tehdang]

Give us one example of the pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor Nazis being deprived of their civil rights.

I'll quote you:

A continent that was devastated by Nazis in a way not seen since the Black Plague and 300 years worth of religious wars all condensed into a brief 5 years less than 4 generations ago gets to tell Nazis that they don't get the same rights as everyone else.

Breaking THE FUCKING LAW and then being prosecuted for it is not a deprivation of your civil rights. And being a Nazi is (in many places) illegal and if it's not, it should be.

Nazis are not entitled to respect. They are not entitled to civil discourse. They are not entitled to being taken seriously. And they are ESPECIALLY NOT ENTITLED TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE. All that went out the window circa the time they marched the first people into a death camp.

You're just fucking lying. Jesus fuck dude. Take the fucking L. You whiny Nazis.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, and I think I covered my perspective in previous posts as to why this is wrong, dangerous, and anti-historical (particularly ACLU of 60s and 70s).

Nazis don't deserve civil rights. That's where you get hung up, you don't deserve them. Be a better person, but hey maybe I should just be doxxed and threatened and physically assaulted by a few more to just "feel" their plights better?

I see the deft switch to "physically assaulted" here, like depriving people you call Nazis of their civil rights implies that it's now legal to physically assault.

I don't really know if you're fully come to terms with first calling members of this very forum "Nazis" and then saying "Nazis don't deserve civil rights." Do you have to be the target and personally affected before you realize the issue?

Good to know that the hill you will die on is the defense of goddamn fucking Nazis.

I will clothe myself with the ACLU of the 60s and 70s that doubled down on defending the civil rights of Nazis, and proved America will defend the rights of citizens against whatever government or groups seeks to take it away.

You don't want to declare that certain citizens of the country forfeit their civil rights based on ideology. You're handing your enemies the biggest bazooka imaginable. Apparently without realizing the exact same thing happened to different groups all over history.

You know who are the new Nazis, who are worse than the Nazis, and similarly deserve censorship, fines, and jailtime? Just pick your favorite opposition politician and party, and hand them that power. You're doing it blindly, apparently.

[Rasulis]

Which City is safer?

Houston, unlike the majority of major cities across the United States, is seeing an uptick in homicides in 2025, compared to the year before.

As of Monday, Houston had seen 112 homicides, compared to 104 through the same period in 2024, according to the Houston Police Department. A spokesperson for the department stressed the numbers were preliminary and subject to change.

San Francisco, Democratic cesspool, 11 in 2024 through April, 6 in 2025.

Houston population 2.3M and San Francisco 840k - 4 times 6 still does not come close to 112. And San Francisco is the crime-ridden City?

[Mazza]

Why do we care how EU government treats Nazis? The subject of this thread is "Trump Focused Discussion." Personally, I am a US citizen, and I live in the US, and I don't give a hoot how Nazis are treated in EU. I care about the US turning into a crazy fascist country. Not to mention having a lunatic as a president.

I mean, you guys might get ideas from watching us. Who knows, if you keep doing so on top of making being a Nazi illegal you might get some actual affordable healthcare as well! The possibilities!

Sadly, I am not holding my breath on that

[Endus]

I can't force you to recognize the dissonance in calling me a fascist, racist, and Nazi, and then telling me I should have no qualms about laws depriving "Nazis" of civil rights. You can repeat it another 9 times if you'd like, but the gist of your argument is that no caution is necessary.

Oh no. You weren't talking about caution. You were outright condemning laws that criminalize people for taking actions that glorify and champion the Nazi Reich.

I think that your Nazi exemption to civil rights makes you an enemy of civil rights in general.

It's not an "exemption to civil rights", and more than criminalizing child pornography or criminal harassment are. In all three cases, we're talking about forms of speech that do not fall under "protected speech".

Do you think child porn should be legal, too, as it's "just speech"? It's the same bullshit rationale you're using to condemn anti-Nazi laws. So either there's some other reason you're choosing to openly defend and support Nazis, or you're about to admit to being pro-child-porn too. Which is it?

I have an issue with identifying and oppressing the bad in society, since your Nazi will be another's gang members, or religious extremists, or rapists, or whoever else the Elder Millennials of the world decide don't get civil rights. If you thought the road on your logic stopped at Nazi, you're wrong. You're just robbing yourself of weapons when you're the undesirable.

Slippery slope arguments are so obviously fallacious there's a whole well-recognized fallacy with that name. And that's all you're arguing here; that there's some kind of "slippery slope".

Could we decide further forms of speech should not be protected? Sure. There'd have to be justification for that. Like there already is for things like hate speech. You're not taking a position supporting civil rights, here. The existence and expression of Nazism is an inherent attack on civil rights. You're only concerned with the rights and protection of Nazis, and not the many more victims of Nazi rhetoric.

This is not the stand for civil rights you're dishonestly claiming it to be. It's just apologism for and defense of Nazis.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really know if you're fully come to terms with first calling members of this very forum "Nazis" and then saying "Nazis don't deserve civil rights." Do you have to be the target and personally affected before you realize the issue?

Again; do you feel the same way about child pornographers? Do you support their right to free speech including the creation and distribution of child pornography? Or are you capable of understanding why that's not protected speech?

Because once you do, you've admitted you understand that some speech is protected, and some speech is not protected, and your entire precious little lie of an argument here falls completely apart.

We know you don't mean this shit. But who knows, maybe you do stan for child pornographers the same way you stan for Nazis. But if you acknowledge one being unprotected, you've opened the door to other things not falling under protected speech.

Hell, consider threats of violence and/or death. That shouldn't be legal, right? Even though it's just speech? Well, Nazism is threatened violence and death, on whole groups of people. Inherently. That's what Nazi rhetoric is. And if you tell me you only care if they're threatening to kill one Jew, rather than all Jews, you've lost the plot completely and your position is incoherent.

I will clothe myself with the ACLU of the 60s and 70s that doubled down on defending the civil rights of Nazis, and proved America will defend the rights of citizens against whatever government or groups seeks to take it away.

No one gives a shit why you support and defend Nazis, dude. This isn't a high moral road. The ACLU has made some incredibly shitty and unethical arguments in its time.

You don't want to declare that certain citizens of the country forfeit their civil rights based on ideology. You're handing your enemies the biggest bazooka imaginable. Apparently without realizing the exact same thing happened to different groups all over history.

That "bazooka" always exists and it's always loaded. It's currently being actively weaponized by the Trump administration against pro-Palestine protesters and such.

The difference is about who is targeted, and why. Obviously. Context matters, even if you want to pretend it doesn't.

You know who are the new Nazis, who are worse than the Nazis, and similarly deserve censorship, fines, and jailtime? Just pick your favorite opposition politician and party, and hand them that power. You're doing it blindly, apparently.

"The real Nazis are the ones who hate and oppose Nazis".

You're completely fucking ridiculous. Why do you think anyone would take these kind of willfully dishonest ramblings as serious discussion?

[Elder Millennial]

Why do we care how EU government treats Nazis? The subject of this thread is "Trump Focused Discussion." Personally, I am a US citizen, and I live in the US, and I don't give a hoot how Nazis are treated in EU. I care about the US turning into a crazy fascist country. Not to mention having a lunatic as a president.

Because the Trump administration made the defense and promotion of Nazis and Nazi political movements in Europe their fucking flagship contention with the EU.

[Breccia]

And San Francisco is the crime-ridden City?

It is if you want to blame Democrats for something and have no useful context or desire to be honest. Remember, Trump the convicted felon has declared war on spinach-picking migrants who pay taxes, by inventing a fentanyl issue that would have cost 250+ million American lives and requires tariffs on every country except Russia.

[Edge-]

Trump withdraws Surgeon General nomination.

The nominee until one hour ago was the sister-in-law of Michael Waltz, Trump's NSA until a few days ago. There were increasing reports that she lied on her resume, here is one of them. She said her medical degree was from the University of Arkansas and it wasn't.

"Who would lie and say they got their degree in fuckin' Arkansas?"

Someoe who got their degree in the Carribean, apparently.

"Well at least the new person is qualified and trustworthy."

She is a frequent critic of the American medical system that she will be put in a position to directly damage on purpose.

"Well at least she's not a product of nepotism."

Her brother is the top advisor of RFK Jr. and was recommended by Tucker Carlson, known nondoctor.


- Trump on the topic

"MAHA?"

Make America Healthy Again, so named by a 300 pound man who can barely walk or remember his name.

"What are her credentials?"

it's incredible how the "DEI hires are bad" crowd remains silent on how this is the least qualified group of people to occupy the white house ever

it's almost like it was always about racism, sexism, and the fact that it was a "lib" thing and never actually had anything to do with qualifications. ever.

wait

that's exactly what it is

- - - Updated - - -

"The real Nazis are the ones who hate and oppose Nazis".

You're completely fucking ridiculous. Why do you think anyone would take these kind of willfully dishonest ramblings as serious discussion?

It's wild because it's just basically flat-out projection. Which seems incredibly common in modern conservatism.

See Donald sounding like the evil communist Republicans have warned us about for decades - chiding us for having too much and saying we don't need more optoins. Republicans have been warning the US about themselves all along.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/07/nx-s1...ice-of-america

So losing liar cunt Kari Lake who failed to get elected and lost countless lawsuits over it got a "DUI hire" job and all, and wants to turn Voice of America - which we can always acknowledge was American propaganda to a point even if it did a lot of good reporting - into a hypercharged disinformation machine for propaganda -

Senior presidential adviser Kari Lake appears to have resolved any doubts about what she wants to do with the Voice of America.

Lake seeks for it to look and sound a lot like the far-right One America News Network: on Tuesday night she announced that she had struck a deal to serve up the pro-Trump outlet's news reports for Voice of America's foreign audiences, at no taxpayer cost.

"I can ensure our outlets have reliable and credible options as they work to craft their reporting and news programs," Lake wrote on social media posts on Elon Musk's X and on Truth Social. "And every day I look for ways to save American taxpayers money. Bringing in OAN as a video/news source does both." OAN President Charles Herring did not immediately reply to NPR's message seeking confirmation, but he did retweet Lake's post.

Why yes, the same OAN that had to settle over their defamation of Smartmatic last year -

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/media...ent/index.html

I wonder if this is a bit of a shot at Fox, seems like it. But either way, this administration is still filled with awful people doing awful things and promoting other awful people and honestly I don't think there's a single serious, qualified person who hasn't prostrated themselves before Dear Leader in the entire administration.

[Kaleredar]

Which City is safer?

Houston, unlike the majority of major cities across the United States, is seeing an uptick in homicides in 2025, compared to the year before.

As of Monday, Houston had seen 112 homicides, compared to 104 through the same period in 2024, according to the Houston Police Department. A spokesperson for the department stressed the numbers were preliminary and subject to change.

San Francisco, Democratic cesspool, 11 in 2024 through April, 6 in 2025.

Houston population 2.3M and San Francisco 840k - 4 times 6 still does not come close to 112. And San Francisco is the crime-ridden City?

My company (based in Florida) sent a handful of people to a conference in San Francisco last year. They were intending to send more but, and I paraphrase from one of the higher-ups, they were “worried about the city being dangerous” and so only sent a few.

Everyone that went was… get this… perfectly fine.

[Xath]

I'll quote you:




I'm sorry that you feel this way, and I think I covered my perspective in previous posts as to why this is wrong, dangerous, and anti-historical (particularly ACLU of 60s and 70s).

I see the deft switch to "physically assaulted" here, like depriving people you call Nazis of their civil rights implies that it's now legal to physically assault.

I don't really know if you're fully come to terms with first calling members of this very forum "Nazis" and then saying "Nazis don't deserve civil rights." Do you have to be the target and personally affected before you realize the issue?

I will clothe myself with the ACLU of the 60s and 70s that doubled down on defending the civil rights of Nazis, and proved America will defend the rights of citizens against whatever government or groups seeks to take it away.

You don't want to declare that certain citizens of the country forfeit their civil rights based on ideology. You're handing your enemies the biggest bazooka imaginable. Apparently without realizing the exact same thing happened to different groups all over history.

You know who are the new Nazis, who are worse than the Nazis, and similarly deserve censorship, fines, and jailtime? Just pick your favorite opposition politician and party, and hand them that power. You're doing it blindly, apparently.

I'm going to be completely honest here and paraphrase an oft repeated saying during ww2 the only good nazi is a dead nazi and expand that to fascists. When the goal of your political existence is to oppress others based on factors they can't change you need to die as a political movement.

[SAY HER NAME]

Oh shut the fuck up you lying fascist.

Give us one example of the pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor Nazis being deprived of their civil rights.

Breaking THE FUCKING LAW and then being prosecuted for it is not a deprivation of your civil rights. And being a Nazi is (in many places) illegal and if it's not, it should be.

Nazis are not entitled to respect. They are not entitled to civil discourse. They are not entitled to being taken seriously. And they are ESPECIALLY NOT ENTITLED TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE. All that went out the window circa the time they marched the first people into a death camp.

You're just fucking lying. Jesus fuck dude. Take the fucking L. You whiny Nazis.

This is literally tehdangs point. If I made a law that said that its illegal to speak against the dear leader would you be saying that you have civil rights as long as you obey thge law?


You can disagree btw. Thats fine but pointing to the law and saying you broke the law is just lazy analysis

[Endus]

This is literally tehdangs point. If I made a law that said that its illegal to speak against the dear leader would you be saying that you have civil rights as long as you obey thge law?

That's not tehdangs' point, because that's a ridiculous nonsequitur that has absolutely fuck-all to do with anything we've been talking about regarding criminalizing Nazism or just generally criminalizing hate speech more broadly.

I don't believe for a hot second he thought that was his point, because there's no rational connection to be had there. It strips all context out to pretend that anti-Nazism is somehow arbitrary, rather than inherently predicated on the intentional harm it pursues as an integral part of its ideology.

All while trying to bullshit everyone here by pretending the USA has a strong record on civil rights and free speech in particular, which it categorically does not, compared to the rest of the Western World. As already proven.


It should surprise me how fast some of you trip all over yourselves rushing to protect and support Nazis, but here the fuck we are, I guess.

[Breccia]

it's incredible how the "DEI hires are bad" crowd remains silent on how this is the least qualified group of people to occupy the white house ever

Funny you should say that. According to a special investigation concluded and made public just hours before Trump fired her, Nesheiwat was called "unfit" due to her medical malpractice.

"Okay, that's pretty damning normally, maybe less so for convicted fraud Trump."

She also apparently pushed the "China virus vaccine".

"...didn't Trump brag about that for years? That doesn't seem right, either."

The investigation also calls out her "promotion of DEI-focused initiatives implemented through City M.D."

"Ah. Well, who found this out?"

You'd think Trump would have, vetting his candidate and all. No, this was Laura Loomer.

"What credible, trustworthy journalistic source does she work for?"

Twitter.

"No, really."

Info Wars.

"No, really."

Project Veritas. She's also a 9/11 Truther.

"Why would Trump listen to her?"

[ringpriest]

This is literally tehdangs point. If I made a law that said that its illegal to speak against the dear leader would you be saying that you have civil rights as long as you obey thge law?


You can disagree btw. Thats fine but pointing to the law and saying you broke the law is just lazy analysis

What is lazy (and dishonest, if not utterly ignorant) is pretending that criticism of Kim Jong Il (or his would-be North American equivalent) is somehow equivalent in any way whatsoever to promoting Nazi ideology.

[SAY HER NAME]

That's not tehdangs' point, because that's a ridiculous nonsequitur that has absolutely fuck-all to do with anything we've been talking about regarding criminalizing Nazism or just generally criminalizing hate speech more broadly.

I don't believe for a hot second he thought that was his point, because there's no rational connection to be had there. It strips all context out to pretend that anti-Nazism is somehow arbitrary, rather than inherently predicated on the intentional harm it pursues as an integral part of its ideology.

All while trying to bullshit everyone here by pretending the USA has a strong record on civil rights and free speech in particular, which it categorically does not, compared to the rest of the Western World. As already proven.


It should surprise me how fast some of you trip all over yourselves rushing to protect and support Nazis, but here the fuck we are, I guess.

Maybe you guys have been making other points but it follows up from the conversation between Elder Millenial and him. Like he straight up says it

I can't force you to recognize the dissonance in calling me a fascist, racist, and Nazi, and then telling me I should have no qualms about laws depriving "Nazis" of civil rights.

This is his point. That there are laws that deprive people of civil rights. And the response by Elder Millenial is that they broke the law. The entire objection are the laws themselves. If you wanna justify it by saying Paradox of Intolerance or that Europe as a continent is traumatized by WW2 and dont want to repeat that so they are trading off certain liberties for that certainty then thats fine. But the specifics of the argument are laid bare.

I would however point out that using Paradox of Tolerance as an argument also leads to some problematic implications regarding the speech of other people. Muslim communities not being very sympathetic of LGBT orgs. Communists that straight up want to overthrow liberalism and found socialism.

To me Europes restriction on speech are more practical than anything principled and should be viewed as such, they had WW2 and they dont wanna risk that again ever, so they have these restrictive speech rules and bans of political parties. Also for the record Germany has a citizenship test where it has all people that want to acquire citizenship acknowledge Israels right to exist.

[Endus]

Maybe you guys have been making other points but it follows up from the conversation between Elder Millenial and him. Like he straight up says it

This is his point. That there are laws that deprive people of civil rights. And the response by Elder Millenial is that they broke the law.

The conversation didn't start with Elder Millenial. We're not going to just straight-up ignore the rest of the thread because it hurts your misrepresentation of the discussion.

Also, legal penalties for things that break the law aren't a violation of anyone's civil rights. Tehdang was criticizing Germany's anti-Nazi legislation, specifically. There are no civil rights violated by such laws. It's a dishonest framing.

Civil rights are always only ever an expression within a given legal code. They don't exist outside the law. It's weird as fuck to claim American civil rights somehow in any way apply to Germans in Germany. They don't. That's fuckin' insane.

The entire objection are the laws themselves. If you wanna justify it by saying Paradox of Intolerance or that Europe as a continent is traumatized by WW2 and dont want to repeat that so they are trading off certain liberties for that certainty then thats fine. But the specifics of the argument are laid bare.

1> The "paradox of tolerance" doesn't actually exist in reality. It's a statement of poor framing by Popper, and not actually a criticism of tolerance as a social principle.

2> There's plenty about Nazism as an ideology that justifies criminalizing its expression, on objective grounds rooted in the Harm Principle.

It's like banning child porn. Child porn is "just speech", in the same way that expressing Nazism is. We still ban it, and legally penalize it. Same difference.

I would however point out that using Paradox of Tolerance as an argument also leads to some problematic implications regarding the speech of other people. Muslim communities not being very sympathetic of LGBT orgs. Communists that straight up want to overthrow liberalism and found socialism.

No it doesn't. And that's not what "communism" is about, as a concept. Plenty of Christian groups are far more openly anti-LGBTQ than Muslim groups, in the West. It's weird that you're bringing up any of this as if it's an argument.

You're just making shit up and pushing right-wing propaganda. And some of it's pretty fuckin' racist. But go on; keep supporting and defending Nazis. You're doing my work for me in damaging your own character.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I would just like to thank #dangNED for their tireless efforts to protect childpornographers and nazis.

[Tech614]

Houston population 2.3M and San Francisco 840k - 4 times 6 still does not come close to 112. And San Francisco is the crime-ridden City?

San Fran being called crime ridden is just idiots not knowing what they're talking about. By almost all metrics it's low crime compared to other major US cities.

San Fran has it's issues, the housing crisis and homeless problem is indeed out of control but actual violent crime is really fucking low in SF compared to most US cities.

[tehdang]

I would just like to thank #dangNED for their tireless efforts to protect childpornographers and nazis.

If you think due process guarantees to citizens by the US Constitution is a good thing, welcome to defending every child trafficker, MS-13 murderer, rapist, torturer. The current Republican administration does this all the time, intentionally linking Democrats to the defense of violent MS-13 members. I see a solid half dozen here sidling up to Trump and giving him a giant bear hug, while saying, "Yes, people that defend the rights of others are indeed trying to protect the worst in society!"

It is a little surprising to me to see such a union with Trump's rhetoric from people I typically see in total opposition. These are surprising times.

[Trifle]

If you think due process guarantees to citizens by the US Constitution is a good thing, welcome to defending every child trafficker, MS-13 murderer, rapist, torturer.

Giving a murderer due process isn't actually defending them. It's verifying that they are actually a murderer, and you aren't just sending some innocent guy to jail for 10 years.

[Dezerte]

I'm sure, as more moderate than this forum (says really nothing), that you can hold two things in your head at the same time. Europe's record is bad, and it should be decried, and I'm glad Vance did it. You can also point out whatever you think indicates a decline of the US--tariffs we would likely agree on, even--and it wouldn't change one single thing about the former. None of it implies or ought to imply that when I point out one thing, I am rank ordering all the potential issues we might discuss.

It's a post on an internet forum. I'm not publishing a novel where I rate Europe's demonstrable decline alongside climate change, ICE deportations, AIDS in Africa, and the Russia-China-Iran relationship. I've been witnessing the decline of the US for over two decades. I think Trump is more a symptom of the decline than a cause of the decline. Maybe you think the same about the Sweden Democrats? But would we be able to talk about a group of countries, a single country, or a single party without implying that we're literally comparing the relative worth of discussion topics?

I don't think you really can continue to believe this post if you would reflect. The sentiment, the true deep sentiment of "racists getting fined [for their speech]," is literally "gang members getting deported." We can all play the games of framing the issue, but they're really just games. I'm getting a little off topic from one yahoo that asked who wrote the land of the free, home of the brave line, so we can let it lie there. I wish you all the best on recognizing and reversing the state of affairs in Europe.

I promise I'll be there to recognize it when we elect criminals, when we pardon terrorists, when we deny aid because of ideological reason, when we betray our allies, when we dismantle the very institutions that protect and make our countries great or when we deny people entry to the country because they are critical of our leaders. And to be fair, we do have countries in Europe that concern me (e.g. Hungary's leader and the rise of the anti-democratic far-right) but since they are in the EU there is still a way to influence that. I can only watch in dismay as the US becomes more and more like the authoritarian countries around the world (e.g. Russia, North Korea) - I wish you luck and hope you can one day see what I and many others see in your country.