On 2/3/2024 7:11 PM, Sawfish wrote:

We're a smart, enlightened bunch here at RST, and we can certainly come
up with weighty historical analyses.

Let's start by comparing The Donald with the 1992 independent
candidate--the one who gifted G H W Bush the presidency--H. Ross Perot.

Do you think there's ground for comparison? If so, compare/contrast the
two.

Perot ran for President in 1992, correct. However, his 'gifted'
Presidency was Bill Clinton who defeated George H. W. Bush in 1992.
George H. W. Bush was the current President in 1992 who lost the
reelection bid to Clinton.
--
---------------
Scall5

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

We're a smart, enlightened bunch here at RST, and we can certainly come up with weighty historical analyses.Let's start by comparing The Donald with the 1992 independent candidate--the one who gifted G H W Bush the presidency--H. Ross Perot.Do you

think there's ground for comparison? If so, compare/contrast the two.-- --Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Trump was campaigning his whole life.

All his interviews "if I was president", then "will run, not run" during couple of cycles and of course, the apprentice, his masterpiece propaganda portraying himself as the boss for a decade.

That's so fascinating about him.

He was laying the ground for himself by himself.

And ultimately he singlehandedly seized power. So if you want comparison, he's like Hitler.

All other guys came through institutions such as Bush, Putin, etc.





--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> Trump was campaigning his whole life.>> All his interviews "if I was president", then "will run, not run"> during couple of cycles and of course, the apprentice, his masterpiece> propaganda portraying himself

as the boss for a decade.>> That's so fascinating about him.>> He was laying the ground for himself by himself.>> And ultimately he singlehandedly seized power. So if you want> comparison, he's like Hitler.>> All other guys came through institutions such
as Bush, Putin, etc.?? Hitler was a prominent member of the Nazi party since ~1920. Hehardly "singlehandedly seized power" either. He wasn't even "elected",he was appointed to power by Hindenburg.Anyhow, dictator types like Hitler and Trump never "
seize" power, theytake advantage of chaotic socioeconomic conditions and are *given* powerby weaklings and cowards.



Dumb post.



Hitler was leader of his party basically since start. Not really day 1, but very begining.

So him seizing power is entirely his own accomplishments.

Trump did similar stuff. He broke into republican party and obliterated both party elites.



And what's the "nonsense of Hitler not seizing power" rather being "appointed by Hinderburg"?

Are you willing to say that Biden didn't win election, rather he was appointed by electors?


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Not really day> 1, but very begining.1925 is the very beginning?

I don't know where you got 1925.


He joined very early on in 1919 as he was military spy for the government and by 1921 he seized power in the party by issuing ultimatum "you either elect me as leader or I leave". They elected him and he then declared himself Führer and later was
imprisoned by the government and later he seized power in whole of country.

It's one man's accomplishment if there ever was one in history.


Some would say maybe Napoleon is comparable? But he had noble background and he attended military academy so I would not rate them equally.

Hitler was really, nobody. Just a man of extreme passion. Most passionate man in history?

Funny both invaded Russia and wrecked their accomplishments.

Now Biden is following in their footsteps.


Any man who decides to destroy Russia, will end up destroyed himself.

The difference is that by winning the election Trump legally had to take office if he accepted it. Quite a difference from Hitler's case, AFAIK Hindenburg didn't "have" to appoint Hitler, he chose to.

Do electors "have" to elect the guy who wins the election or they chose to do it?

It's the same sort of political safety check.



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

The point is he didn't just come out of nowhere, he rose up in the party.

But he did come out of nowhere.

He was unknown guy seizing power in a irrelevant party and then seizing power nationwide. The party part is least impressive in his path to power.

The party was obscure so seizing power in an obscure party made of 200 people or so what does that even accomplish? Nothing.

and ran it longbefore he became Chancellor and beyond. I'd be more likely to compare Trump's rise to Radacanu winning the USO in 2021.

Trump joined existing *major* party though and run against party's political position. He changed (albeit only partially) party's ideology.

That's remarkable too.
Nobody has ever done it.


In comparison Hitler seizing power in his obscure party, among 100 people with same beliefs is not the same.

Hitler main work happened long after he had seized power in his party.

Otoh in Trump's case he seized power in his party after he had done the hard work.


So different timeline.

This is a state issue, but most states have laws that either replace faithless electors or punish them. This has been upheld by the supremecourt.

Most is different from all. So my point remains. Your president gets appointed too.


So stop nitpicking. Head of states in systems such as British, German etc, will appoint the prime minister. He may or may not be the leader of the biggest party. He needs to have overall support and sometimes not even that.

It's nothing unusual, let alone illegitimate.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)