What does the Republican Party stand for?

@chaski Said

So, for those that don't want to fall prey to "revisionist history":

MEIN KAMPF (1925) by Adolf Hitler. It is a description (essentially a manifesto) which presents how/why Hitler became antisemitic and outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany. In MEIN KAMPF Hitler made it clear that he did not support socialism.

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH (first published in 1960) by William L. Shirer. Shirer was a foreign correspondent in Europe (mostly Berlin) during WW 2. His book is supported his personal experiences, but also (more importantly) by a wealth of Nazi documents ranging from official government memorandum to the personal diaries of most of the leaders of Nazi Germany at the time, and by testimony and evidence presented at the Nuremberg war crimes trials... etc... etc...

It is clear reading these two books which were essentially contemporaneous with the events surrounding Nazi Germany that Hitler and the Nazis were NOT socialists.

Many of the recent histories written by people with specific agendas (often though not always presented to attack Democrats) are "revisionist history".

Anyone who wants the truth needs to go back to the source data & facts. MEIN KAMPF & THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH (which is heavily footnoted and referenced with facts, as noted above) are the starting point when it comes to trying to understand either Hitler and/or Nazi Germany.

@Leon Said

Thank you for your reply. Some of it is clearly your unique belief, which I’m sure you’d agree with, and not necessarily that of Republicans in general, so I won’t respond to all of it here - hope you don’t mind, as those don’t really answer the title.

But, yes, I have heard that less government spending is often a mantra of the GOP. And I’ve heard that reducing the deficit is another mantra. However, historically, Trump’s outlay increased over Obama’s (post-recession second term), Bush’s outlay increased over Clinton’s, and Reagan’s outlay increased over Carter’s (and all in terms of percentage of GDP - not constant dollars). These are the three recent instances in which a GOP president succeeded a DNC president. Furthermore, deficits increased in more dramatic fashion under GOP presidents (Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump), than they did under DNC presidents (Carter, Clinton, and Obama (second term). The reason for this is primarily military spending and tax cuts. So it seems to me it is more a belief in less spending of DNC priorities so money can spent in other priorities, and more tax cuts as a priority than actual deficit reduction, don’t you think?

I’ve heard anti-censorship as a mantra as well. If we are talking about censorship, we are talking, by definition, about government regulation on free speech and the press. Are you saying that ideas are being suppressed by our government? Note, self-selection on what to print by a privately owned entity isn’t the same as censorship, again by definition. They are not being regulated by our government and being told what to allow on their platforms. They are deciding for themselves what is put on their own platforms. Do you recognize that Facebook or Twitter are private entities? If Fox News or Newsmax can decide what to print or air, why can’t they? Or are you actually saying that our government SHOULD step in and tell them what to print?

Those confusing mantras aside, along with the earlier confusing mantra about states rights that 4d4m touched upon, I will agree with you in that the religious influence is pretty clear and leaves little doubt. That’s probably just about the only thing that is not open for misinterpretation and, therefore, I do not have any follow up questions on.

@chaski Said

And yet again you are wrong and remain wrong on this point.

Oh... and you are the one "rewriting" history.

Do your research.

@4d4m Said

So then, name a nation that is socialist that has a good human rights record did not utilize Marxist purge of society ideas. Also, the nation has to be one that is not vulnerable to take over by a tyrannical regime.

You claiming that my list of socialist and communist tyrants is re writing history is the biggest lie I've seen you type in here.

@4d4m Said

It may be true that Hitler...didn't support socialism.

@4d4m Said

However, the economic model for the Third Reich was socialism.

@Leon Said

Sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you on all of that 4d4m. Marx was not a willing tool of dictatorship. It should be clear in his writings that he was, in fact, against it, and why he was against it. Granted, his solution was misguided, but there was no secret agenda here. You are confusing the manipulation of his philosophy by later rulers for this fantastical notion that he had one. There is no evidence that he did, and to say he did goes into the realm of conspiracy theory bulls***, which I’m not into.

Your idea that the GOP is ultimately controlled by socialists also smacks of this.

Seems to me you just really hate socialists?

@chaski Said

1. Not all the fascists set up socialist forms of government. This is wrong and ignorant on your part.

2. Included in your list of "socialist and communist tyrants:

> Nazi Germany under Hitler: Not socialist. Not communist.
> The Italian Social Republic, a Nazi Germany puppet government: Not socialist. Not communist.
> Democratic Republic of the People of Korea: Not socialist. Not communist.

@4d4m Said

Hitler didn't take over Germany at all.

@4d4m Said

WRONG, Nazi Germany utilized a socialist form of economics. T

@chaski Said



You are a moron.

You have lost any limited credibility that you might have had.

@4d4m Said

The Democratic Republic of the People of Korea, in case you didn't know, is North Korea. They are ruled by a Marxist, communist regime.