273
Is this NOT about 'saving democracy'?!
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
273 points (80.7% liked)
People Twitter
4780 readers
2122 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can we not have an existential threat to democracy every four years? That would be neat. Here's an idea, actually fucking punish people who already tried to overthrow the government, and have promised to do it again. It's utterly crazy that he is in the running again instead of behind bars.
Now you know how two thirds of Germans felt in 1933.
Hitler should have been hanged for trying to overthrow the government, but instead got just a cozy few months in prison (where he wrote Mein Kampf).
And that's more punishment than trump ever got, or will ever get.
Also a reminder that the Germans who couldn’t be bothered to vote in that election didn’t get a chance to do so again for over a decade. And that was assuming they were even still alive after the holocaust and war.
Just a reminder. Nazis did a trial run for Holocaust on political prisoners. In Germany.
That's not how Hitler rose to power.
This idea of blaming voters and not the system and the parties who pushed to do anything to punish the communists means you don't get how this time around is already rhyming and you are blame the wrong people because it's easier.
You don’t think Hitler was elected? Because that was their point. Regardless of the broader forces at work, how is it not the responsibility of the electorate to elect the right government?
I do not believe he was attempting to blame anybody though. In my view, he is warning us ( well, Americans — I am not one ). He is saying that there is one chance to defend the future and, if you do not take it, you may be denied another opportunity.
That's not quite true. The NSDAP did get the largest percentage of the vote, just not the absolute majority. So they needed other parties to form a coalition for a government. The conservative party and their figurehead Von Hindenburg made that move thinking they could control the Nazis this way.
Hitler still won the election, democratically (although their thugs did intimidate a lot of people to vote for them).
He got the most votes in a few (three?) elections in the space of a few months. But not a majority. He didn't win the presidential election (Hindenburg won that).
But as leader of the biggest number of seats he had to be considered for chancellor. He didn't really get what we might think of as his total control until the enabling act was passed.
All the commie/ union/ socialist persecution in 1933 was not enough to get the supermajority needed in the March election for him to pass the enabling act on his own. He was still a minority chancellor. . . . but it turns out he needn't have worried because all the Centrist/Conservative Niemollers banded together and voted for the enabling act anyway.
Presumably they thought Hitler might favour them in the new post-Weimar government.
So you could argue that the dissolution of the weimar government was a product of (representative ) democracy. The reps in parliament just voted the parliament itself out of exitence for some reason. It was all part of the democratic system until that act was passed. Very few people in the country were happy with Weimar though pretty much since the wall st crash.
Also, how a lot of the Germans who did bother to vote got dragged into the madness despite it, because too many of their countrymen were idiots who could be misled by the obvious lies of a fascist.
You mean he didn't learn his lesson?
Not an American and I would normally agree with your “every 4 years” thing. But given the Supreme Court decision on Presidential Immunity, you absolutely have an existential threat to democracy right now.
Not only in the US either. This could topple the whole world order.
I would welcome the old level of threat with open arms at this point.
No, we live in a democracy.
I know it's difficult to understand for people coming of age in this era, but elections used to be pretty routine things, and the peaceful transition of power was a point of pride for our nation.
oh no, that's is something that a first world country would do, like brasil, be happy in your corporatocracy that's how your system is designed anyway, there's a very fucking good reason why any democratic country outlaw company donation to politican party