Germany (then and now) has a coalition system, so you don’t need to vote for the lesser evil of two, more than one party can become a coalition.
There’s still tactical voting of course, but Hitler became chancellor because enough people voted for Hitler that a coalition with the Nazi party or new elections were the only choices.
Yes, they could have gone for the latter, yes, conservatives are always happier to jump in bed with Nazis rather than leftists, so people might have tactically voted for Hindenburg, but my point stands: Hitler could have been voted out.
Doesn’t really sound like “absolute revisionism” to me. Was there a single thing I said that was factually inaccurate, or are you just throwing the term around meaninglessly?
The only point I see is about Germany having a coalition system, but I was referring to a presidential election, not a parliamentary one.
Since the Nazis did not have a majority, theoretically, a coalition could have been formed that did not include them. But, as you said, conservatives were more willing to work with Nazis than leftists. Which says to me, and this might be “absolute revisionism” again, that if you’re trying to stop fascists electorally, you should at least make sure that the person you’re electing isn’t just going to promote and work with the exact people you’re trying to stop.
I might mention here that the Democrats campaigned alongside Dick Cheney while refusing to allow even purely symbolic things like allowing a Palestinian speaker at their convention.
Oh so you were intentionally using partial truths to misleadingly imply that votes couldn’t have kept Hitler out of office? Which was the thing I said and the thing you quoted before arguing against it … something else apparently.
if you’re trying to stop fascists electorally, you should at least make sure that the person you’re electing isn’t just going to promote and work with the exact people you’re trying to stop.
Agreed, maybe you should have led with that instead.
The Democrats are complicit in many inexcusable things that both parties will continue to do until something changes radically. They are however very much not complicit in trying to get rid of voting and other fascist shit Trump has been pushing relentlessly.
Agreed, maybe you should have led with that instead.
I believe what I said was that voting for a lesser evil was not a historically effective way of keeping Hitler out of power. Because the lesser evil won and things still played out the way they did. I didn’t say anything about voting in general.
Absolute revisionism, please educate yourself.
Germany (then and now) has a coalition system, so you don’t need to vote for the lesser evil of two, more than one party can become a coalition.
There’s still tactical voting of course, but Hitler became chancellor because enough people voted for Hitler that a coalition with the Nazi party or new elections were the only choices.
Yes, they could have gone for the latter, yes, conservatives are always happier to jump in bed with Nazis rather than leftists, so people might have tactically voted for Hindenburg, but my point stands: Hitler could have been voted out.
Doesn’t really sound like “absolute revisionism” to me. Was there a single thing I said that was factually inaccurate, or are you just throwing the term around meaninglessly?
The only point I see is about Germany having a coalition system, but I was referring to a presidential election, not a parliamentary one.
Since the Nazis did not have a majority, theoretically, a coalition could have been formed that did not include them. But, as you said, conservatives were more willing to work with Nazis than leftists. Which says to me, and this might be “absolute revisionism” again, that if you’re trying to stop fascists electorally, you should at least make sure that the person you’re electing isn’t just going to promote and work with the exact people you’re trying to stop.
I might mention here that the Democrats campaigned alongside Dick Cheney while refusing to allow even purely symbolic things like allowing a Palestinian speaker at their convention.
Oh so you were intentionally using partial truths to misleadingly imply that votes couldn’t have kept Hitler out of office? Which was the thing I said and the thing you quoted before arguing against
it… something else apparently.Agreed, maybe you should have led with that instead.
The Democrats are complicit in many inexcusable things that both parties will continue to do until something changes radically. They are however very much not complicit in trying to get rid of voting and other fascist shit Trump has been pushing relentlessly.
I believe what I said was that voting for a lesser evil was not a historically effective way of keeping Hitler out of power. Because the lesser evil won and things still played out the way they did. I didn’t say anything about voting in general.
There’s no shame in being ignorant, it’s the mix of ignorance and extreme arrogance that you’re right that make people like you so supremely loathsome
Lmao. So you really just don’t know how a coalition based democratic system works?
Removed by mod
Why should I argue with someone who can’t read?
Give it your best shot and try again. Maybe if you get right what I actually wrote I’ll continue.