Rand Paul needs a history lesson.

[One of the 99]

During his filibuster yesterday, and in many past comments, he talks about how Hitler was democratically elected. However, Hitler never was elected, he was appointed. In the 1932 Presidential election in Germany Hitler lost to Hindenberg. A year later under pressure from several bankers, Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the post of Chancellor.

Since Paul makes this part of his central arguement, you would think he would get his facts straight. Or at least someone in the media would correct him.

[onehandle]

1. George W. Bush was 'appointed.'

Uh-oh...

[abelenkpe]

2. Democrats need to focus on running

A good candidate against him and getting him out of politics altogether.

[totodeinhere]

3. Yes he was appointed but that appointment was legal and constitutional.

He did not assume power from a coup. Of course the Nazis had attempted a coup previously but that was a separate incident.

[One of the 99]

4. Never said it was illegal or unconstitutional.

Just that he wasn't elected as Paul has been claiming.

[totodeinhere]

10. No you didn't say that and I guess I did not express myself well.

Here's what I meant to say. First of all I agree that it is pathetic that a US Senator doesn't even know basic history. And of course it is outrageous to compare Obama to Hitter. That's what I object to even more than his lack of knowledge about history.

But having said that, if Paul had said that Hitler had come to power legally then turned into a dictator he would have been correct. The point that he was trying to make was that just because someone comes into power legitimately doesn't mean that they could not turn in a dictator or a despot. And it is also true that we need to jealously guard our system of checks and balances so that something like that won't ever happen in this county.

[One of the 99]

12. No you didn't and who's Hitter?

And why are you trying to make excuses for Paul?

[totodeinhere]

14. I'm not. Please tell me one thing that I said that is not true.

I am a long time progressive but I also tell it like it is no matter whom it offends. If telling the truth is tantamount to making excuses for Paul then so be it. Sorry, the Hitter reference was merely a typo but I'm sure you know that. I think it's silly to attack people for making an innocent typo.

[One of the 99]

16. Just as is it silly and dishonest to put words in people's mouths

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

as you tried to do with me. And defending Paul's factual errors is not "telling the truth", it is enabling Paul's BS.

[graham4anything]

5. As a Jewish person...remember what Smokey the Bear once said

Hitler was charismatic. Paul is the same type of magnet personality like a cult leader.
As such, and much like Jorg Haider in Austria a few years back, give them attention,
give them a forum, and it is not beyond the realm of possiblity that they will reach higher and possibly attain it.
They play right into the hands of the people who paraded around the town halls,
who listen to hate radio all day, and who have no real grasp of realistic ways the government runs.
Which is why like David Duke, one should not get him started on a way to attain higher power.

It is far too dangerous.

He already somehow, someway, in a very crowded election, had enough of his fans and enough money funneled in from all the loons across the country, to get himself a forum
(aka senator).

It only takes one spark to start a fire. Rand Paul would love it if that happened.
One doesn't feed a brush fire.

As Smokey the Bear said "only YOU can prevent forest fires".

Rand Paul and David Duke are a forest fire.
Wouldn't put it past Rand, to enstall David Duke as his SOS if Rand got to be president.
God help us all.

Remember one thing, Hitler was over there. Who knows whether or not he had aspirations to coming over here.
Rand Paul is already here. Like the 20 (19 on game day) that attacked America on 9-11,
they already are here.
Rand Paul is the Body Snatcher Kevin McCarthy warned about in the movie.
(Jeff Goldblum for the kiddies).

[Cosmocat]

11. It could happen, but every President we have seen in the 30+

at the very least PACKAGED himself as a moderate.

Reagen with his morning america bullshit, Bush I was a suit and tie conservative Bush II with his compassionate conservative bullshit, Clinton was and campaigned as a moderate, BO campaigned on flowery, but mostly undefined rhetoric.

Paul benefits greatly from his father's name.

For a long time, his old man was doing his thing for him, and passed him the torch.

He will get a bit further than his father, but he won't be a Presidential candidate if he holds on the hardline right wing positions he holds. The country won't elect anyone, left or right, who is that unabashed about the extreme positions.

If he moderates, he might have a shot.

[lunatica]

6. Personally I think he needs more than a history lesson

He needs a major smack down

[kairos12]

20. Great DU name

[lunatica]

21. Thanks!

I'm crazy about it myself.

[Third Doctor]

7. He needs a civics lesson too.

[november3rd]

8. The problem

The problem is, if he got his facts straight, then he couldn't make his point, you know?

[Cha]

9. The first one to bring up Hitler.. Loses. The MF

Lost yesterday according to everybody but rush limpbuagh and the baggers.

[Sunlei]

13. don't like the way him or his father mention hitler history in politics, all the frigging time.

So casual, like hitlers been a comfortable topic their whole lives. Yet never give equal time to the horror. creeps me out!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. Rand Paul is a windbag

lightweight with no substance

[Bake]

17. What? You expect the media to know history?

Hell, they don't even know journalism!



Bake

[Cha]

18. Rand Paul doesn't need no stinkin' facts.

Lawrence O'Donnell ✔ @Lawrence

Rand Paul gave a perfect display of the sick paranoia that drives Tea Party and NRA: Obama is coming to get them. With drones.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Rand Paul needs a brain transplant!

[sofa king]

22. It's a little more complicated than that.

Once the Nazis got a toe-hold on government, they focused on generating enough lack of confidence in government that new elections would have to be held frequently. They forced new elections in 1928, 1930, and two grueling election cycles in 1932, with the promise of more unless someone tossed Hitler a bone. Hitler strangled the Weimar Republic to death with its own democratic ideals.

Interestingly enough, approval of the Nazis, as shown by the percentage of elected representatives, almost exactly matched the approval of Stupid Hitler here in the United States--right around 33 percent when Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the same as the last 3 years of W's... presence. We now know that 23 percent of all Americans are effectively fascists, and another ten percent are greedy and misinformed enough to align with them--just like the Germans. It's not a reach at all to guess that the same kinds of people propelled both of those awful people to leadership of their respective countries.

And what do you know? We had our own Reichstag-burning, too, our own false justification for blitzkrieg wars, our own coddling of the bankers and business class at the expense of industry, our own party propaganda machine pumping disinformation, and our own conservative infatuation with lapel pins. Funny how that works.

[talkingmime]

23. He needs a simple basic education - like one where he could pass the GED.