I can’t be the only one who struggled to read that, and for general accessibility purposes since I’m already here:
Image ID:
andy1011000 Proton CEO posted:
“People honestly seem to forget that I live in Switzerland, where Republican/Democrat doesn’t mean anything, and Trump isn’t even on our ballot to be voted for…”
Onyx376. replied:
“The point is that fighting for a more just and equal society is not just about fighting for the fundamental right to privacy but also for all other fundamental rights, including individual rights and life. When you, as the CEO of a company that starts from these principles, nod positively to whatever action a political figure like Trump, who is known for always flagrantly putting his private interests ahead of those of his own nation, makes speeches about eliminating minorities, hurting their rights as citizens and flirting with Nazi movements, it is understandable that members of the privacy community are disappointed as this reveals a little about who is being the face of a company that should follow contrary principles. But now we really know what “freedom” means to you.”
Good bot
Doing the Lord’s work right here. I absolutely cannot stand screenshots of desktop apps.
Mobile screenshots will be readable on both mobile and desktop.
But desktop screenshots are only readable on desktop.
Glad I could help…
Doesn’t seem to be the case here, but could it be due to subpixel rendering?
It renders fine, it’s just a pain to read due the wide aspect ratio. Either it’s too small or you have to scroll horizontal for reach line, or you have to flip your phone. None of it it is optimal.
Given recent events, I really don’t see how bending the knee to Trump is any different than bending the knee to the Democrats, especially Biden who committed genocide for 15 months. It’s just another capitalist bending the knee to the world hegemon in the United States. Trump is just more straightforward and bombastic about the USA’s position in the world as it’s hegemon and it’s demands, forcing ordinary people, especially liberals in the United States, to confront that reality directly, whilst under Biden that was obfuscated by flowery language and decorum. I guess that decorum and flowery language was enough for US liberals to “turn off” so to speak, and go back to brunch while the world burns.
What? Trump is subservient to Russia and China. He’s selling the country off to make a quick buck.
Trump is subservient to Russia and China.
Damn, Trump is pretty fucking rad apparently
See this is the exact liberal nonsense I’m talking about. How is Trump “subservient to Russia and China”? Because he views continuing the war in Ukraine as no longer in the United States’ interest? And China? I thought Trump was all about tariffs on Chinese goods and starting a trade war in his last term. I don’t see that as subservient, that’s confrontation. A negative confrontation that just hurt everyone globally, but maybe necessary from a third world perspective, waking up the third world to the reality of the United States and it’s economic warfare. If you’re talking about dialing down the temperature against China in his upcoming term, that would be because the US benefits from Chinese imports and can’t wean itself off of them due to a lack of domestic manufacturing and industry, and because China needs a market to sell their goods to as domestic consumption + exports to the rest of the world can’t make up for US consumption, so they’ll give in to US demands. I fail to see how such a position is “pro China” it’s just self interest.
You have to stop viewing politics through the personalities of world leaders as if it’s some kind of Hollywood movie, and view the material reality. If the USA is no longer interested in pursuing a certain action or decides to escalate on another front in the next four years, ask yourself why is that the case, instead of defaulting to “Trump crazy stupid strongman dictator selling out the USA”. That kind of liberal analysis is not helpful and will leave you lost. Never underestimate your adversary.
For example in Greenland, many people were going on about how Trump is some big idiot that wants a country that looks big on a Mercator projection. Meanwhile, the United States secured a large rare earth metals deposit in Greenland, stoping Chinese mining companies from getting the rights to it. The US company that bought the rights to the rare earth metals deposit signed a contract with the United States Department of Defence to process the metals. While everyone was distracted by Trump talking nonsense, the US pulled of a heist and exerted more political pressure on its allies. When one hand is doing something (in this case Trump’s loud mouth), always look at moves the other hand is making (in this case, the US DoD getting more control in Greenland over their mining deposits). If you fail to do so, the jester will rob you blind. In this case, a large deposit of Rare Earth Ores in Greenland, China excluded and Denmark further vassalised.
Yeah, I really think this is a little overblown for what he said.
Critical support for specific reasons doesn’t exist for these people. Just black and white, Harry and Voldemort.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2ff6q/call_for_andy_yen_to_resign/
UPDATE: Andy Reply
According to Andy’s logic, if Hitler were the president of some unfortunate country, we should differentiate the boss from his good nominees. Even using a company founded by an entire community to show a good evaluation made by one of its founders to give him a loving pat on the back and show the world that he is not completely bad as they think, but not meaning that the founder agrees with all his innocent actions, of course, such as disregarding the rights of many people around the world because they are just part of the democratic game.
le false equivalence totally validates my endorsement for the worst president elected in US history
“People forget I don’t live in China. Just because I praise Mao for wanting to shed the yoke of cultural tradition, doesn’t mean I necessary support everything he’s doing…” -Andy, if this was 1966
Careful saying that around these tankie parts.
Honestly I find his attitude to be quite commendable and I think that speaks much louder than whatever it is you disagree with.
Maybe he should have just left Trump’s name out of it entirely as that seems to be what really pushed people’s buttons.
People are going to twist things around no matter what is said though. Don’t forget hindsight makes everyone look guilty.
He should have just stayed the fuck out of Americans politics being a provider of a secure service that many Americans of all political persuasions use.
He is an idiot who cost his company business. The only spin is trying to downplay it at this point. The consequences are lost profits.
Let’s be real. You mean he should have stayed out of it if he was going to voice an opinion that doesn’t match yours. People don’t want apolitical, they want an echo chamber.
No, he should stay out of either side because business is about making money. I don’t want to know what politics you support. I don’t care for politicizing everything. It is a fucking turn off.
You want my money, do your job, sell me your product, give me your service, but don’t talk to me about your hot takes on politics. Also religion as well. I and many many other people don’t want to hear it.
Better that they tell us imo. If someone thinks that the people I care about don’t deserve to exist for reasons no one can control, I’d rather know and avoid giving them money than to help them quietly gain influence and power until they can eradicate these people themselves.
There is a certain logic to this. I tend to agree that I would like to know. I also think I would probably find out I would have to be self sufficient if I truly did not want to give to bad actors.
Your comment might hold a valid argument, if your previous comments hadn’t made it perfectly clear you take issue with the fact he praised something a politician you don’t like has done.
Whether you agree with my character or not what I said was accurate for any business person/enterprise. It is really not beneficial and increases risk unnecessarily.
You say it doesn’t match that other users opinion, but doesn’t it not match the vast majority of proton users opinions? Authoritarians aren’t usually big on personal privacy. So praising one when you run a company based upon privacy is a dumb idea. It would be like running a vegan food company and praising people who like Slaughter cattle. It’s a stupid fucking mindset. Which says a lot of things to me about his capacity as a CEO frankly. If he’s this dumb why should people trust them to run a business they frequent?
Maybe he should have just left Trump’s name out of it entirely as that seems to be what really pushed people’s buttons.
It probably didn’t help, but no, I don’t think that was it. I think it was his sweeping generalizations about dems/republicans as a whole, along with the insinuation that dems were bought, republicans are “looking out for the little guys”, and the election undermined the will of the people:
Dems had a choice between the progressive wing (Bernie Sanders, etc), versus corporate Dems, but in the end money won and constituents lost. Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.
You are right about the generalization on parties, but the “little guy” he meant are small tech companies opposed to big tech. It was clear to me in the context, and to clear any doubt, he explicitly said that in a reddit comment.
I want to specify because this has been stretched on here as far as “he said republicans care for the working class”.
the “little guy” he meant are small tech companies
That changes nothing.
Added for completeness. Lots of people got pissed because they assumed he meant that in general republicans stand with the little guy, prompting comments such as “what about trans/immigrants/etc.”.
You did not do that, of course, but you can see how your comment could reinforce this opinion in people who didn’t read the actual tweet and discussion and were just looking for reasons to get angry.
It would be one thing if Trump was actually anti-trust…but he isn’t.
He’s anti companies which don’t prostrate themselves in front of him and bow to his whims. They’re bad, terrible, anti American companies. The ones that do are great, wonderful, beautiful companies. The bad ones need to be broken up and given to the big ones.
He’s so transparent it’s painful. If someone says good things about Trump or give him money, they’re good. If they don’t, they’re bad. It’s absurdly obvious.
If that motivation still leads to work against tech monopolies, good. Can’t wait for people to do the right thing for the right reason. If that won’t happen it will be criticized as a lack of action.
Ultimately the benefit for the population is having as much freedom and fair competition in the tech space as possible. If that comes from Trump hallucinations, from a dream or from something else, who cares…?
If that motivation still leads to work against tech monopolies
It doesn’t, never did, never will.
I can’t believe we have to argue in 2025 about this.
The whole project 2025 is about breaking bad regulations, antitrust won’t survive. You just have to kiss the ring, and do whatever.
How can anyone possibly think that Trump is against tech monopolies when Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg are going to be sitting behind him shoulder to shoulder at the inauguration?
So, to get this straight, for you it’s impossible to recognize that a pick for a position is a good pick in the Trump government, by definition, without consideration of the actual pick?
To me this is religion, not politics or ideology (which I both consider very good things). To be even more clear, I consider Andy’s position completely rational and legitimate in this case. I believe it’s absolutely legitimate to be happy Trump picked someone good for a position and at the same time not support the rest 98%. At most, the interesting debate is why that pick is not good, which is 100% opinable and worthy of a discussion.
But saying that any statement, in any context, whatever narrow and specific equal full support is completely insane to me.
If all he said was literally “i approve of this pick for this position” you’d be correct.
What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the “little guy”.
Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a “political statement”.
by all means, argue that you think there’s a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn’t suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.
I know what happened, I followed quite thoroughly.
He thinks that republicans are now the ones with a higher chance to push antitrust cases against big tech (I.e., work for the little guy - EDIT: source). He thinks this based on the last few years and a few things that happened. He likes the nomination from Trump. How is this a full support to Trump? How believing that republicans will do better - in this area - equals being a Nazi?
Of course I believe that there is a fuss over nothing. The above statement has been inflated and I have already read “he applauded to Trump antitrans policies”, " posted Nazi symbols" and other complete fantasies.
Many people, who are on the internet on a perpetual witch hunt decided to interpret a clearly specific tweet (about antitrust and big tech) as a global political statement, and read that “little guy” as “common man” or - I have read it here on Lemmy - “working class”. Basically everyone tried to propose ideas about why that post was so awful, rather than first trying to understand what the hell he meant. I will agree the first tweet is ambiguous, but that’s because it’s a 200 characters tweet, he then explained his position quite clearly, and the summary above is what he actually meant.
This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.
See, now that’s a more thorough explanation of your position.
I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I’m disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.
This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.
It shows you read the initial information in it’s entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.
That removes the possibility of responses such as “Did you even read the initial tweet?”.
Well… it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven’t read your response in it’s entirety.
While it’s certainly true that some of the people who are angry at him for that tweet are saying things in their anger that are overboard, I think only pointing out the most ridiculous things that people who disagree with you have ever said in their anger is a really terrible way of engaging honestly on the subject.
It’s important to remember that an authoritarian that always figured out what the right thing to do was and did the opposite of that would be a really bad authoritarian. Republicans at the state level have been increasing state surveillance to hunt down and punish people for choices they make with their own bodies. For a lot of people in America, Trump is the head of the organization that they want privacy to protect themselves from, and the current largest threat to privacy in America.
For the CEO of a company that is supposedly about protecting our privacy to completely unprompted start publicly praising decisions made by the very threat we’re supposed to trust them to protect us from, and then to double down on their praise when called out, is deeply concerning.
Yes. It’s true that not every single thing Trump does will be the worst possible thing, but his goals are fundamentally opposed to ours. When I say I want big tech to be broken up it’s because I want their to be less concentration of power. When Trump wants to break up big tech it’s because he wants to eliminate the competition to his concentration of power. That is not worthy of my praise, even if in any one particular instance the thing he is doing is similar to what I would do, and the fact that the CEO of Proton either doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care is deeply concerning. I do not trust them after this, and I doubt they can ever get that trust back.
He praised one thing, and motivated that praise. It’s 100% possible to disagree, but I don’t find it concerning at all. I find it reasonable, because proton can better protect the privacy of users if more people can choose freely privacy oriented tools (like proton). Hence, if Trump does or says something that can help moving in that direction, it can be labeled as a good thing. Not every sentence is a collective or global assessment of all things considered.
When Trump wants to break up big tech it’s because he wants to eliminate the competition to his concentration of power.
- this is something US citizens should concern themselves
- it is only tangentially irrelevant
- if by breaking up monopolies people will be able to choose more privacy-preserving services, what you think is Trump’s goal will fail anyway. More privacy and less data is also a way to limit the amount of demographic targeting he uses so well in his campaigns.
So I am good with him doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and I wish him a swift failure afterwards.
doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care is deeply concerning
Have you considered that he might not agree with what is just your opinion? Obviously you are free to draw any conclusion you want and not use them.
Context matters. Why did you ignore it? We see so many CEOs kissing Trump’s feet these days. Here Andy is, doing the same… Of course I don’t know what’s in Andy’s head, but Trump loves groveling, and clearly Andy is riding that bandwagon on purpose.
That’s not context, that’s a superficial observation. Zuck kissed the ring by changing Facebook policy to align with trump/musk posture on “free speech”, Andy said he likes the antitrust pick. They are completely different things.
Right, Andy’s action was bad but not as bad. We agree. It’s not identical.
And when given the chance to explain how he felt about this situation, on how the bad timing is … purely accidental or something … he did a bad job of it. Which suggests our original conclusions were in fact correct.
Also, if you think observations about time, place, and manner are superfluous, that’s a peculiar thought. Maybe we disagree. Maybe I think basic elements of societal interaction and communication are important and informative.
This tweet happened right after trump picked for the antitrust position. The “time” is completely logical, the “place” is a tweet and the manner is a short statement supporting that pick. Also proton is a US company, so it doesn’t have the same reason to “bend the knee” as other US big tech are doing.
So it’s not that I am ignoring context, I genuinely don’t see relation. He praised something that he pushes for years, he did not suddenly switch to “free speech” like Zuck.
I moved several years worth of emails off their platform and closed my subscription on Friday. Enough is enough. I’m not giving this guy another dime. I specifically pointed to andy88’s behaviour in the “why are you cancelling” dialogue. I feel for the good people who work at that company and don’t support this, but we all have choices to make.
Holy shit he’s still arguing with people about this today?
He’s well on his way to reaching Muskian levels of failure to shut the hell up.
I’d say he’s already a foot over the line.
He’s backally saying, “We Americans don’t get it. He did nothing wrong because both sides are the same.”
Rather than remorse, he’s doubled down.
As swiss person I have to meet and talk to this guy, he can not be that stupid!
We definitely have something like the republicans party, it is called SVP (Schweizerische Volkspartei). SVP uses exactly the same tactics as republicans, like anti “woke”, anti regulation, anti common media, pro hate-speech(“anti censorship”), etc.
We just not have a single party to counter it, like democrats, but like 10 parties with little nuances.
We have some small parties besides SVP “on the republican site” but those tend to be irrelevant. Maybe, the anti corona party has a some relevance, still, but I guess their power is sinking.
I personally support the pirate party, which mainly stands for privacy, no matter if left or right, but the party it self is leading to the left (democratic) side.
At least, that is how I understand our situation here.
That’s fascinating that you have so many parties. Do parties not have a lot of power at the “federal” level? Also curious if you have coalitions between similarly aligned parties!
This is how parliamentary governments work, they figured out how to resolve the bug in the US system that always tends towards two major parties. However the two-party system, so I’ve read, is actually a tad bit more resistant to the fascism bug, as parliamentary systems can have outright fascist parties winning a minority of the vote eventually grow big enough to take over and end the system entirely.
We have two “Räte“ like groups that write the laws depending on the constitution (they give new laws back and forth until an agreement is found, and after agreement there can be a referendum made with enough signatures from the people that are allowed to vote, which then leads to a vote where the people who are allowed to vote have to confirm the new law). One of these “Rat” is a Voting where all people allow to vote choose which party gets how much seats in this “Rat” and in the same voting you choose people to place on this seats. (It is a bit complicated and here at the choosing of seats. Partys can work together and “combine lists” meaning that they collect seats together and split it up after). In the other “Rat” there are a defined number of people per Kanton (the states of switzerland) and those are chosen by each Kanton in their own way. Kantons are relatively free on how to organise their government, but most have a similar mechanism as what is done in federal level.
The Bundesrat (aka 7 presidents of switzerland) are chosen by the people in the Rat (I would have to check if both Rat get to say something, or if it is only the one with the lists). We have some unwritten laws in choosing the 7 persons in the Bundesrat. The general consensus is, that we have to ensure most diversity possible (political, gender, and all the other things), but of course, here we have discussions all the time as well.
☺️feel free to ask more
They do have power. But it is split between around 4-5 bigger parties. Our federal council (similar to the President uf the US) is split into 7 persons, where the biggest parties get one or to seats. Like the mentioned SVP has “only” 2 seats and next big party the social Democrats have 2 seats as well.
What’s nice in our system(in my opinion), there is no “The winner takes it all”. Because our federal government is split between alot of parties, not one can “rule” alone. For every thing the want to pass, they need the support of multiple parties.
I wouldn’t say we have ruling coalitions like you see in germany, but they do work-together if they have same goal.
I am sure he is very smart about a lot of things. Unfortunately US politics are not one of those things. I also suspect he is not that good at business considering he just alienated a lot of his customers.
Glad I cancelled. If the CEO is this clueless and/or and/or ignorant and/or disingenuous do I really want them responsible for my private data?
Yes, because nobody (including you) is probably going to do it better: https://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/may/21/everyone-is-totally-just-winging-it
Heaven forbid I have opinions!
Sorry, I took your rhetorical question as a genuine one.
He’s kind of right on the money and kind of being completely dumb.
The fact of it is that Republicans don’t want to help privacy or take down big tech’s abuses, they want to make it worse. All of the reasonable things Andy has said have taken place past that, so in a way the entire conversation is talking past the point.
The question is, how can somebody so influential at a major privacy company not have such a pre-school understanding of major world figures’ relationships to his core business?
The term “Nazi” has been overused so much, especially in US [identity] politics, that it’s losing (or has already lost) its meaning. When are we going to start calling elevator farts “genocide” and “nazism”? 🤷🏻♂️
If the outrage is based on the screenshot of the comment above, I’d say that this is a typical example of “Swiss neutrality” with a touch of “I don’t give a flying f*ck about US politics because I don’t live in the US.” I don’t see how that makes you a nazi??
I suspect I may be missing something here…
LOL I love this “anyone who disagrees with me is a literal nazi” nonsense.
did you really laugh out loud, or did you just type that, be honest.
I did just type it ☹️
that’s honestly a real disappointment, I was hoping someone so off the mark would at least be enjoying themselves.
Sorry to disappoint. It is funny in a morbid and depressing sort of way. Kinda like Trump.
must be nice to find it funny rather than be scared for your friends lives like the LGBT community is
Must be nice to exploit LGBTQ people to support literally any argument imaginable.
Have you both thought about talking why you disagree instead? If none of you bother to explain why you think the other is wrong this is just pointless
Honestly “lol” completely lost its original meaning years ago
LOL
TrUmP iS a NaZi
Sounds like the CEO of proton doesnt understand the basic privacy concerns for the US VPN market. He should really look that up someday-- theres money to be made in the Us market if he cared enough.
Americans just now finding out what has always been in place.
Vpn from Switzerland won’t save you - they will share our data if it comes to us needing access to it. And if proton refuses - it would have been shut down already like tiktok
Brother we’ve been arming and supporting a full-on ethnic extermination and bombing anyone who tries to stop it for over a year now. We’re past flirting with fascism, we’ve bought a dog and moved onto a studio apartment with fascism. Fascism is making us coffee and thinking about opening an Etsy store to sell all the gold tooth fillings.
Why would anyone believe the Democrats are not also Nazis? They just spearheaded a live-streamed genocide, and bypassed a law banning sending arms to Nazis so that they could send them billions in arms.
Both parties are Nazis. Both must be stopped. Stop playing this stupid game where they make you fight over which Nazi to follow.
The hypocrisy of many calling Trump a Nazi is mind boggling.
As far as I can tell Trump can only be deemed a Nazi by association - he’s not been going around spouting stuff about people’s races making them superior or inferior to others like an ethno-Fascist and instead he’s been mostly using traditional Fascist dog whistles (I.e. about the superiority of the Nation), but since he has indeed cultivated the support of neo-nazis and other ethno-Fascists in the US, he’s associating with Nazis.
The hypocrisy comes because the most Nazi ideology around right now is Zionism - they’re ethno-Fascists, claiming to represent a race, going on and on about the superiority of their race (calling it “the chose people”) whilst being overtly racist about Arabs in general and even more so Palestinians who they call “human animals”, i.e. subhumans whis is literally untermenschen - and, even more extreme, they’re mass murdering them right now by the hundreds of thousands.
Anybody who here and now calls Trump a Nazi due to his association with ethno-Fascists but has previously been defending Biden, Harris and most of the Democrat party as not being Nazis all the while they were actively supporting with weapons the present day Nazis who were actively engaged in a genocide along racial lines, is a hypocrite.
Ditto anybody going around criticizing people who chose to neither vote Democrat nor Republican: it is absolutely understandable that when people only have the choice between two sets of Nazis, many chose “neither”. After all, if one is a Nazi by supporting Nazis, then the Republicans supporting of Nazis makes them Nazis and giving support to the Nazis-Republicans (for example by voting for them) makes one a Nazi and exactly in the same way the Democrats supporting the present day Nazis makes them Nazis, so supporting Nazi-Democrats makes one a Nazi - anybody who does indeed believe people can become “Nazi by association” land does not want to be a Nazi, would refuse to vote for either Nazi-by-association party.
I truly respect those with the genuine principles and ideological consistency of calling both main American parties Nazis (as I said, if one thinks associated with Nazi = Nazi, then logically they are both Nazis) or at least Nazi-supporting, because they are.
It’s only the political tribalists for whom one group of Nazi-supporters are Nazis but the other group of Nazi-supporters are not Nazis because the former is “them” and the other is “us” who are despicable hypocrites.
As far as I can tell Trump can only be deemed a Nazi by association - he’s not been going around spouting stuff about people’s races making them superior or inferior to others like an ethno-Fascist
Trump says immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141
That’s traditional Fascism, which is all about the nation.
Nazism would be “Latinos have been poisoning our White blood”, a whole different ball game and far, far more prone to extreme violence in the form of things like ethnic cleansing.
If you want to see how present day Nazi ideology manifests itself, look at Zionists: they claim to represent an ethnicity, that their ethnicity are a superior people (“the chosen people”) and that the neighbouring ethnicity whose land they invaded and who they are currently mass murdering are less than human (“human animals”).
I have yet to see Trump claiming to represent whites, saying that whites are superior and wanting to invade Latin American and murder the latinos because of deeming them subhuman.
Don’t get me wrong, Trump absolutely is a Fascist. However directly so far he doesn’t seem to be a Nazi and if he is a Nazi because of who he “sits with” then so are the Democrats since they all sit with the Zionists, the biggest and most murderous Nazi-like ideology around.
The expression Mango Mussolini fits Trump so well exactly because he’s a Fascist in the same vein as Mussolini, not the same vein as Hitler.
Give me a fucking break. This is from the preamble to the Nuremberg Laws:
purity of German blood is the essential condition for the continued existence of the German people
And Trump:
They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country. […] They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”
If 11 people are sitting at a table with a known Nazi, chatting, enjoying themselves and having a great time, you have a table with 12 nazis.
That is an absolutely valid take (assuming you really believe the principle rather than merely parroting the slogan), which would mean that Trump, most of the Republicans, Biden, Harris and most of the Democrats are Nazis, as are anybody who supports them in any way form or shape including with a vote, because all are “sitting wit h Nazis” by supportingnthem, which explains why some people simply refused to vote for either party (as they didn’t want support Nazis).
You have my total respect if you genuinely believe that as a principle and hence apply it equally to all 11 people sitting on that table with the Nazi.
If however you do not apply that rule equally to all 11 people, and say that only some (Trump) are Nazis for sitting down with modern day Nazis whilst others (Biden) are not Nazis for sitting down with modern day Nazis, then you’re just a hypocrite using the word Nazi as a slogan.
Sadly a lot of people here are just jumping on the “let’s call Trump a Nazi” bandwagon and do not apply the same rule that justifies caling Trump a Nazi, to those in their own party (which the rule would deem as Nazi since they too wilfully “sit with Nazis”) or accept that many people did not vote for their party or the other party exactly because they sawnthosnwhonsupport modern day Nazis as being themselves Nazis (exaxtly as per the sentence you quoted) and hence refuse to not support such Nazis.
You seem to forget that the Democrats ran against Trump. The extent to which they willingly “sat down with” him is the extent to which they were obligated. They weren’t blithely enjoying his company at the table, they were arguing with him at it.
I suspect you know the difference and that you’re arguing in bad faith.
You’re using circular logic or missing my point entirely.
The Democrat leadership sat with Nazis because they support Zionists, who are the biggest group around promoting racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing, and even commiting a Genocide along ethnic lines, all of which are ethno-Fascist ideas, the same kind of ideology as Nazis.
Trump and the Rest of the Republicans sat with Nazis because they too support Zionist as well assupporting white supremacists (a smaller group of Nazis than Zionists and who at the moment aren’t commiting Genocide, but who also have a racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing ideology, same as the Zionists and the original Nazis)
As far as I know, Trump himself has never defended racial supremacy or ethnic cleansing, so he is not directly a Nazi. However he definitely seats with Nazis, as does Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
It has nothing to do with seating with each other since it’s perfectly possible for opposing groups to both be Nazis because they both support racials supremacist ideas and ethnic cleansing or support people who support those ideas.
If sitting with Nazis makes one a Nazi then everybody who supports Zionists, white supremacists or any other kind of extreme racist political movement which believes in their own racial supremacy and sees it as a reason to violently expel or eliminate people of ethnic groups they see as inferior, is a Nazi, which would means Trump, the Republicans, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats are Nazis since they’ve been sitting with those who follow ideologies like Nazism.
Trump is a fascist bro
Trumps is indeed a traditional Fascist.
Nazis, however, are ethno-Fascists, a far worse kind of Fascist, whose ideology is anchored on racial supremacy and who are far more prone to extreme violence.
Although traditional Fascists are violent, they don’t just go around mass murdering people because of their ethnicity, whilst ethno-Fascists most definitely do.
In the present day the biggest and most powerful group of ethno-Fascists - i.e. the present day Nazis - are Zionists, though there are also white supremacists who are also ethno-Fascists (hence also present day Nazis) even if their violent ethnic cleansing acts are not yet to the level of Zionists and they have different lists of superior and inferior races.
So if one genuinely believes that people can be deemed Nazis by associating with Nazis (specifically Nazi-like groups, since the National Socialist Party Of The German Worker doesn’t exist anymore, so there aren’t strictly speaking any Nazis anymore), then one must believe that by association Trump and most of their party are Nazis because of supporting both Zionists (whilst they are engaged in genocide-level ethnic cleansing, no less) and white supremacists, AND so are Biden, Harris and most of their party for supporting Zionists.
If on the other hand one believes people can only be deemed a Nazi if they espouse an ideology of racial supremacy and murderous expulsion or annihilation of one or more races they see as sub-human (“human animals”, “untermenschen”) - i.e. ethno-Fascism - then Trump is not a Nazi, “just” a traditional Fascist (i.e. Mussolini rather than Hitler) and by the same logic Biden and Harris are not Nazis.
Those people who use one definition of what makes one a Nazi for Trump and a different one for the Democrat leadership, are hypocrites.
My dude. Dude. People are in here complaining about a fascist and all you have to contribute is "um, actually"ing them for using the name of the wrong fascist subtype? I think you’ve lost the plot, my dude.
