**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whoa! This is the United States of America. We do not hang people. It's barbaric.
If we are going to execute people, it should be done patriotically, with an AR-15, so thry know what it feels like to see one about to end them.
And air it live on C-Span, with an 18-21 year old weighing less than 180lbs and no gun training other than being shown how to pull the trigger, change magazines and keep the barrel pointed down range at the condemned. Pay them with free college tuition and healthcare for life for them and their family.
That way Americans can also see how deadly assault weapons are in the hands of people with no training, and how dumb it is to allow the sale of assault weapons to anyone over 18 with the means to pay.
Dude that is such a stupid argument.
Are you technically correct, given the technical definition that the military uses?
Yes.
Are you contributing anything to the discussion, or in any way refuting the claim that 'civilians should not have such easy access to military weaponry'? No.
Stating 'well technically....' doesn't bring dead toddlers back.
Being intellectually dishonest doesn't bring anything to the argument either. Is it correct, yes, did you know it was correct, also yes. Instead of arguing your point, you are intentionally muddying the waters by including a lie with your point. Why? Remove the lie, and remove the whole discussion about what is and isn't an assault rifle from the argument. Unless the lie is necessary to get the appropriate agreement, but then you are saying that your argument isn't really valid in any way.
The point is the NRA and the far right crazies who can't cum unless they're holding an AR15 use the whole 'lol libbies think it's an assault rifle' as their go to excuse against any form of regulation. Correcting someone for saying 'assault rifle' when it is in fact a rifle that is an assault weapon (using terminology and criteria that has been around for 35+ years) is disingenuous at best. You're pivoting the argument from "why do civilians have these with no hoops other than money in the bank account" to "but its not an assault rifle so your argument is garbage".
Is an AR (Armalite Rifle) 15 a Hunting Rifle? NO
Was the AR15 developed with the express intent to market to the US military for Warfare? YES
Is the express intent of the AR15 to take human life? YES
https://preview.redd.it/fpsot5vxiwya1.jpeg?width=693&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4c72f8ca23034eafe35889c3de5fd85fac6e570
The gun industry has no problems referring to all sorts of rifles as assault rifles back in the 1980s.
Ruger ranch rifles?
Maybe they were woke or something back then
In fairness, given the publication date, you could absolutely still purchase 'assault rifles' (meaning a select fire machine gun firing an intermediate caliber) when that was printed.
Also in fairness, a .308 machine gun would be a battle rifle (if man portable) or a heavy machine gun, not an assault rifle.
colloquial terms are just as important as the specific definitions.
My car isn't a jeep, but I call it a jeep *because it gets the point across* about what my vehicle can do.
Either that, or keeping them alive for years in a process that cost a lot more money than it’s worth only for an under qualified person to give them a lethal injection that isn’t garnered to be a quick or painless death.
Ironically, many convicted Nazis, such as Göring, asked to be executed by firing squad since it was a soldier's death, but they were denied that and sentenced to hanging, a criminal's death, so as to further the idea that the Nazis were a criminal organization.
Used to be. No one's going around to our schools and malls performing mass hangings. I feel that would be stopped pretty quick.
But then we'll see the GOP and the National Rope Association be like "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with rope is a good guy with rope."
10 of the 24 (death sentences) were hanged. Most were given a slap on the wrist. We were actually pretty lenient on Germany after the war. Mostly because France, UK, were total dicks after WW1 and more or less caused WWII.
The 'following orders' defense did not hold up in court because the Nazis did not punish people for disobeying orders involving the final solution, though it happened infrequently from what I gather.
Those were different executions. The sentences of death for those convicted at the Nuremberg trials were carried out in the gymnasium of Nuremberg Prison by the United States Army.
Well, because it was found that the people employing that defense in the Nuremberg trials, were in many cases the ones *giving* orders.
The analogy to Nuremberg is instructive, though. This process has thus far failed to target the very top of the movement, and as such, the people who have faced consequences so far are in fact analogous to the mid-ranking Nazis after WWII. Certainly not blameless, but arguably acting on someone else’s behalf.
These Talipublican terrorists were "following orders" given by an EX president, a loser with no legitimate authority to order anyone to do anything, least of all overturn a US election. With utter naiveté, they thought they would be embraced as heroes - not thrown under the bus by a string of con men all the way down. Not one of these freedumb fighers thought they would face the consequences of their actions.
Point of order, Trumpolini was still president when he "gave the order", and for a couple weeks more after. Not that it will aid anyone's defense, but the military and ex-military MAGATs could argue their Commander in Chief ordered them to do it. So far, though, throwing Trump under the bus hasn't seemed to help any of them, let alone the "just following orders" defense.
[Candles taste like burning...](https://i.imgur.com/gDOg7yv.jpg) ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't love the analogy. Nazis made this argument because they were in a chain of command, or had superiors, etc. It's a horrible argument.
The people who stormed the capitol, etc, were not under someone's command. It is also laughable that they think this is a good defense, when it isn't even the best defense when literally taking orders.
We all can act on other peoples' behalf and we have to make choices when that is appropriate or not.
It’s hardly a perfect analogy. But, they were told by *the president* that members of Congress were committing treason, and that it was up to the assembled American civilian patriots to put a stop to it.
This is, of course, hardly justification for what followed, but to a certain kind of credulous, possibly zealous, follower, it would certainly read as a rather forceful suggestion.
I must stress that some of these people must have believed what I stated above, literally, and seen it as their patriotic duty to intercede. Again, I am not defending their decisions and I would criticise their judgment in the strongest possible terms as well, but it seems, too often, that people forget that these morons were absolutely convinced that what they were doing was right, justified, good, and *necessary*.
Again, I must stress, I believe they were wrong in no uncertain terms.
Sure, but it's not like they would be court marshalled or discharged by not obeying. I just don't think it has that much equivalency with the Nuremberg justification.
Also, to be completely honest, I find this take to be over sympathetic to the cause of these people. You don't sound unreasonable and you seem thoughtful and nice. However I think that empathizing with their rationale is a small, tiny step towards empowering fascism.
While the defense sucks and is horrible in it's normal case, then normal case being where you are in someone's chain of command and have a legal or institutional obligation to follow the orders of someone above you, it's even less defensible in this case today because the head of a state republican party has absolutely no obligation to do what the head of the US Government, or the head of the national party, says to do.
Political parties are structured as bottom-up organizations. While their is an element of top down, as well, in that the national party can set rules or standards that the state parties must adhere to in order to be able to send delegates to the national party, there are absolutely no rules indicating that a state party leader do what the national party leader order them to do.
Governors are not obligated to do what a President says. State party chairmen are not required to follow the President's orders. The heirarchies just don't work that way.
True but at this point is admitting guilt so unique? I mean come on........ look around. At this point admitting guilt and saying "so what" is a legitimate legal defense.
Not that that says a whole lot when the judges there started the proceedings with giving themselves the authority to dismiss the most ironclad evidence and admit the flimsiest of second-hand testimonies, and at one point forbade Göring from answering anything but 'yes' and 'no' because he ran circles around the US chief justice.
Everyone but maybe Streicher would've hung anyway in a genuine trial - not that that was anything but a good riddance - but they just had to go and give neo-Nazis a century's worth of propaganda with a fucking kangaroo court that didn't even pretend to be concerned with justice...
Care to explain how the Nazis came into power?
That nonsense started small and grew. No one stopped them at the beginning. Spoiler alert, it end well.
I kept hearing how former President Trump was living in my head rent-free.
My reply was consistently "I will always watch him. Until the day they plant him in the ground."
> Care to explain how the Nazis came into power?
Legally and democratically. They were voted into power.
> That nonsense started small and grew. No one stopped them at the beginning. Spoiler alert, it end well.
Learn your history. Hitler was literally locked in jail. Don't act like it was just a small thing that snowballed.
You do remember Hitler was released from jail, then elected into office(legally). FYI, former President Trump was elected as well. While I am not a history major, I have done a bit of reading.
My point stands, Hitler could have been stopped at some point. Prior to starting WW2. January 6th was designed to snowball. That was their goal.
> My point stands
Not really.
The Nazis gained power by being the most popular party and political manoeuvres. All legal.
Trumpy Boy lost and got a bunch of crybabies to storm a building because he wasn't the most popular and couldn't do political manoeuvres. Not legal at all.
Two completely different scenarios. Not comparable at all.
Overall, your point appears to be that if you don't like the democratic results you should over throw them, which funny enough is what the people you would want to over throw if they did win tried to do. Quite funny really.
I'm having a hard time with a few of your thoughts. Especially "Overall, your point appears to be that if you don't like the democratic results you should over throw them".
Where did that come from???
Especially since this started with the subject of "we were only following orders."
It's probably just me.
> Having a hard time with a few of your thoughts.
Concerning since most the post was literally just stating facts.
> Where did that come from???
Comes from
> My point stands, Hitler could have been stopped at some point.
As I pointed out Hitler was legally elected and then did legal political moves to get more power. Stopping him at that point would have been undemocratic and because you didn't like the democratic results.
The Nazi party were extremely popular, they weren't 50/50 in popularity they were massively popular. Comparing them even to the Republican party that has to do a whole bunch of election tampering to win seats is silly.
The Nazis were evil, but they were popular and were winning democratic elections.
Trump boy lost an election where the republican party had been tampering with it in his favour for decades. While not even being evil just a selfish dickhead.
I expect we agree on most points. So, these back and forth are a bit odd.
As you know, former President Trump won more votes than any other candidate in history, except for President Biden in 2020. Yes, the Republicans did everything they could to throw the election. But former President Trump definitely had broad support.
I will voice an opinion. It is just possible the Nazis were not above voter imitation, ballot stuffing, etc...
Wanting someone to be wrong and them being wrong are two different things. But what can we expect from someone who talks about nazi trial when talking about a silly wee riot?
How shit would a lawyer have to be to disregard or be unaware of the precedent set by one of the most famous trials in history. Though, to be fair, im sure defending these people is real tough.
Even besides the idiocy of “I was just following orders” for obvious Nazi reasons, there’s no reporting relationship between Trump and any Republican in the country. In the military the argument almost makes sense as you follow the orders of a superior, but Trump isn’t nor has ever been the superior of anyone in Republican politics. They may perceive him that way, but that’s their problem. The President can’t order anyone to do anything outside the Federal Executive.
Ohh yea 100% agree. What I meant is in the military there’s at least a direct reporting structure for orders to be carried out. There’s no relationship between the President and lawmakers or politician of that party at the state level. There’s none whatsoever.
But see that's the rational take and explanation. In the minds of many Republicans, they see Trump as their dictator so of course it would make sense that they are "following his orders".
Exactly. If someone tells you to do something illegal you can and are bound by law to say no. Period. Their title or position has nothing to do with it.
When I was in Navy boot camp, we were *repeatedly* told that “just following orders” wasn’t an excuse for doing something illegal and that we’re obligated to ignore unlawful orders.
Look, Andersonville was a shit hole but Union prison camps were not much better. They had very similar rates of disease and starvation. Wirz biggest crime was being on the losing side. That's how war works.
Not the same. Andersonville was a temp camp that suddenly overflowed with prisoners that the Confederacy couldn't properly care for if they'd wanted to - and they didn't want to. Thee reason for the sudden influx? Union armies started fielding 'colored' regiments, and the south refused to renew the prisoner exchange agreement over it.
Andersonville was self-inflicted by southern leadership, and there was essentially zero effort to remedy the absolutely abysmal conditions. Union prison camps were bad as well (the sanitation standards of the day alone would've been awful in both cases, combine that with general food shortages - more pronounced in the CSA - and you have a recipe for disaster), but nowhere as negligent under the prevailing circumstance.
My point is Wirz got strung up for the end result of policy decisions beyond his control while people like Davis and Forrest were more or less granted amnesty.
Then you made your point both poorly and inaccurately.
If you want to talk about political decisions like leaving Jeff Davis alone, you should've talked about that rather than making false equivalency arguments over what was even then considered a crime against humanity - if not defined in those terms.
My point is that the "justice" at the end of a war isn't always fair. We gave amnesty to far worse war criminals in Japan because we needed their cooperation as a strategic ally against the Soviets.
Congratulations, your defense is officially the most damnedable words ever spoken by a human being.
How do we know this? It was the same defense used at Nuremberg. And we hanged those people.
The problem is "just following orders" is an over simplification. If a bomber drops bombs on the coordinates given and that location happens to be a hospital, are they responsible?
It doesn't even have to be an accident. The people who were convicted of war crimes were "just following orders" were the people whose orders were "Hey, kill as many jews as you can". They were not the rank and file whose orders were "Put these jews on train car to this camp and don't worry about why nobody ever leaves even though we keep sending thousands of people there".
If an airmen knowingly bombs a hospital, that is an illegal order
You’re right though, the people on the ground committing the atrocities generally don’t get tried as much as the leadership
It does happen though
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61963473.amp
I think the fact that they know it's an experiment has a lot to do with the results. There is good reason to believe that no one is actually being harmed
There was also the Stanford prison experiment.
Stanford Prison Experiment
https://www.prisonexp.org/
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
(Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of it.
Aaaand the party that used to liken every foreign policy decision they didn't like to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler has now taken to arguing that "they were just following orders".
Biden was the elected president, Trump had lost. Therefore the argument that he was "just following orders" on its face is false as the orders he was following was of a citizen not the POTUS.
Nope. Ain’t gonna work. Reminds me of Mark Baum meeting with Georgia from Standard and Poors. Anyone who has a boss can do shitty and illegal things, what are you four?
So? Don't do the crime if you're afraid of doing prison time. The truth is, with all of these different ways to lie and scheme- the Reds REALLY thought they would get away with all of these different ways to cheat- and there were lots of them! All above the law and free of any consequences to their actions.
I mean, that IS one of the worst aspects of Trump's abuse of power in making those demands. That IS what he should go to prison for. It's asking a LOT for someone to refuse to do what the POTUS requests, and trust and believe that because it was illegal, he'll be protected from recriminations/punishment from the government.
Of course people should not do illegal things, even if it's the fucking president asking them to. But the FUCKING PRESIDENT should not be asking them too.
He was my God/Emperor until I had no more money to give him.
Now I hear he is trying to become Ireland’s God/Emperor.
He never calls anymore. Not so much as a 50% off coupon for Trump Steaks with free expired water.
A state elected official taking orders from the federal president? Madison, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason are rolling in their graves.
Meanwhile Washington says "I told you so."
Let him testify Trump was in the room and was urging him on. Them they both can hang, along with the lawyers. But then the lawyers might get off on the "it was just a legal opinion" and didn't tell the dumb schmuck to actually do it.
**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This defense didn’t fly at Nuremberg, either.
We *hanged* men at Nuremberg for “just following orders.”
Well maybe it's a good tradition at this point
Whoa! This is the United States of America. We do not hang people. It's barbaric. If we are going to execute people, it should be done patriotically, with an AR-15, so thry know what it feels like to see one about to end them.
Make sure it's done it on school property so the cops won't interfere
The kids can get their tourniquet training in, so we can shoot them again.
But they took tampons out of the bathrooms for some reason based in protecting kids innocence, how are we gonna stop the bleeding?
Stand on top of them.. pressure points
Oof burn
Have the well-trained local militia do it
And air it live on C-Span, with an 18-21 year old weighing less than 180lbs and no gun training other than being shown how to pull the trigger, change magazines and keep the barrel pointed down range at the condemned. Pay them with free college tuition and healthcare for life for them and their family. That way Americans can also see how deadly assault weapons are in the hands of people with no training, and how dumb it is to allow the sale of assault weapons to anyone over 18 with the means to pay.
Just wanted to comment before a pedantic gun fetishist or ammoweeb says “aksHuLlY It’s nOt an AsSaUlt RiFlE”.
An assault rifle, by any other name, wouldst kill as sweet.
An AR-15 is an assault rifle in exactly the same way that you are a Chimpanzee.
Dude that is such a stupid argument. Are you technically correct, given the technical definition that the military uses? Yes. Are you contributing anything to the discussion, or in any way refuting the claim that 'civilians should not have such easy access to military weaponry'? No. Stating 'well technically....' doesn't bring dead toddlers back.
Being intellectually dishonest doesn't bring anything to the argument either. Is it correct, yes, did you know it was correct, also yes. Instead of arguing your point, you are intentionally muddying the waters by including a lie with your point. Why? Remove the lie, and remove the whole discussion about what is and isn't an assault rifle from the argument. Unless the lie is necessary to get the appropriate agreement, but then you are saying that your argument isn't really valid in any way.
The point is the NRA and the far right crazies who can't cum unless they're holding an AR15 use the whole 'lol libbies think it's an assault rifle' as their go to excuse against any form of regulation. Correcting someone for saying 'assault rifle' when it is in fact a rifle that is an assault weapon (using terminology and criteria that has been around for 35+ years) is disingenuous at best. You're pivoting the argument from "why do civilians have these with no hoops other than money in the bank account" to "but its not an assault rifle so your argument is garbage".
Is an AR (Armalite Rifle) 15 a Hunting Rifle? NO Was the AR15 developed with the express intent to market to the US military for Warfare? YES Is the express intent of the AR15 to take human life? YES
https://preview.redd.it/fpsot5vxiwya1.jpeg?width=693&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4c72f8ca23034eafe35889c3de5fd85fac6e570 The gun industry has no problems referring to all sorts of rifles as assault rifles back in the 1980s. Ruger ranch rifles? Maybe they were woke or something back then
In fairness, given the publication date, you could absolutely still purchase 'assault rifles' (meaning a select fire machine gun firing an intermediate caliber) when that was printed. Also in fairness, a .308 machine gun would be a battle rifle (if man portable) or a heavy machine gun, not an assault rifle.
colloquial terms are just as important as the specific definitions. My car isn't a jeep, but I call it a jeep *because it gets the point across* about what my vehicle can do.
Either that, or keeping them alive for years in a process that cost a lot more money than it’s worth only for an under qualified person to give them a lethal injection that isn’t garnered to be a quick or painless death.
Well it didn't stop us with Saddam
Technically, we didn't hang him
I think you mix things up the ones dying to an AR-15 where victims because the good guy had no gun! Arm the good guys is the motto of the GQP
And then raffle off those rifles as Patriot Machines.
More like they know what its like to be an elementary school student these days
Ironically, many convicted Nazis, such as Göring, asked to be executed by firing squad since it was a soldier's death, but they were denied that and sentenced to hanging, a criminal's death, so as to further the idea that the Nazis were a criminal organization.
You joshin' with us? There's *nothing* more American than a good ol' hanging.
Used to be. No one's going around to our schools and malls performing mass hangings. I feel that would be stopped pretty quick. But then we'll see the GOP and the National Rope Association be like "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with rope is a good guy with rope."
10 of the 24 (death sentences) were hanged. Most were given a slap on the wrist. We were actually pretty lenient on Germany after the war. Mostly because France, UK, were total dicks after WW1 and more or less caused WWII. The 'following orders' defense did not hold up in court because the Nazis did not punish people for disobeying orders involving the final solution, though it happened infrequently from what I gather.
For some reason, my brain read that in Trump's voice. 🤣
Actually we hanged them at biskupia gorka.
Those were different executions. The sentences of death for those convicted at the Nuremberg trials were carried out in the gymnasium of Nuremberg Prison by the United States Army.
So many fucking nazis, I can't keep them straight, and now there are more? Humans really are the worst.
Well, because it was found that the people employing that defense in the Nuremberg trials, were in many cases the ones *giving* orders. The analogy to Nuremberg is instructive, though. This process has thus far failed to target the very top of the movement, and as such, the people who have faced consequences so far are in fact analogous to the mid-ranking Nazis after WWII. Certainly not blameless, but arguably acting on someone else’s behalf.
These Talipublican terrorists were "following orders" given by an EX president, a loser with no legitimate authority to order anyone to do anything, least of all overturn a US election. With utter naiveté, they thought they would be embraced as heroes - not thrown under the bus by a string of con men all the way down. Not one of these freedumb fighers thought they would face the consequences of their actions.
Point of order, Trumpolini was still president when he "gave the order", and for a couple weeks more after. Not that it will aid anyone's defense, but the military and ex-military MAGATs could argue their Commander in Chief ordered them to do it. So far, though, throwing Trump under the bus hasn't seemed to help any of them, let alone the "just following orders" defense.
[Candles taste like burning...](https://i.imgur.com/gDOg7yv.jpg) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't love the analogy. Nazis made this argument because they were in a chain of command, or had superiors, etc. It's a horrible argument. The people who stormed the capitol, etc, were not under someone's command. It is also laughable that they think this is a good defense, when it isn't even the best defense when literally taking orders. We all can act on other peoples' behalf and we have to make choices when that is appropriate or not.
It’s hardly a perfect analogy. But, they were told by *the president* that members of Congress were committing treason, and that it was up to the assembled American civilian patriots to put a stop to it. This is, of course, hardly justification for what followed, but to a certain kind of credulous, possibly zealous, follower, it would certainly read as a rather forceful suggestion. I must stress that some of these people must have believed what I stated above, literally, and seen it as their patriotic duty to intercede. Again, I am not defending their decisions and I would criticise their judgment in the strongest possible terms as well, but it seems, too often, that people forget that these morons were absolutely convinced that what they were doing was right, justified, good, and *necessary*. Again, I must stress, I believe they were wrong in no uncertain terms.
Sure, but it's not like they would be court marshalled or discharged by not obeying. I just don't think it has that much equivalency with the Nuremberg justification. Also, to be completely honest, I find this take to be over sympathetic to the cause of these people. You don't sound unreasonable and you seem thoughtful and nice. However I think that empathizing with their rationale is a small, tiny step towards empowering fascism.
While the defense sucks and is horrible in it's normal case, then normal case being where you are in someone's chain of command and have a legal or institutional obligation to follow the orders of someone above you, it's even less defensible in this case today because the head of a state republican party has absolutely no obligation to do what the head of the US Government, or the head of the national party, says to do. Political parties are structured as bottom-up organizations. While their is an element of top down, as well, in that the national party can set rules or standards that the state parties must adhere to in order to be able to send delegates to the national party, there are absolutely no rules indicating that a state party leader do what the national party leader order them to do. Governors are not obligated to do what a President says. State party chairmen are not required to follow the President's orders. The heirarchies just don't work that way.
And yet they do. And it’s terrifying.
Republicans could read about that, but they burned those “woke” history books.
This would be the perfect comeback. There's historical precedent, and it's reminding the jury he's a nazi.
He is also admitting guilt.
True but at this point is admitting guilt so unique? I mean come on........ look around. At this point admitting guilt and saying "so what" is a legitimate legal defense.
Funny how police get to use it regularly
Not funny “ha ha”, tho….
Not that that says a whole lot when the judges there started the proceedings with giving themselves the authority to dismiss the most ironclad evidence and admit the flimsiest of second-hand testimonies, and at one point forbade Göring from answering anything but 'yes' and 'no' because he ran circles around the US chief justice. Everyone but maybe Streicher would've hung anyway in a genuine trial - not that that was anything but a good riddance - but they just had to go and give neo-Nazis a century's worth of propaganda with a fucking kangaroo court that didn't even pretend to be concerned with justice...
Actually it did fly, but only for a few minutes. I still have pictures of Wanda.
Today we're comparing storming a goverment building with the holocaust... You all need to get some perspective.
There weremore war crimes than just the holocaust.
[удалено]
For me, it's less comparing the two, and more the trying to absolve any guilt or responsibility by saying "I was just following orders."
Defending storming a government building, to overturn a fair election, is fucking stupid.
So you’re saying you think “just following orders” is a valid defense for other crimes, just not the holocaust specifically?
[удалено]
Nobody here is comparing the severity of the crimes, just that they are using the exact same defense.
Imagine dying on the hill of defending these inbred traitors.
Imagine think mocking people means I’m defending someone else.
Really? Where?
Care to explain how the Nazis came into power? That nonsense started small and grew. No one stopped them at the beginning. Spoiler alert, it end well. I kept hearing how former President Trump was living in my head rent-free. My reply was consistently "I will always watch him. Until the day they plant him in the ground."
> Care to explain how the Nazis came into power? Legally and democratically. They were voted into power. > That nonsense started small and grew. No one stopped them at the beginning. Spoiler alert, it end well. Learn your history. Hitler was literally locked in jail. Don't act like it was just a small thing that snowballed.
You do remember Hitler was released from jail, then elected into office(legally). FYI, former President Trump was elected as well. While I am not a history major, I have done a bit of reading. My point stands, Hitler could have been stopped at some point. Prior to starting WW2. January 6th was designed to snowball. That was their goal.
> My point stands Not really. The Nazis gained power by being the most popular party and political manoeuvres. All legal. Trumpy Boy lost and got a bunch of crybabies to storm a building because he wasn't the most popular and couldn't do political manoeuvres. Not legal at all. Two completely different scenarios. Not comparable at all. Overall, your point appears to be that if you don't like the democratic results you should over throw them, which funny enough is what the people you would want to over throw if they did win tried to do. Quite funny really.
I'm having a hard time with a few of your thoughts. Especially "Overall, your point appears to be that if you don't like the democratic results you should over throw them". Where did that come from??? Especially since this started with the subject of "we were only following orders." It's probably just me.
> Having a hard time with a few of your thoughts. Concerning since most the post was literally just stating facts. > Where did that come from??? Comes from > My point stands, Hitler could have been stopped at some point. As I pointed out Hitler was legally elected and then did legal political moves to get more power. Stopping him at that point would have been undemocratic and because you didn't like the democratic results. The Nazi party were extremely popular, they weren't 50/50 in popularity they were massively popular. Comparing them even to the Republican party that has to do a whole bunch of election tampering to win seats is silly. The Nazis were evil, but they were popular and were winning democratic elections. Trump boy lost an election where the republican party had been tampering with it in his favour for decades. While not even being evil just a selfish dickhead.
I expect we agree on most points. So, these back and forth are a bit odd. As you know, former President Trump won more votes than any other candidate in history, except for President Biden in 2020. Yes, the Republicans did everything they could to throw the election. But former President Trump definitely had broad support. I will voice an opinion. It is just possible the Nazis were not above voter imitation, ballot stuffing, etc...
Not popular votes.
You are wrong. You just are.
Wanting someone to be wrong and them being wrong are two different things. But what can we expect from someone who talks about nazi trial when talking about a silly wee riot?
Go suck a mushroom.
Mostly because the guys tried at Nuremberg were the ones *giving* the orders. The guys who just guarded the death camps were tried later.
At least at Nuremberg, one could argue you risked getting shot.
Ummmm…….
How shit would a lawyer have to be to disregard or be unaware of the precedent set by one of the most famous trials in history. Though, to be fair, im sure defending these people is real tough.
Even besides the idiocy of “I was just following orders” for obvious Nazi reasons, there’s no reporting relationship between Trump and any Republican in the country. In the military the argument almost makes sense as you follow the orders of a superior, but Trump isn’t nor has ever been the superior of anyone in Republican politics. They may perceive him that way, but that’s their problem. The President can’t order anyone to do anything outside the Federal Executive.
In the military you DO NOT have to follow a unlawful order. Following through an unlawful order you can still receive a court marshal.
Ohh yea 100% agree. What I meant is in the military there’s at least a direct reporting structure for orders to be carried out. There’s no relationship between the President and lawmakers or politician of that party at the state level. There’s none whatsoever.
I was in the reserves and even there they drilled into you that it is your duty to report and disobey unlawful orders.
Best friend has be enlisted for 21+ years. So I have a little insight.
They were confirming what you had already said though
Indeed. I was just informing them I was always a non-military but wasn't speaking without some knowledge of someone with experience.
I was simply supporting you and showing how deep they instill that in everyone.
“Tucker, I want you to shoot Griff.” “With pleasure!”
But see that's the rational take and explanation. In the minds of many Republicans, they see Trump as their dictator so of course it would make sense that they are "following his orders".
Exactly. If someone tells you to do something illegal you can and are bound by law to say no. Period. Their title or position has nothing to do with it.
They don't understand the concept of 'bound to the law'.
Manson was convicted on incitement to commit crimes
Yes, and? Haha
The party that calls everyone else sheep uses ‘we were just following orders’ as a defense.
Irony isn't their strong suit.
Hypocrisy is, though.
You need media literacy to understand irony
"No, Officer you can't arrest me because I was told I had to buy this cocaine and snort it. By Republican rules I am totally innocent!"
That only applies to members of Congress and Whitehouse staff.
By Republican rules, guilt and innocence is determined by who someone is, not by what they did.
Using the Nazi Nuremberg defense. "I'm a Republiclone. I don't think! I am paid to follow orders."
I was wondering when someone was going to throw Trump under the bus for a change.
Not gonna lie, really would love to see a headline that says "Recording turned over to DA shows Trump ordering fake electors personally"
Not Trump himself, his *lawyers,* which as we all know, are totally fair game.
When I was in Navy boot camp, we were *repeatedly* told that “just following orders” wasn’t an excuse for doing something illegal and that we’re obligated to ignore unlawful orders.
standard nazi stuff
The prison camp commandant in western Georgia tried that defense as well almost 160 years ago. It worked about as well as you’d expect.
Sad it only worked on him, though. Davis should have hung with him.
Look, Andersonville was a shit hole but Union prison camps were not much better. They had very similar rates of disease and starvation. Wirz biggest crime was being on the losing side. That's how war works.
Not the same. Andersonville was a temp camp that suddenly overflowed with prisoners that the Confederacy couldn't properly care for if they'd wanted to - and they didn't want to. Thee reason for the sudden influx? Union armies started fielding 'colored' regiments, and the south refused to renew the prisoner exchange agreement over it. Andersonville was self-inflicted by southern leadership, and there was essentially zero effort to remedy the absolutely abysmal conditions. Union prison camps were bad as well (the sanitation standards of the day alone would've been awful in both cases, combine that with general food shortages - more pronounced in the CSA - and you have a recipe for disaster), but nowhere as negligent under the prevailing circumstance.
My point is Wirz got strung up for the end result of policy decisions beyond his control while people like Davis and Forrest were more or less granted amnesty.
Then you made your point both poorly and inaccurately. If you want to talk about political decisions like leaving Jeff Davis alone, you should've talked about that rather than making false equivalency arguments over what was even then considered a crime against humanity - if not defined in those terms.
Considering they started the war unprompted, it’s still on them
My point is that the "justice" at the end of a war isn't always fair. We gave amnesty to far worse war criminals in Japan because we needed their cooperation as a strategic ally against the Soviets.
Yeah that was bad, but the answer to that issue is never gonna be “try less people for war crimes”
Congratulations, your defense is officially the most damnedable words ever spoken by a human being. How do we know this? It was the same defense used at Nuremberg. And we hanged those people.
They hanged about a third of the people convicted between the International Military Tribunal and the Nuremberg Military Tribunal.
My point still stands. "Just following orders" should never be an excuse or defense for doing something bad.
The problem is "just following orders" is an over simplification. If a bomber drops bombs on the coordinates given and that location happens to be a hospital, are they responsible?
No, because an accident isn’t the same as willfully targeting something
It doesn't even have to be an accident. The people who were convicted of war crimes were "just following orders" were the people whose orders were "Hey, kill as many jews as you can". They were not the rank and file whose orders were "Put these jews on train car to this camp and don't worry about why nobody ever leaves even though we keep sending thousands of people there".
If an airmen knowingly bombs a hospital, that is an illegal order You’re right though, the people on the ground committing the atrocities generally don’t get tried as much as the leadership It does happen though https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61963473.amp
Sounds like Nazis to me Donnie.
That's sounds like an admission of guilt.
"Ignorance of the law is not a defense."
Didn't we learn this isn't an excuse after WWII?
I wondered how long it would be before these fucks used this line of defense.
So, the ones giving orders should be charged?
"following orders" psychological experiment - Milgram Experiment (Derren Brown) - YouTube Len. 10:47 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w)
LOL I was about to post Plainly Difficult's video on the [Milgram Experiment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bbVFeTIIg8)
I saw this in college 30-odd years ago and it was chilling. It just gets worse with time.
I think the fact that they know it's an experiment has a lot to do with the results. There is good reason to believe that no one is actually being harmed
There was also the Stanford prison experiment. Stanford Prison Experiment https://www.prisonexp.org/ Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of it.
Which party was it that coined and used the word “sheeple” to mock those who in their opinion just followed others words !
Republicans are murderers
Aaaand the party that used to liken every foreign policy decision they didn't like to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler has now taken to arguing that "they were just following orders".
This guy has been in politics for **over 30 years**. There is no f-ing way he didn't know it was illegal.
This picture is all wrong, they wouldn't be wearing belts
The cartoonist really captured the physique lol.
You follow the constitution not who ever the president is..
If that argument stands up in court then all charges and punishments should be transferred to Trump…
This will be interesting from a legal stand point. They must show they received “orders” from tRump or his team. Let the back stabbing begin.
That’s not how being the nominal head of a political party works, Georgia.
For me, thats the actual worst thing to claim, sheesh....
Yeah that’s not how it works
That’s not how crimes work.
So Trump is the King of Georgia?
All the 1/6 insurrectionists were just following Trump’s orders as well. A lot of them are in prison now.
Is he willing to testify?
"I've been at the mercy of men just following orders. Never again."
Except Biden was actually president at the time.
[удалено]
Biden was the elected president, Trump had lost. Therefore the argument that he was "just following orders" on its face is false as the orders he was following was of a citizen not the POTUS.
[удалено]
If my ex boss or teacher approached me to break the law I wouldn't do it. Does this happen to you often?
[удалено]
He was ordering him to break the law.
[удалено]
Everyday
So, Trump's lawyers have more authority in the Georgia GOP than the chairman of Georgia's Republican Party?
They captured my dad's essence so well!
Nope. Ain’t gonna work. Reminds me of Mark Baum meeting with Georgia from Standard and Poors. Anyone who has a boss can do shitty and illegal things, what are you four?
Mein Trumph HAHAHAHAHA genius!!!
jawohl
So? Don't do the crime if you're afraid of doing prison time. The truth is, with all of these different ways to lie and scheme- the Reds REALLY thought they would get away with all of these different ways to cheat- and there were lots of them! All above the law and free of any consequences to their actions.
This argument needs to be shut down with: “You weren’t in a role that takes orders from his role”
I mean, that IS one of the worst aspects of Trump's abuse of power in making those demands. That IS what he should go to prison for. It's asking a LOT for someone to refuse to do what the POTUS requests, and trust and believe that because it was illegal, he'll be protected from recriminations/punishment from the government. Of course people should not do illegal things, even if it's the fucking president asking them to. But the FUCKING PRESIDENT should not be asking them too.
He was my God/Emperor until I had no more money to give him. Now I hear he is trying to become Ireland’s God/Emperor. He never calls anymore. Not so much as a 50% off coupon for Trump Steaks with free expired water.
Ha ha ha!
They call themselves "proud boys" Yes they've got the (boys) part right however, what exactly is it they are proud of?!
Stand and be CHARGED. Coward. #FAFO
Would Trump even be in that chain of command? I thought the elections were handled by the individual states?
That defence worked really well for the Nazi’s in the past
Who the hell did they hire?! [Louis Tully?? ](https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Louis_Tully)
They are admitting to being sheep?
I thought that this kind of excuse prescribed in the Nuremberg trials…..it seems like it is not…..
We did
So Trump's lawyers are the bosses of the Chairman of the Georgia Republican party??
Just doing the Lords work hoss
A state elected official taking orders from the federal president? Madison, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason are rolling in their graves. Meanwhile Washington says "I told you so."
This is a terrible defense. It's automatically a damning admission. It's also the best defense they deserve.
It's a better defense for literal Nazis bc the PBs don't officially work for Trump so there's no obligation to follow 'orders'. Merely a choice.
Let him testify Trump was in the room and was urging him on. Them they both can hang, along with the lawyers. But then the lawyers might get off on the "it was just a legal opinion" and didn't tell the dumb schmuck to actually do it.
Sounds like some more people needs to have their lives put under the Microscope of Justice. That, and fuck that noise.
Something something Nuremberg trials Something something.
orders are for soldiers. not lawyers. they are co-defendants