It hasn’t stopped the “National Democratic Party” from causing a lot of issues.
It doesn’t quell the ideas, just the slogans they use.
You don’t want to take a chance with Nazis
At least one, and now he’s a lobbyist
So let them. I can easily say the opposite, that by allowing them to exist and not impeding their growth, these people will draw support and convince others that their cause is just. I’m unwilling to allow that. I’d rather push them underground and grind them under the boot of government than pretend they have as much legitimacy as any other political party. Anything to make their existence more difficult
Or just ban them from government. That’s the less Nazi-like approach 
Eh, you can play word games all you want when you shorten a complex point into a single soundbite. Observe: You think Nazis are just as legitimate as NAMBLA or your political party of choice
That’s silly, nobody’s banning thoughts. I simply want the political party known as the Nazis (or “Fucking Nazis” if you prefer) to be banned from ever holding office
Nope, just Nazis
One does not have to win elections to have influence
I fail to see how banning a party makes it more legitimate. Maybe in the eyes of adolescent boys, but the Nazis were a legitimate power that took over much of Europe and threatened the world
Or we can ban them and they can still strut around and play politics. They will use dogwhistles and code words whether or not they are in government. Better to make sure they cannot be a part of it. Its not like they’ll simply go “Bleeeh, we’re the Fucking Nazis, gonna kill all the Jews” if we allow them to participate and everyone will see how bad they are, and if we ban them they’ll somehow become more powerful and more sneaky. They’re gonna try to have influence either way, better to make sure they cant
The party’s existed for 50-odd years. How have they capitalized on their chances so far?
And you think that began with a single registered lobbyist?
Except banning the party doesn’t do that. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
IIRC, the reason the Communist Party was outlawed and that teacher in California cannot be Communists is because they advocate the overthrow of the government.
I think the Nazis were bigger threats.
Sarcasm aside, why aren’t they similar? I’m not saying they have exactly the same mirror image congruency, but there is a similarity. The similarities are magnified if you look at the arguments for the under 35 rule and arguments for allowing Nazis applied to local government and the presidency. For example:
Argument for Nazis: If you ban them, who’s to say your group isn’t next?
Similar to: If you ban people under 35, who’s to say they won’t raise it to 45?
Argument for Nazis: If you ban Nazis, then you’re not a free society.
Similar to: If you ban people under 35, or not a member of the state they live in, or not a citizen, you’re not a free society
Argument for Nazis: We shouldn’t restrict speech, its not freedom!
Similar to: If you ban shouting fire in a theater or incite others to violence or threaten the president or harass people, its not freedom!
There’s a lot of similarities if you want to nitpick hard enough. My biggest problem isn’t with the argument itself, its the fact that people like to pretend there’s absolutely no similarities, or they pretend that their arbitrary line they won’t cross is THE line where freedom ends and tyranny begins and nobody else has a say. I may be supporting a ban on Nazis, but I’m fine with not banning other groups. I just don’t see as big of a threat from any other groups, and yes that includes Communists
You know you are right. From now on Jews can’t not hold office in the United States. Wait a minute, did I say Jews? I meant Nazis. It’s an easy mistake, one group was treated as less than full citizens by those holding power in their country. But that would never happen here, right?
[/QUOTE]
Similar to: Why can’t I be president if I’m not 35? What if you changed it to 45? But that would never happen here, right?
I believe Germany is free. It is a first world democracy with freedoms and morals. I do not think that just because they’ve banned many Nazi symbols and influences, that they are not free. In this case, Nazism is very personal to them, and they look at it in a different way than most other countries. They’ve decided that they cannot have them around any more. I still think they are a free people. The only real issue I have with Germany is their freaky toilets
I don’t mind if I call for similar actions as Nazis if it means more restrictions on Nazis.
Let’s not take a chance. Especially if everyone’s so quick to agree that the Nazis have no power, they have no influence, and they’ll never hold office again legitimately. If you think I should care so little of Nazis, then you should care just as little about a ban on them. You should be telling yourselves that this ban is symbolic, it’ll never really affect anyone, they’ll never expand it to other groups, and we should just humor him and ban Nazis because it would have the same effect as banning Martians
Its gotta start somewhere. The fact that he feels comfortable enough to actually register as a lobbyist right now tells me things aren’t as bad for Nazis right now as they should be, as it was in the past
We’ve been taking the chance for 50-odd years and nothing has happened, so I put it to you that no chance is being taken.
Several posters have already gone to the trouble of explaining to you why this is a false equivalence. I’m not sure why you’re bothering to attempt it at this point.
Review how it started in Germany and maybe you’ll understand why a guy registering as a lobbyist is not something the rest of us are worried about.
Only in an obscure technical sense nobody knows or cares about.
Yeah, them Nazis are gonna take over because Nazis and 1933 and Enabling Act and it’s gonna happen even if everyone hates them and nobody votes for them. They’re sneaky that way.
You don’t understand how lobbying works, do you? A lobbyist who doesn’t represent anyone or any interests politicians want to recognize has all the sledgehammer influence of a wet fart in hurricane Katrina.
HOW!?!
No, it isn’t.
Depends on how you define ‘legitimate’, and note how you didn’t say ‘influential’ because you aren’t a total blithering moron.
And later on you say it’s all about the name. So if they translated their name, or just went by their original handle Nasos, you’d be fine with the same people and ideas in the halls of power?
True in a way that really, really doesn’t help your case. In order to have influence, you need to represent a block of people and/or money and/or more general ‘clout’ (as per Royko) that politicians feel they can’t ignore. The American Nazis don’t.
And that’s the only group these losers will be able to attract, so it would be perfect for them.
So, by your own arguments, banning them won’t actually change anything except the name of one group of people. That’s stupid even if you ignore the First Amendment and our fundamental system of government.
But by your own arguments above, under your proposed law they’d still be able to have all the influence they can get as long as they don’t use the magic evil name ‘Nazi’.
Let’s split the difference: we won’t ban the Nazi party, but we’ll make it illegal for them to kill or terrorize anybody.
Ummm, no. That you are ignorant and unaware of what the words mean doesn’t make them obscure technological jargon or something nobody knows or cares about. It makes it something you don’t know about and apparently refuse to accept, preferring ‘There’s glory for you’ in defining words instead of admitting your error. You are quite simply wrong.
Not really. They were not death camps, but they were clearly set up with an eye to the British concentration camps of the Boer War.
The term “concentration camp” was actually the first term used by the various fear-mongering groups that began to demand that the government lock up all the Japanese-Americans. It is hardly arcane to note that in response for calls for concentration camps we actually set up and populated such camps.
A statement that equated Auschwitz and Manzanar would be insulting. Using the word that was initially employed is just historical.
This whole banning idea gets messy. That’s what we have drones for, right?
I could just as well say that German’s banned them for 50-odd years and nothing has happened.
Do you mean the people who said that its a slippery slope? I’ve responded to those. Germany has done it for decades and I don’t see them putting Jews or Communists or Catholics on the line yet. A ban on a specific political party can be done effectively without it slipping into anything else. There’s proof of that
Better to close all avenues if one is open than to leave a path and assume it won’t be taken advantage of. We’ve had GD topics where people speculated on whether or not the Nazis could have been prevented from rising in Germany. Hitler’s death, crackdowns, a less punitive WW1 treaty were all possibilities. I recall some posters still believed that given the context, the Nazis would still have risen regardless. I think that is a history lesson to apply here. Even if the historical Nazis didn’t start with one man lobbying, the same path to legitimacy isn’t available for him now as it was back then. He’s simply taking advantage of whatever roads are available for him. We should close it before he gets too far into it
You could ignore the rise of the Nazis, World War II and the occupation of Germany if you wanted, but I’m not sure that would do much to support your argument.
If you get the same result without closing those avenues - that is, if the Nazis have no power whether they are banned or not, and they have none - it stands to reason that the less-restrictive option is preferred.
He’s never going to go anywhere. It’s the ultimate absurdity to treat the registration of a Nazi lobbyist as a serious threat. Who’s going to meet with him and what legislation is he going to get passed?