this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
508 points (85.5% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4413 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that 'some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest' of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called 'social fascists.'

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Every great leader is born already possessing certain traits that will enable them to rise and lead on instinct".

"The need for them has to be great for these traits to then arise, allowing them to lead."

From the article you provided.

I never said Carter or Reagan had special traits, I just used their names as a placeholder for their administrations.

I never said that there was a giant need, they were both elected as part of the regular election cycle.

So again, you are proven wrong by your own article.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am not proven wrong, the frame of your analysis necessitated the rest of the theory.

Why do you believe Reagan was elected?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Moving the goal posts again?

I never explicitly or implicitly endorsed the Great Man Theory. You were unable to show I did.

Adios

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I outright proved it, lol.

Adios.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Why do you believe Reagan was elected?

Why did you need to move the goal posts? If you'd proven your point you'd have shown where I was wrong. You couldn't, so you tried a different approach.

That's the funny thing about you. You keep shooting yourself in the foot and call it a win.

edit =by your 'logic' any historian who talks about a particular leader/inventor/general believes in the Great Man theory.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I thought you said "Adios?"

I proved it by illustrating your portrayal of history as important people doing important things, then I contextualized why they happened. Asking you why you believe events happen isn't "moving the goal posts," it's the entire point of this conversation. If you truly reject Great Man Theory, then give an explanation for why Reagan was elected that rejects Great Man Theory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You're right.

I should have stopped responding to you several messages ago.