Sohan Lalwani

I appreciate the clarification, but if the original claim was that democratic norms are eroding, then we are actually closer in agreement than it seemed. My point is not that erosion is not happening — it clearly is. My point is that erosion is not the same thing as collapse. Drawing from Weimar is useful only if the comparison helps us understand how breakdowns actually occur. But if we are going to reference Weimar, let’s also be precise. Germany was a fledgling democracy coming out of autocracy and war. The United States has a deeper institutional memory, even if that alone is not a safeguard. So yes, the stakes are even higher. But that is not an argument that the collapse is inevitable — it is an argument for vigilance. On your point about academic freedom, I do not disagree that the situation is dire. But I also think we have to be specific about what it means to say “they are not really winning.” If lawsuits are being filed and sometimes upheld, then some legal safeguards are still in play. Yes, many are rolling over. Yes, many conventions are being shredded. But if you take the position that all resistance is futile or performative, you demoralize the people who are actually doing the work — in courts, in legislatures, in classrooms. That serves the people stripping rights far more than it challenges them. As for your broader conclusion — that we are only half a year in and guardrails are popping off — I agree. Which is why I said this is the moment to use what is left. Lawsuits, media pressure, protest, voting, coalition building. If people believe the tools are already broken beyond use, they stop trying. And that is exactly what accelerates collapse.

Wow! How damn smart to summarize an entire nation by saying they are war criminals! Your genius is truly unmatched! Hmmmmmmm I wonder who armed the groups that caused Israel’s severe response. Also, “since 1985, Iran and Israel have been engaged in a proxy conflict that has greatly affected the geopolitics of the Middle East.” Prior to there Islamic Regime taking over Iran and Israel generally had excellent relations, Post them taking political power of the country they had very proof relations. Hence why Netanyahu when he is addressing Israel’s assault on Iran he often talks about the Iranian people, I recommend even reading a Wikipedia page on the topic before jumping to hostilities.

I do agree that media coverage should be significantly better considering the amount of protestors there are. I am addressing THE Trump presidency in its entirety— including the current threats. You are right that things have gotten worse. I never claimed institutions are in great shape now. What I said was they are not entirely gone, and that still matters. The courts have ruled more selectively, Congress has been paralyzed by partisanship, and executive overreach is becoming more blatant. I am not denying any of that. But the idea that we are past the point of engagement, or that anyone paying attention should just throw their hands up, is exactly the kind of thinking that lets the erosion continue unchecked. The whole point is that if institutions are under strain, we do not abandon them. We force them to work. That means lawsuits, oversight, elections, protests, and pressure. Mocking people for not being “informed enough” or claiming they are disconnected from reality is not a substitute for argument. As for journalists, no one forced 60 Minutes to resign. They got heat, and yes, pressure campaigns work both ways. But resignations do not prove full scale repression. There are still major investigations happening in outlets across the political spectrum. Whistleblowers are still coming forward. Books are still being published. If the media were truly under full state control, none of that would be happening. And yes, I agree, the attempt to control school and university curricula is an attack on academic freedom. It should be fought. But that fight is also happening. University boards, faculty, students, and state legislatures are not all rolling over. Some are pushing back, suing, and winning. These are not symptoms of a healthy democracy, but they are signs of one that is still alive, still contested, and not yet lost. Unless it is to be helpful, little snippets like this should generally be avoided 😬 “Holy,” you are free to complain but PLEASE MAKE ADEQUATE COMPARISONS (This is my point). I understand there may be a similar spirit of crisis, but context matters deeply. Comparing today’s situation to Weimar requires more than just surface similarities.

Saying “it’ll be too late once the knife hits a vital organ” makes for a great metaphor, but democracy is not a body that dies with one blow. It is more like a structure that needs constant maintenance. It can take damage and still be repaired. But not if everyone walks away convinced it’s already collapsed. The question isn’t “what stops him?” It’s who. And the answer is still the same as it’s always been: voters, courts, states, journalists, organizers, and yes, people in Congress some of whom do break ranks when the stakes are clear. That’s what keeps systems from falling. Not panic, but persistence. Congress has not done its job in many areas, I agree. And neither has the Supreme Court in some crucial cases. But a broken branch is not the same thing as a dead tree. The judiciary, for all its partisanship, has still ruled against Trump in dozens of cases. Journalists are still publishing leaks, lawsuits are still moving through courts, and millions of voters still organized in response to the threats you mention. These things are not fluff. They are the mechanisms that define whether a democracy is actually still operating or not. Weimar did not collapse just because of bad leadership. It collapsed because it had no strong institutional foundation, and when push came to shove, the courts, the military, and the press either folded or actively helped the takeover. We are not there. Not yet. But yes, we could get there if we stop acting like anything matters. That is why calls for civic participation, pressure on elected officials, and voter turnout are not meaningless. They are the last line of defense, and they are still working, even if not fast enough for everyone’s comfort. You want specifics? Here are some. Trump’s travel bans were eventually curbed by courts. His attempts to overturn the 2020 election were blocked by judges across the country, some of them appointed by him. His appointees failed to deliver on many of his legal overreaches. Local officials certified elections despite death threats. That is evidence that the system bends, but does not yet break. You are right to be angry. You are right to be watchful. But it is precisely because democracy is in danger that we cannot afford to bury it before it is dead. Recognizing danger is not the same as declaring defeat. I still can’t see the box where the stuff is quotes so I put a _________________________ to distinguish my responses

The comparison to the Weimar Republic is powerful, but also very different in context. Weimar’s collapse involved widespread economic devastation, extremist paramilitaries controlling streets, and the complete breakdown of democratic norms. We are nowhere near that level of systemic failure. It’s important to stay vigilant and hold leaders accountable, but let’s also avoid overblown rhetoric that might undermine confidence in the very democratic processes that can fix these problems. Threats to democracy deserve serious attention — and they also deserve clear-eyed, evidence-based responses. I see

Again, it’s Israel arming a third party group opposed to Hamas, they are not doing it to intentionally harass Gazans. Applying that same logic would lead you to that Iran is just as in the fault if not more than Israel due to them arming Hamas, leading to the aggressive response

Evidence of this is where?

Hmm I wonder who supplied weapons to the group Israel is so hell bent on fighting 🤔

Israel has never directly funded ISIS, the Yazidis are a victim to Islamic extremism and “rundown” conflict. There are very isolate pockets where Israel has funded possible ISIS backed groups to counteract other terrorist groups in the region, but this is theorized and not proven.

I guarantee you if you were to pick a side in issues regarding these sort of politics, or IvP that someone could counterclaim you very well. The most logical option is being neutral, I somewhat agree with you but please stop with the alarmist rhetoric. Democracy as we know it is not at stake

The severe persecution by ISIS and the “genocide” of the Yezidis

Please stop with the gross generalizations, may I remind you the state of the Yezidi peoples within Israel’s enemies such as Iran and Syria?

Dawg what are you on about now Look, just because some Muslim activists in Dearborn were angry at Harris does not mean Muslims as a whole supported Trump. Most Muslim Americans have voted Democrat for years and still do. What happened in Michigan was not Muslims suddenly loving conservative values. It was frustration. People were angry about Gaza. Some stayed home, some voted third party, and a few made a protest vote for Trump. That is not the same thing as thinking Trump was the better option for Palestine. And let’s be honest. Trump’s record on this is crystal clear. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, cut off aid to Palestinians, and openly backed Netanyahu. The guy even picked Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel, someone who once said Palestinians do not even exist. So if anyone thought Trump would help end the conflict or care about Palestinian lives, they were fooling themselves. Kamala Harris might not have done enough, and criticism of her is valid. But she has at least said Palestinians deserve a homeland. That is already more than Trump ever offered. So no, voting for Trump is not voting for the security or freedom of Palestine. It is the opposite. It is a vote for the same hardline policies that have crushed any chance at peace. I choose to be neutral as to avoid usage of digital footprint against me and also it’s generally the most logical path unless defaced with a blatantly racist or poor politician I follow it decently enough, but on different topics, comparative to you on this topic I would be poor

Holy cornball just say you want it removed and I’ll remove it. But futuristically speaking, please don’t go jumping from politicians to child molesters for analogies

I disagree strongly with some of Trump and Harris’s policies, being neutral is the more logical stance as leaning to the “better” side can have its own significant faults, take the issue in the Gaza Strip for example. Choosing one side over the expense of the other is quite stupid especially without analyzing the entire situation with significant nuance. Most conservative Christian’s support Israel the majority of the time, hasn’t trump? How would anyone voting for him be voting for the security of Palestine? Would Harris not be the better option regarding the issue when she explicitly stated that she wants the Palestinians to have their own independent homeland? On “unwoke bathrooms” I honestly could care less, what people do with their identity is none of my damn business

How the hell is this relevant to political discussion?

Significant props to you, it does indeed take “guts of steel” to rewatch it. To say Kravchenko did a phenomenal job is a gross understatement. What makes the film special, from my point of view is when Glasha comes out in a disheveled state staring at the camera, I feel that if I were to watch it with a random group of people who spoke entirely different languages, we would all come to the same conclusion of what happened universally, that unifying “feeling” is was speaks volumes

This does not explain everything, I, Sohan Lalwani cannot believe this “cure” works without any hard evidence or clinical trial, stop with the fricking “trust me bros.” What your giving is highly anecdotal evidence It’s like when the anti vaxxers say “so my sisters kid got some random ass neurological function from the vaccine” with no evidence. Also, to be quite frank, you come off as quite arrogant with all the “my excellent physics” or the “I’m very good at physics.” Relative to whom I must ask? I personally suck at mathematics, almost everyone in this forum can confirm. But to Steven Hawking or Terence Tao and such? Not really.

That’s the problem, there is not a single piece of evidence it does work my friend. Uh correct, you need to test it on a few MILLION PEOPLE FOR IT TO BE EVEN CONSIDERED IN A CLINICAL TRIAL

😑 I do want to clarify to everyone, I don’t support trump at all nor do I with Harris, I am neutral

I can’t see what everyone else is quoting so it’s very confusing for myself, so I will respond to everyone generally. I understand why people reach for strong historical comparisons when they see democracy under strain. I get why some look at Donald Trump, Project 2025, or rising authoritarianism and feel echoes of something dark from history. But I want to be clear about where I stand: I think comparing the current political situation in the United States to Nazi Germany is not only factually wrong, it also risks weakening our ability to confront real threats. Nazi Germany did not come out of nowhere. It was born from a very specific and violent convergence of events: deep and widespread antisemitism, the national trauma after World War I, the economic devastation caused by the Treaty of Versailles, and a failed experiment in democracy called the Weimar Republic. These were not vague conditions. They were concrete realities that shaped the environment in which Hitler rose. It is important to remember that even in the worst moment of economic crisis—the hyperinflation of 1923—the Nazi Party was still a fringe movement. Their infamous Beer Hall Putsch failed, and Hitler ended up in prison. It was not until years later, after the Great Depression hit Germany hard and millions were out of work, that the Nazis gained momentum. But even then, they did not take power through overwhelming popular support. In the 1930 elections, they barely received a few percent of the vote. The truth is, Hitler came to power because conservative elites and industrialists thought they could use him. They wanted to harness his appeal to the working class and crush the left. They assumed he could be controlled. That assumption was deadly. Within months of being appointed chancellor in 1933, Hitler had used the Reichstag Fire to justify emergency powers, suspended civil liberties, crushed all political opposition, and consolidated a full dictatorship. This kind of total seizure of power has no real parallel in today’s United States. Yes, Trump has flirted with authoritarian language. Yes, Project 2025 contains proposals that would dramatically expand presidential power and reduce the independence of federal agencies. I do not dismiss these concerns. I think they deserve close attention. But none of this is happening outside the framework of a functioning constitutional system. Our courts still function. State-level institutions held the line against efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The media is still alive, even if polarized. Investigations into Trump and his allies have not been blocked by a totalitarian system. Civil society—activists, watchdogs, journalists, and citizens—is still active and resisting. I do not believe we are living in a country that has collapsed into dictatorship. Some people say that checks and balances are no longer working in America. I agree that they are under stress. But I also see judges ruling against powerful interests, reporters breaking major stories, and people across the country organizing to defend democracy. None of this is happening in secret. And none of it is being erased or punished the way it would be in a fascist regime. Then there is the matter of ideology. Nazi Germany was built on an explicit belief in racial hierarchy and extermination. Jews, Roma, Slavs, the disabled, and others were not just marginalized—they were targeted for annihilation. The Holocaust was not a side effect of the regime. It was its core policy. I do not see anything close to that level of systemic and deliberate violence in America today. People sometimes bring up figures like Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon and claim they want to recreate Nazi-style rule. I think they promote dangerous and illiberal ideas, but equating them with architects of genocide is a stretch I am not willing to make unless there is clear evidence. And no, I do not believe Trump is Hitler. Not even close. If anything, I worry that by constantly making comparisons to the Nazis, we actually numb ourselves to what real authoritarianism looks like. If everything is fascism, then nothing is. The word loses meaning. The memory of actual victims gets diluted. And we miss the opportunity to confront today’s threats for what they really are. Project 2025 should absolutely be challenged. If it aims to concentrate executive power, dismantle environmental protections, weaken judicial independence, or undermine voting rights, then it needs to be exposed and resisted. But I want to resist it by being accurate, not by reaching for the scariest historical analogy available. We have real tools to defend our democracy—laws, institutions, organizing, journalism, and the truth. I want us to use those tools as wisely and precisely as possible. I believe that if we want to win this fight, we need to take history seriously—not just emotionally, but factually. The story of Nazi Germany should be a warning. But it should also teach us that not every disturbing political movement is the same.

That’s why I put “map cleanly,” I’m acknowledging their existence in America, but it was never whole heartedly supported by the American public in the same fashion it was in Nazi germany I thought we were making a comparison to Nazi Germany and America? Also, was America not coming out of its most major depression at the time? What happens when radical times arise? Radical politicians. What happens when radical politicians when they influence a very desperate public? Radicalism. That is one of his policies I wholeheartedly disagree with, but from what I know he is significantly cutting funding, not downright shutting down institutions, correct me if I am wrong please. You are not overreacting at all, you are expressing legitimate concerns all of which are completely understandable

The Nazi regime was built on a unique convergence of deep-rooted antisemitism, economic collapse, a failed democracy (Weimar Republic), and the trauma of World War I—none of which map cleanly onto modern America. Project 2025, as controversial and aggressive as some of its proposals may seem to critics, remains—at least presently—a policy vision within a functioning constitutional democracy, not a coup or totalitarian blueprint. Unlike Weimar Germany, the U.S. still has institutional checks and balances, independent courts (including some that have ruled against Trump), a vibrant free press, competitive elections, and robust civil society resistance. Furthermore, drawing direct lines between current policy goals and the rise of Nazi Germany risks undermining democratic critique by resorting to hyperbole. It dilutes the specificity of Nazism—the systematic, racially-driven genocide of millions—and may alienate potential allies who agree that Project 2025 should be scrutinized but are turned off by historically extreme analogies. Nazi Germany systematically carried out industrial-scale genocide, including the Holocaust, and pursued a program of violent expansionism, racial supremacy, and totalitarian control unlike anything in modern Western democracies. Comparing this to Trumps policies are, to some extent, extreme. I recommend everyone here watching a movie called “Come and See,” it perfectly details the Nazis from the perspective of a wannabe Soviet Partisan. Please, after, compare this to trump post watching. I do want to give a warning before hand, I strongly recommend looking the film up before viewing. in the scenario you wish to watch it here is the link to the movie on YouTube: https://youtu.be/zjIiApN6cfg?si=ihNk-MqJq-AwKDUj

I see, ok. Will do. Trump may be viewed as having some policies I strongly disagree with, but comparing it to a global power that went on to commit some of the most biggest atrocities in human history is a bit of a stretch.

I understand your point, but comparing this to Nazi Germany is a little extreme