Home | About | Donate

“What Harm Can Their Be in One Little Question?”: How the Horrific Grows in Small Steps


“What Harm Can Their Be in One Little Question?”: How the Horrific Grows in Small Steps

Dianne Monroe

He asked that they not answer the question. “What harm can their be in one little question?” his colleagues replied.

He argued with them to no avail. In the end they all answered the question. Within the next four years, over 100,000 people were murdered. Because of that one little question.


Wow… an entire article that invokes Goodwin’s Law


Those who support Nazi America, are no different than those who supported Nazi Germany.

What harm can come from supporting Duopoly party politicians that have supported the Nazi administration in Washington DC?


We are seeing a lot of small steps. Forcing people to return to countries such as El Salvador. Looking for errors in citizenship applications, Taking children from parents at the boarder and putting them in cages to discourage others from seeking asylum in the US. Verbal attacks from Trump on blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics. It is a no-brainer that the main way to fight back is to elect Democrats to as many offices as possible since most Republicans are going along with this whether they agree with it or not. Based on various special elections that have been held I think many people get it. The best way to fight back against Trump and the white nationalists is to give Democrats some real power to hold him in check. Basically it may require putting away your own special agenda for awhile and working together from everyone from moderate Republicans to the far left to elect Democrats or at least for Republicans don’t vote at all if they can’t bring themselves vote for a Democrat. For many people it means holding their noses when they vote but I fail to see any other option that is realistic.


If you replaced Democrats with Non-Republicans, you might be on the right track. Unfortunately, you are trapped in the duopoly world view.


It is not Goodwin’s Law when the analogy to Nazis is clear and valid.


You seem to be trapped in a totally impractical, world view, and presumably trapped in such a position of comfortable white bourgeois privilege that you can only accept complete perfection because life-and-death stakes of fascism (your preferred alternative if you cannot have perfection) are just a parlor game to you.

Recall that uncompromising German communists helped Hitler’s ascent to power as much as card-carrying Nazis did.


And it’s not valid here. No one is even thinking of liquidating illegal immigrants, and despite the hyperbole the U.S. has not become a fascist state


Let’s not forget what happened to the same communists once the Nazis attained power either. William Shirer, and other foreign journalists, were flabbergasted by the idiocy of the Left while the Right amassed unchecked power.


No, I’m not trapped anywhere. In fact, I’m liberated from your world view, which would in fact trap me and others in a bizarre world of low expectations and no progress, all the while maintaining the failed status quo which has us all on the precipice of existential demise.

I’m not looking for perfection, I’m looking real world solutions and, dare I use the word(?), progress. This is not a parlor game. All the marbles are in play and you and your ilk are busy with your triangulation games, while the planet burns and our ecosystems fail.

Your fear of progress is the real mystery. FDR observed that all we have to fear is fear itself. Trump’s world view seems to be that all we have is fear. In this regard, it seems you’re more aligned with Trump than FDR.


FDR made concrete compromises on Social Security, the NLRA, and a host of other laws to get them passed. He was denounced by members of the Left for being a sellout in his time. Would we ever give those compromises up now, knowing after-the-fact what they’ve meant?

Your point seems more like sophistry than anything else. If you actually care about the things progressives care about, why wouldn’t you vote in a way that’s more likely to protect Medicaid expansion than not? Why wouldn’t you vote in a way that’s more likely to protect voting enfranchisement than not? What policy outcomes do you hope to actually achieve?


I would. But that doesn’t mean I support the duopoly.

Universal single payer health care with no deductibles, co-pays or other nonsense.

An indexed minimum wage that assures that working people are never left behind, suffering in poverty, while the rich get filthy rich.

A 100% renewable and clean energy and transportation solution as soon as physically possible.

Drastic reduction in the money wasted on the defense department, bringing US expenditures on military and related expenditures in line with the rest of the civilized world.

An end to the senseless endless wars we are waging across the globe.

Elimination of prisons.

Elimination of the registered sex offender concept which is the 20th/21st Century version of the 17th Century scarlet letter and beneath the dignity of a civilized society.

Federal jobs guaranty.

Free education for life.

Elimination of private sector pharmaceutical companies, replaced with National Health Institute funding and programs.

Live webcam streaming of all politicians when meeting with lobbyists and constituents.

Properly indexed social security and a “floating” taxation scheme that taxes as necessary to keep the system solvent, instead of the irrational crisis management approach that the duopoly brings us.

Elimination of corporate money in our political system and elimination of the concept of corporations as “persons” under the US Constitution.

Elimination of partisan gerrymandering.

Elimination of voting right restrictions. On this point, I would support allowing anyone above a certain age – say 14 or 15 – to vote in elections, regardless of citizenship. If you’re in the country or state or district on election day, you get to vote. This recognizes, in a small way, the out-sized impact we have on non-citizens.

Open primaries.

Ranked choice voting.

Progressive taxation as necessary to pay for the above.

I’m sure there’s more, but these quickly came to mind.


Seriously, Holland, the Nazis?

The citizenship question has been on the census long form before. Nobody was complaining. What gives? new marching orders from the “no borders” leadership?


You should familiarize yourself with the US Constitution. The purpose of the census is to count the number of persons in each state and congressional districts, not to count the number of citizens. Any question which would deter persons from allowing themselves to be counted would undermine the purpose of the census. The citizenship question is unnecessary to fulfill the purpose of the census and most certainly would result in an under-count of non-citizens, especially given the xenophobic atmosphere of the current administration. Get real.


Nice. How are you going to get there by voting in a way that makes it more likely, not less, we move in the opposite direction of what you want? I mean, the Trump administration is working to allow asbestos back into building materials. There’s a way you can stop this, or make it harder do come November, you know?


I won’t.


Oookay then.


Why do they ask me for my name and date of birth then? Why ask for race, ethnicity, place of birth? Just send me a letter asking how many people in the household and be done with it.

The census is also used to assign representatives to a district. so yeah, i can see how states with with a lot of illegals would be against it lest they lose congressional seats.

Now why would a question about citizenship deter someone from allowing themselves to be counted? Maybe that person is living in the US illegally and they should not be counted in the first place. There’s plenty of people in the US on LPR (greencard), different types of work visas. I doubt any of them would have a problem answering that question.


You assume, incorrectly, that non-citizens are, as you characterize them, “illegals” which may or may not be the case. Again, you seem to ignore the fundamental issue that asking the question will result in an under-count. The other questions you cite don’t have that effect.

Nope. Doesn’t matter if they are here illegally (as you put it) or not. The Constitution says we need to count all persons.

Given Trump’s unhinged attitude toward all non-citizens (and frankly a number of actual citizens), I’d be surprised if any non-citizens wouldn’t be worried about such a question. He’s been deporting people who are here legally, after all.


No, i do not assume that. See below:

BTW, I just “familiarized myself” with the census and the consitutution. Here’s some interesting facts

Let’s be honest problem right now is that people are still pissed their girl Hitlary failed miserably and their boy Sanders didn’t even get a chance to do so.