>>638531 (last bread)

>Even if Q's posts were hinting … being in some way related to Hitler … what would it tell us?

I agree that just being a relative of Hitler, if that is actually true, won't be the deciding factor, for Germany anyway. Not her fault.

What will be a factor, in the case it is true, is the question of why that info was that not made public when she started in politics, or, if she really didn't know (adopted), when she eventually became aware of it? If Q is alluding to it, I think it guarantees there's a there there. If Q knows, she would know.

She won't survive the collapse of confidence if she didn't fully disclose that if she knew already or when she found out.

Also, I can't see other EU countries getting warm fuzzies about a Hitler spawn sitting at the controls of their economic engine.

Add to that, who else knew and didn't say anything? Collapse of confidence throughout the EU.

I think the point of teeing this info up for discussion in the first place is that the EU likes to throw around arrogant asides at US politicians' character and competency (or US citizens, for that matter).

What we have here, then, is a situation brewing of 'don't start none, don't get none'. They've already wheeled out the "Trump admin doesn't have the necessary diplomatic experience/Tariffs never work/Stormy Daniels/He's making himself rich by the laws he's signing" bullshit as we speak.

They either walk that shit back and get on board with productive trade talks and admit Trump's got a point or their dirty laundry gets aired out, too.

EU/Brussels won't survive (if true) an EU leader being a Hitler relative admission, so advantage Trumps' boys, IMO.