Sorry to be that guy, but could you elaborate further?
So any politician running for an election?
> rejection by their own party once they figured out that they might come to power.
You mean, the basic reason the democrats invented the super delegate to begin with?
Not sure how old you are, but when Bush 2 was in power the same comments were made. I guess Bush didn't turn into Hitler so now it's Trumps turn.
Personally (as someone from a non-US country) I think the US's system of government is quite flawed in how much power it gives to presidents -- in Australia nobody gives a shit about the Prime Minister. All that matters is what the party in power is pushing for (and what the representatives vote for).
So, while I think Trump in power won't end well, I feel like this is not a problem with Trump but rather with a system of government that allows individuals to have that much power. Just because Trump is the threat _today_ doesn't mean that he is where our attention should be directed.
Xenophobia. Us versus them. Rejection of internationalism. Lack of empathy towards others (e.g. pro torture, pro going after the families of suspected terrorists, etc). Blatant dishonest and a disregard for facts, even when presented with proof.
Yes, when people are caught up in an election, every slight disagreement or preference seems pressing, but this time I think Trump is actually a first in so many regards and has created an alternative to the regular left-right heterodoxy that has controlled America for the better part of the century. This is cult personality nationalism that hasn't made its way to the modern US in any meaningful way until now
I'm sure there are some who complained of that, but nobody I know did. There is a categorical difference between merely having a different policy agenda (most Republicans) and outright rejecting basic Constitutional principles (ex. religious equality, free press, no torture).
I didn't vote for Romney in 2012, but I certainly didn't think he was a fascist.
Pretending that all politicians are equivalent is rather ignorant. After all, Hitler was also a politician and clearly he was in fact different, as were dozens of other leaders who around the world who have shared his approach.
A politician using fear of something and promising something else is their bread and butter. It does not make that politician like Hitler.
Every President skirts around the constitution. You can look up numerous examples where Obama has bypassed it or took a very liberal reading. Does that make Obama Hitler now?
The DNC emails recently came out where journalist were making sure their stories were okay with the DNC before publishing. That is the opposite of a free press, yet no one is calling them the Nazi party.
Picking and choosing pieces of history in a vacuum ignores how that history came to be. Trump/Hilary may be terrible candidates and/or Presidents, but neither of them is Hitler. The US has survived bad Presidents before and it will survive one again.
Do you think such comparisons are automatically invalid? Despite there being multiple fascist parties throughout history.
If you think it's invalid for Trump, is it also invalid for Le Pen? Hofer?
> A politician using fear of something and promising something else is their bread and butter.
All politicians use fear occasionally, but for a fascist it's used as a wholesale replacement for ideology. Compare the acceptance speeches of Clinton and Trump and tell me there's no difference. Trump's speech was literally depicting America as a fallen nation beset by enemies within and without, only capable of being fixed through his singular vision.
> Every President skirts around the constitution. You can look up numerous examples where Obama has bypassed it or took a very liberal reading.
Yes, all Presidents try to push the limits of their power. They don't campaign on it though and gloat in it.
Take waterboarding, for example. Bush allowed it, but he didn't gloat about it and his argument for it was primarily that waterboarding is "not torture." Trump, on the other hand, makes no pretenses: he openly advocates torture, even if it is blatantly unconstitutional.
It's the difference between playing within a constitutional framework while trying to expand your power (most presidents) and having no respect for constitutional checks (Trump).
> The DNC emails recently came out where journalist were making sure their stories were okay with the DNC before publishing.
The DNC is a private organization. If a journalist decides to run stories by them, it's a bit ridiculous but in no way unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Trump calling for prosecution of anyone who writes negative things for him is literally what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.
Look, I realize that a lot of people reach to the Hitler comparison far too liberally. I don't know a single other modern American politician who deserves the label. But to pretend that Trump is just another normal politician is to have your head in the sand. The previous nominee from his own party won't even support him, nor will the previous president. That's unprecedented. When you have conservative outlets like the National Review calling Trump a fascist, maybe you should consider that something's different this time.
Look up "Bush Hitler" and you'll see plenty of images. It's the American national past-time to compare our president to either Hitler or the Antichrist, depending on your persuasion.
That's different than mainstream news sources and even multiple historians making the comparison. No credible argument could be made for Bush (or any other Republican) being a fascist, but Trump's campaign follows many fascist criteria. Compare the results, to see for yourself that it's obviously a whole different degree:
- http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/trump+hitler/
- http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/bush+hitler/
Or just look at the facts. Bush never campaigned on an explicit central theme of xenophobia and fear of foreigners. Heck, immigration reform was actually one of the stronger aspects of his policy proposals. Yet Trump's most consistent message, by far, is that we need to be afraid of foreigners and minorities—something straight out of the fascist playbook.
If you consider MSNBC a fringe group:
http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-compares-bushs-...
You must be young, or lack memory, because plenty of people said the exact same thing about Bush a decade ago. If Trump wins, lame as that will be, he won't become Hitler. "Many fascist criteria" is not the same as fascist.
[0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436808/donald-trump-fa...
The lessons of history are manifold indeed, but it has been my observation that when one reads a good book on any period of history one suddenly discovers its immense applicability to the present. WWII is very popular, therefore its histories are popular, therefore we find Hitlers in 2016. In 2020 there will be a new Hitler. In the past, every political opponent was a Nero or Caligula. In the future they will be someone else.
History does repeat itself, but never in a crass or obvious way.
Hitler was a failed artist. So is Trump.
Hitler began his entry into politics in his 20s. So did Trump.
Hitler was born poor and stayed poor until his dictatorship. Same with Trump.
Hitler became, in large degree, radicalized by his distinguished involvement in a massive, failed war. Same with Trump.
Hitler explicitly detailed his ambitions for creating a continental empire in Eastern Europe, with plans to colonize much of Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. Same with Trump.
Hitler's Nazi party gained much of its early membership by siphoning off young communists due to similar promises of social revolution. Same with Trump.
Hitler rose to power during a time of foreign occupation (the French invasion of the Ruhr), hyperinflation, economic collapse, and perceived national humiliation from war reparations. Same with Trump.
Trump has Jewish grandchildren. Same with Hitler.
...
Sigh. Their only real parallel is that they appeal to the working class rather than the upper bourgeois and our fetted elite who work in the media. Maybe that's all it takes. Maybe war and Holocaust II are right around the corner.