You libs make me laugh when you throw around the word Nazi when you refer to someone you ideologically disagree with, just like when people were calling Obama a Nazi for the same reason along, with his empirical behavior in office.
A lot of people use the word in hyperbole, especially on the Internet. I do not. I mean it very literally, and based on a specific set of comparisons, including the tactics he uses to gain power and incite anger in his followers, and the specific rhetorical tactics he uses.
1. He demagogues against marginal groups to incite his followers to anger. This includes immigrants, racial minorities, BLM and those who seek to advance the rights of black people, and Muslims. Sure, it's true that he isn't talking about just rounding up people and murdering them. But then, that wasn't Hitler's first plan for the Jews, either. At first, Hitler just wanted to expel the groups of people that weren't considered German enough. Exactly what do you think it's going to look like when Trump rounds up immigrants and tries to deport as many as he can?
2. He practices the tactic of the Big Lie (
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/), described by Hitler in
Mein Kampf, and discussed by Joseph Goebbels as well.
3. Related to the Big Lie, he publicly denounces the free press when they report on him accurately. This is also a tactic borrowed from the Nazis.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...npresse-a-nazi-slur-shouted-at-a-trump-rally/
4. He baselessly undermines confidence in democratic processes and norms.
5. An authoritarian personality cult. While many politicians portray themselves as transformative, Trump seems to suggest that this will occur without reference to any specific policy, but by virtue of his potency as a leader.
6. Trump has talked about "opening up libel laws" to silence critics. And he uses his position to bully reporters who challenge him (see his treatment of Megyn Kelly).
It's true that whereas Hitler was a determined political animal, Trump often seems nearly apolitical. This may make Trump's personal politics relatively unimportant, as he's likely to acquiesce to whoever wields the most influence over him. Still, where Trump's politics are discernible, they seem very Hitleresque to me. And it may be that America's institutions are resilient enough to handle a Nazi head of state better than the Weimar Republic could. But I don't really want to find out. And in any case, the comparison to the Nazis is legitimate, not hyperbolic or exaggerated.
You do realize that the sins of your soon to be former Emporer Obama are about to revisit you in kind, right?
Now that is a trivial description. What kind of emperor stands for election? What kind of emperor spends so much time fighting Congress to accomplish anything? What kind of emperor allows their policies to be overturned by independent courts?
You don't have to like Obama. But he's no emperor. He's the twice-elected President, and by a real majority both times.
This really should be a learning moment for far leftists such as yourself being in 8 years that your agenda is so far out of touch with Americans that democrats have lost control of the house, the senate, numerous governorships, state & local legislatures, and now the presidency yet you don't take pause to wonder why...amazing.
Hillary Clinton won more votes than Trump by a wide margin. Democrats made advances in both houses of Congress despite being the ruling party. Only the broken electoral system allowed Republicans to hold the White House and Congress. Democrats do face a structural strategic problem, in that their supporters live close together, and when it comes to US elections, living further apart matters. But the notion that the election represents a popular rebuke to them is silly. A rebuke in some states, perhaps, but then, the Rust Belt has been tracking more conservative recently, so it isn't exactly new.
If you think it was bad this election wait until the midterms, I predict that will be another bloodbath for the left if they don't start working for the average man, and get off all this social & environmental nonsense that has stymied the growth of the country, really, 1% to 2% growth is not an economy that is conducive to a healthy nation, and the no-growthers on the left will lose with that message every time, people vote with their wallets not with their hearts.
The one advantage for the Democrats in "losing" this election is that they will be the party out of power in the next election. The party out of power tends to do better. And I'm honestly curious to see what the Republicans do with a number of the programs that they've wanted to undermine so badly for so long. As rhetorically popular as it is, it's going to be politically difficult for them to repeal Obamacare, because that will involve a lot of people losing their insurance.
As far as the social and environmental messages of the Democratic Party goes, neither of them are expendable. And the Democrats are, generally, on the right side of both. And, they are not the cause of our economic problems. This country does have real serious economic problems, but neither part has much of a handle on them. Sanders was just about the closest, but I don't think anyone has exactly figured out how to build an economy where there can be enormous productivity without creating a lot of jobs.
It is not that Trump or Obama are Nazi's, that is just knee-jerk stupidity to say that, Trump's worldview & Obama/your's are just 180% opposed to one another.
180 degrees, you mean?
I'm just savoring finally getting a conservative to acknowledge that so much of what has been claimed about Obama is a knee-jerk. But really, my conclusion that Trump is a Nazi isn't (see above).
The libs had a chance to make a good start toward sanity if they would have ousted Pelosi and ushered in Tim Ryan but, they have decided to go full retard and continue on the failed course that has cost them any hope of regaining what they have lost by going ever further left and further away from average Americans who could not care in the least about social or environmental politics but, want jobs, prosperity, and a shot at the american dream which has been slipping away for numerous years...time to take inventory of what is important and what is not if democrats ever hope to regain any sort of power again.
I don't really disagree with you. It seems like they're gotten caught in a dilemma, where they seem to recognize the problem with money in politics, but they can't seem to focus on popular appeal instead of fundraising. Which is why an elderly Jew who wasn't even a party member managed to do so well in their primary. And they also don't have much of an activist base. It's a party of ever-fewer elites who don't seem to understand the importance of appealing to actual voters, and who think that being right is enough. When Obama was running in 2008, he had a real 50-state strategy. I saw him speak in North Dakota, a state he had as much chance of winning as Narnia. But he was an underdog, so he had to win his primary by appealing to the People directly. And we learn after she lost the election, that even after being surprisingly beaten in the Rust Belt states (especially Michigan) in the primary by Sanders, she had still taken these states so for granted that she hadn't bothered to visit them even once...because they weren't considered purple states. She certainly didn't earn any points for tactics.
They need to get people engaged in ways that actually work for the party. They need to get people involved in all levels of government, not just a few federal offices. And they need to actually tell people how their policies benefit everyone. It shouldn't be hard.