3 ms·

> Not sure how old you are, but when Bush 2 was in power the same comments were made. I'm sure there are some who complained of that, but nobody I know did. Th

> Not sure how old you are, but when Bush 2 was in power the same comments were made. 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.

ktRolster 10y ago
I'm sure there are some who complained of that, but nobody I know did. 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.
- morgante 10y ago
  As I said, I'm sure that plenty of people did. Fringe groups will always have extreme opinions. 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/#/trump+hitler/ - http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/bush+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.
  - matwood 10y ago
    >As I said, I'm sure that plenty of people did. Fringe groups will always have extreme opinions. If you consider MSNBC a fringe group: http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-compares-bushs-aggressive-iraq-war-nazis-trial-nuremberg http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-compares-bushs-...
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    No credible argument could be made for Bush (or any other Republican) being a fascist, but Trump's campaign follows many fascist criteria. 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.
- DavidSJ 10y ago
  All the crying wolf from the left about Bush being a fascist is one of the reasons why, now that we have a real wolf and many conservatives are calling the Republican candidate a fascist, lots of people aren't listening.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Excellent point. The National Review is hardly known for being liberal, yet even they are calling Trump a fascist and refusing to support him. [0] [0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436808/donald-trump-fascism-he-or-isnt-he http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436808/donald-trump-fa...
matwood 10y ago
No one is pretending all politicians are equivalent, but this constant drum of so and so is just like a Nazi or Hitler is simply a naive intellectual exercise. 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.
- morgante 10y ago
  First of all, calling someone a fascist is different than calling someone Hitler. 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.

ktRolster 10y ago

I'm sure there are some who complained of that, but nobody I know did. 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.

morgante 10y ago
As I said, I'm sure that plenty of people did. Fringe groups will always have extreme opinions. 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/#/trump+hitler/ - http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/bush+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.
- matwood 10y ago
  >As I said, I'm sure that plenty of people did. Fringe groups will always have extreme opinions. If you consider MSNBC a fringe group: http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-compares-bushs-aggressive-iraq-war-nazis-trial-nuremberg http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-compares-bushs-...
- ktRolster 10y ago
  No credible argument could be made for Bush (or any other Republican) being a fascist, but Trump's campaign follows many fascist criteria. 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.
DavidSJ 10y ago
All the crying wolf from the left about Bush being a fascist is one of the reasons why, now that we have a real wolf and many conservatives are calling the Republican candidate a fascist, lots of people aren't listening.
- morgante 10y ago
  Excellent point. The National Review is hardly known for being liberal, yet even they are calling Trump a fascist and refusing to support him. [0] [0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436808/donald-trump-fascism-he-or-isnt-he http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436808/donald-trump-fa...

matwood 10y ago

No one is pretending all politicians are equivalent, but this constant drum of so and so is just like a Nazi or Hitler is simply a naive intellectual exercise. 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.

morgante 10y ago
First of all, calling someone a fascist is different than calling someone Hitler. 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.