Do you feel Trump is our modern Hitler?

Post Reply New Topic

Mussolini is a more direct comparison IMHO.

I definitely see the Mussolini similarities, though Trump's association with the alt right definitely has more in common with the Nazi's racial ideology. I only hope that he's sincere that he rejects the support of that "basket of deplorables."

I thought former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the modern Hitler.

No, wait, it's director Michael Bay.

Or, maybe Entertainment Software Association president Doug Lowenstein.

Oh, hold on, it's actually Osama bin Laden.

Or, perhaps you just mean politicians. Well then there's President George W. Bush.

Or President Jimmy Carter.

Then there's President Bill Clinton.

And President Barack Obama

Or President Richard Nixon.

Stepping down a bit, we have Vice President Dick Cheney.

And Vice President Al Gore.

Then there was Presidential nominee John McCain.

Of course, there's those that say Senator Ted Kennedy is worse than Hitler.

Overseas, we have former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

And who can forget former Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein.

Current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Finally, there's an entire website devoted to Cats That Look Like Hitler, featuring Leonardo. He's got my vote as the modern Hitler.

The cat has my vote, too.

There are some superficial similarities, but not the pertinent ones.

I think the most important characteristics of Hitler were:

1) Deliberately killing millions of people
2) Invading neighbouring countries
3) Overthrowing Germany's democracy
4) Starting a global war

Trump has expressed passing interests in overthrowing democracy, but he's not sustained that and seems unlikely to before he loses. If he receives a challenger for the Republican nomination in 2020, and loses, then I suspect he will try to have that decision overturned. I don't think he'll try and abolish the election altogether, or abandon term limits, or appoint his children to government positions (fortunately this isn't legal any more).

While Trump may have advocated for policies which would lead to the deaths of millions, I think there's a distinction between killing people through sub-optimal governance and rounding them up. While Trump's poor diplomacy has the potential to provoke a war, I think that's quite unlikely and also very different to invading other countries to provoke a war.

We need to be vigilant about his attitude towards Muslims, but he's expressed positive views towards lots of minority groups. Hitler didn't wave rainbow flags at his rallies, or meet with Jewish leaders in his election campaign. In many ways, Trump's the most progressive Republican presidential nominee since the parties switched.

Based on several interviews I watched of Trump going back many years over a course of time to the 80's, It seems clear that he really just wants America to be a better place to live and work for the working class. I don't think his wanting to curtail massive illegal immigration and terrorism has to do with racism. It's not his fault that the vast majority of illegal immigrants and terrorists, happen to belong to certain demographics.

Assuming for a second that the bolded section is true, it absolutely is Trump's fault if he confuses perpetrators of an issue with a demographic group.

If you want to tackle terrorism, then tackle terrorism, not Islam. If you want to tackle crime, then tackle crime, not blackness. If you want to tackle illegal immigration, then tackle illegal immigration, not Mexicans.

He will, it won't stop the bleeding hearts from crying racism about anything he does. It is best to ignore these people.

In the words of Holocaust revisionists, foreigners were outnumbering the locals.

Some would be held for trial, and, in the process, contribute to public works.

Others would be deported, under humane conditions, but no countries particularly wanted them. Their subsequent return would be regarded as a crime.

Financial sabotage, and war fought on many fronts, led to shortage. Shortage led to rationing, causing disease among the most disaffected.

It seems to me, that Hitler's biggest defenders all give plausible reasons for that to happen, in the here-and-now -- speculatively speaking.

They are already quibbling over the probable number of detainees.

Wow, that's exactly what' he's proposed for all of that. Good thing you and Trump are on the same page.

So you're saying that somehow the crime is supposed to be tackled by leaving the perpetrators out of it? How does that work?

Hard cold fact; the majority of illegal immigration comes out of Mexico. But no no you can't say that because it's racist! Hard cold fact; the majority of jihad terrorism comes out of the nation of Islam. But no no you can't say that, it's Islamaphobic!


Of course he did. The notion that he's out to deport all Mexicans is ridiculous. He said he's out to curtail illegal immigration (like every other nation does - including Mexico). That he's out to deport or arrest all Muslims is ridiculous. He's out to curtail terrorists.

It depends on your reason for making such statements. These statements may be facts, but repeating them over and over again in order to inflame animosity towards those groups as a whole is a way of inciting hatred. It's like repeating "Bernie Madoff is a Jew" over and over again to incite hatred of Jewish people.

The majority of US citizens of Mexican origin migrated legally. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists. The majority of Jews are not con artists.

I think he is largely just a muppet who says what he wants because he is out of touch. I am not expecting him to achieve much whilst in office. He'll mess things up a bit, but I think he will be prevented from doing any real damage.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt though. Maybe a non-career politician is exactly what we need to shake things up a bit.

the forces he set it motion may well exceed his control after a while. as it is, he has a tiger by the tail. I think this is now dawning on him.

Firstly, I was responding to Ezra's bigoted remarks, not Trump's.

Secondly, it isn't - Trump repeatedly talked about banning Muslims as a whole. Not terrorists, just Muslims.


You can say anything you like. It's just saying things which are incorrect or bigoted makes you less suitable for public office...

Yes, characterising black people as "the perpetrators of crime" is racist. There's no two ways about that. The problem isn't black people, it is criminals.

Members of the Nation of Islam are responsible for a tiny portion of terrorism; two converts planned an attack on a military base in Seattle but they were not successful. Most jihadi terrorism is Salafist (note that "jihadi" already restricts you to Muslims, so "most Jihadis are Muslims" is technically wrong - all Jihadis are Muslims).

No one has said that you can't point out that a lot of terrorists are Muslims, but it is bigoted and inaccurate to suggest that Muslims as a whole are dangerous or talk about banning someone from a country based on their religion. Hard cold fact: most Muslims are good people. But no, you can't say that, it isn't politically correct!

Once again I am offended by your incorrect accusations and attacking me on a personal level - which is not something a moderator should be doing. And I have reported it.