I ask the question.

There are many similarities between listening to and watching Donald Trump and in what Adolph Hitler spread to the German Folk in the 1920's and 30's.

Like Hitler, Trump uses religion and race to stir up ignorance, hatred and division. Hitler laid the blame for Germany's woes mostly on the Jews, but also heaped in the Slaves, Gypsies, Homosexuals and others for Germany's woes. Trump goes after Mexicans, Homosexuals and Muslims. Trump scoffs at science, books and education, much like Hitler did.

Hitler uses a very nationalistic, or, as many would say, a very xenophobic stance and tone for his speeches. He talks about making America Great Again; in taking back America. Hitler did the same thing in Germany, saying the Aryan needed to take back Germany from Jews. Trump is definitely, in my view, following Hitler's script, as his words are meant mostly for disgruntled whites. He demands a stronger and strong military, just like Hitler. He threatens other nations, just as Adolph did. He's very pompous and very narcissist, just like Hitler was.

But Trump hasn't started a war that killed 70 million human beings, or brought down a nation like Schicklgruber did. So does the rhetoric go too far? Is Trump simply all bluster, and not willing to back it up, as Hitler did with following through on Mein Kampf? Or can you even tempt fate by giving the most powerful military ever seen a person who many think might be headed down the same path?

Hillis wrote:

Hitler uses a very nationalistic, or, as many would say, a very xenophobic stance and tone for his speeches. He talks about making America Great Again; in taking back America. Hitler did the same thing in Germany, saying the Aryan needed to take back Germany from Jews.

Oops! lol.

I can see the comparisons. I don't think he'd be able to take things as far as Hitler did, or if he even wants to.

I said to my friends this morning, he sounds like all other would be Dictators, not that I fear this in our country. me, me, I will save the country. How to get around congress and the USSC is the missing piece of that blather.

coolian2 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

Hitler uses a very nationalistic, or, as many would say, a very xenophobic stance and tone for his speeches. He talks about making America Great Again; in taking back America. Hitler did the same thing in Germany, saying the Aryan needed to take back Germany from Jews.

Oops! lol.

I can see the comparisons. I don't think he'd be able to take things as far as Hitler did, or if he even wants to.

The Hitler-Hillary comparisons are much more factual and accurate.


Hilter-Hillary....Hitlery?

Their politics match but the name doesn't quite sing.

Oh yes, cant get closer politics than Adolf Hilter and Hillary Clinton.

Is there some long standing ignorance competition you're not telling us about? You're winning.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Oh yes, cant get closer politics than Adolf Hilter and Hillary Clinton.

Is there some long standing ignorance competition you're not telling us about? You're winning.

Just look at his signature....

coolian2 wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Oh yes, cant get closer politics than Adolf Hilter and Hillary Clinton.

Is there some long standing ignorance competition you're not telling us about? You're winning.

Just look at his signature....

Comming from somebody who likes Hillary an insult like that doesn't mean a whole lot.

L-188 wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Oh yes, cant get closer politics than Adolf Hilter and Hillary Clinton.

Is there some long standing ignorance competition you're not telling us about? You're winning.

Just look at his signature....

Comming from somebody who likes Hillary an insult like that doesn't mean a whole lot.

Where have I said I did? Do you have proof?

Oh no, right. You're just a liar.

After all Hitler and Trump worked from a similar environment.
A nation gone down on their own accord and hubris of their upper crust
but the populous center staunchly feeling that all that bad luck is foreign afflicted.
( Wrong in both cases. )

Essentially every time the agitators delve into the same box of tools.
Though note that these have been massively refined over time.
Then the "American Exceptionalism" conviction seems to be no longer
a soft acquired leaning but fully hardwired.
A population with that trait will react in a reflexive unthinking way.
A perfect ring to be lead around by the nose.

EA CO AS wrote:

But that's the way those on the left combat the Trump candidacy, by falsely spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about what he wants to accomplish.

Are you competing in the Irony Olympics?

coolian2 wrote:

Just look at his signature....

Yep, can't wait to see what it will say after November. The butthurt will be strong!

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Is there some long standing ignorance competition you're not telling us about? You're winning.

EA CO AS wrote:

Please show me where Trump has said that the U.S. would be better off if it weren't for all the Mexicans

What's the obvious implication of saying "They're sending us drugs, criminals and rapists?" I'll give him his due, he did say "Some, I assume, are good people." What a clown.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Are you competing in the Irony Olympics?

Yep, can't wait to see what it will say after November. The butthurt will be strong!

I remember you being very confident about Brexit not happening, yet it happened. Because of this I'm actually starting to think Trump might win as you again seem to be confident of him not winning.

Why is it not okay for America to have a wall on its southern border? Mexico has a wall on its southern border. Does that mean Mexico is racist?

WIederling wrote:

After all Hitler and Trump worked from a similar environment.
A nation gone down on their own accord and hubris of their upper crust
but the populous center staunchly feeling that all that bad luck is foreign afflicted.
( Wrong in both cases. )

Hang on, many would argue that the Treaty of Versailles was the root cause of the rise of Hitler.

Anyways, Hitler and Trump, no, don't see it, Trump and Mussolini , now that I see, at least in the way Trump acts during speeches .

Considering a big portion of Trumps fan base is white supremacists, evangelicals and xenophobes I say we have something dangerous brewing. The man promises a whole lot of nonsense and the amazing thing is people eat it up and believe it. God help us non whites in this country if that nut wins the election. As a person of Hispanic heritage all I have heard from this man is hate and divisiveness, never could I vote for such a person. He wants to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, lol! Good luck with that mess.

"Hang on, many would argue that the Treaty of Versailles was the root cause of the rise of Hitler."

That solidified the general feeling of _foreign cause_. But the groundbreaking was done via
the Warmongers vanishing into the walls and leaving the field to those that previously
did have no clout and saying in war affairs for having to sign a surrender.
Result :;: "Die Dolchstoßlegende."
Beyond other effects this kept rightwing/autocratic leaning people like Hindenburg in good standing.
( which later resulted into Hitler getting a chance at governing.)

Why am I bothering with this clickbait thread...

The lies and bullshit in this thread are too much for me to argue with. If you want to think Trump hates gays, women mexicans etc in spite of all evidence to the contrary go ahead, whip yourselves up in a righteous frenzy. Enjoy.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

But that's the way those on the left combat the Trump candidacy, by falsely spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about what he wants to accomplish.

Are you competing in the Irony Olympics?

It is interesting to watch the #NeverTrump posters on this site from just a few months ago, jump onto the #LoveTrump train, no?

If God forbid, Trump wins, I will say this.... if you ask anyone 2 or 3 years post 11/16 election they will all claim they didn't vote for Trump. I saw this nonsense happen in MN when Jesse Ventura became the Governator! No one in MN would say they actually voted for the clown. Old, angry, white, baby boomers, who inherited the most of any generation on the planet will end up leaving the least, and in fact being a huge negative on society in general. We will read textbooks about the damage Baby Boomers did on the USA, and the destruction they wrought. Sad.

There are disturbing similarities of Hitler and Trump as well as technology, political and social changes taking place that brought both to prominence.
Both used or are using the latest in communications technology of the time. Hitler with radio and talking films, Trump with Twitter and other social media.
Both came up during serious economic crises for the majority. The post-WW I costs of the loss of the war, oppressive reparations the international Depression, and in our times the 2008 economic crash.
Both seek people to 'blame'. With Hitler it was Jews and non-Aryans, with Trump it is Muslims and Mexicans and others from Central and South America.
Both sought/seek 'law and order', repressing the media, and making their 'country great again'.
Both have books that outline their views.
Both saw/see themselves as 'saviors' of their 'race' and country as well as masters of how to get things done.
Both support capitalism yet some basic social services like our Social Security program.
Both took/take advantage of deep seated issues of social changes, of 'liberal' lifestyles that offend people of faith and White people.

Now there are major differences, not only in each man but in our political systems that would limit the powers of Trump that didn't exist with Hitler. Hitler pretty much destroyed the structures - literally with the burning of the Reichstag of the legislatures. We have a Supreme Court that is a check on Unconstitutional and excessive power by a President. No way could a US President get away with Concentration and Death camps. The Nazi's had limited personal ownership of guns, the USA has few regulations.
Yes, their are comparisons to be made but it it far more nuanced as to Trump. Sill an election of Trump might be terrible for many Americans and the world.

Just a things to compare:
- oratory skills: Yes, clearly there.
- no real work of their own to back up their careers: Yes, clearly.
- self-aggrandizing manners: YES.
- self-contradicting political platform: Yes.
- hate for certain countries: Yes.

What I wonder, though, is this: How does Trump organize his daily affairs? From Albert Speers biography (he is the highest-ranked German with the closest contact to Hitler who has survived the war as well as the Nuremberg trials) says that Hitler was an egomaniac, he loved talking about things, but not really listening to anybody else (something corroborated from Trump), and when it came to politics, he was just the front guy, while he left the everyday work to his ministers. For example, aviation minister Göring had often to fight with the other ministers over scarce resources. Hitler believed that fight always leads to improvemens, so he never clearly set out the responsibilities of each department - and he didn't give clear directives, to begin with.

In the later years, Hitler micro-managed the war efforts, and ultimatively doomed Nazi Germany instead of securing a lasting cease-fire with the UK and the USSR. His orders were often nonsensical to his Generals, and damaging (e.g. going for Moscow and Leningrad instead of claiming the USSR's economical resources). Also, his friendship with Mussolini was also a disaster. The Italian army had to be assisted and rescued several times (Greece, North Africa, Italy), which bound tremendous resources.

If Trump would have a charismatic ideology and enough people willing to suspend the rule of law, he could end up at something like Hitler. But this danger is actually much more severe in today's Turkey with Mr. Erdogan.

David

Hillis wrote:

I ask the question.

There are many similarities between listening to and watching Donald Trump and in what Adolph Hitler spread to the German Folk in the 1920's and 30's.

If you Google "Hitler Trump" you get plenty of comparisons, but who he most is like according to Google is Mussolini. Given Trump's antics and his history of draft dodging, he really is closer to Mussolini. Check it out (or Google it for yourself):

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/trumps_ ... n_america/

blacksoviet wrote:

Why is it not okay for America to have a wall on its southern border? Mexico has a wall on its southern border. Does that mean Mexico is racist?

A lie, by any other name, is still a lie

Hillis wrote:

But Trump hasn't started a war that killed 70 million human beings,

True, but Hitler when elected didn't start a war either. I doubt Trump would go as far as launch a world war, but with the Nuclear Football at his reach, I would be very nervous, especially when he gets butthurt everytime someone criticizes him. Imagine Russia making a fool out of him; his reaction could be a nuclear blast in Moscow to show who the stronger person is. It sounds farfetched, but for a man who is irrational, nothing can be ruled out.

EA CO AS wrote:

Please show me where Trump has said that the U.S. would be better off if it weren't for all the Mexicans, homosexuals, and Muslims in the country.

The fact that his campaign draws support from white supremacists, who view brown people as a danger ("Mexico sending drugs, crime, and rapists", and alienating a Muslim population in the US by having supporters suggest that he tests Muslims), and running on a platform that seeks to undo Obergefell and impose "religious freedom" laws everywhere, he's not exactly the champion for any of the three groups.

blacksoviet wrote:

Hitler was a socialist just like Sanders.

Except Hitler capitalized his support on blaming Jews for the woes of Germany and on racial purity. Sanders, while a bit out of there, never suggested to blame a particular race/religion for the woes of Americans.

blacksoviet wrote:

The Jewish controlled media

Laughable. Jewish controlled media? What are we? Israel?

Dreadnought wrote:

The lies and bullshit in this thread are too much for me to argue with. If you want to think Trump hates gays, women mexicans etc in spite of all evidence to the contrary go ahead, whip yourselves up in a righteous frenzy. Enjoy.

Given the chance to change the course of the debate by presenting proof that Trump really is looking out for the interests of all Americans, you choose to take the ever popular "I can't even" approach by complaining how much "you can't". I'm open minded enough to concede when a valid point has been raised. And if I can't find proof contradicting your claim, I'll be gracious enough to admit you're right. You're upset about the "lies and bullshit" presented here? Go ahead. Set the record straight.

But you know why you won't do it? Because the very same things you find attractive in Trump are the same things you and other conservatives criticize Obama for.
Both are inexperienced in politics (despite Obama having an electoral history in IL and the Senate; that is somehow appealing to Trump)
Both inflame racial tensions (though Trump doing so by signalling out a few groups is acceptable, including retweeting white supremacist tweets; Obama calling for better treatment of blacks is racist)
Both use a teleprompter (with Obama, it's a sin; with Trump, it's a sign of a mature person learning the ropes)
Both have been called non-Christians (Obama is a MOOSLEM; how dare anyone question Trump's faith though?)
Both are divisive (however, Trump is doing it because he loves the country)
Both are elitists (but Trump's mansions, properties, and private jet? yes, he doesn't have an A380 so it clearly shows he's for the average American. Obama? Not so much)

So unless you can explain why these and many other factors are so appealing about Trump, you don't have any convincing arguments and are just deflecting the issue. I invite you to address these points: why are they a sign of Obama's failures but could be Trump's assets if elected?

ltbewr wrote:

The Nazi's had limited personal ownership of guns, the USA has few regulations.

No. Compared to the 1928 law, the Nazis had expanded the number of people who could purchase, own and carry guns, and it exempted many people (government employees, government officials, and also Nazi party members) from the obligation to get a permit.

It's difficult, though, to compare Nazi gun laws with those of the US. For a proper discussion, one has to make a distinction between gun laws and race laws. The US has a history of disarming blacks, too - for example the Mulford Act, signed into law by His Holiness Sir Reagan, which intended to disarm the Black Panther party.


David

That comparison is way over the top. One could call Trump a political Clown who would make a hard landing if the People elect him in November. But he would not seize power like Hitler did and the American political System of checks and balances, the Division of powers would prevent that even if trump would have the Intention. Trump would quickly realize that it would be much better and safer to listen to his politial advisors.

The only Person that Warrants the comparison with Hitler right now is Erdogan. What is Happening in Turkey right now has a frightening similarity with what happened in Germany when Hitler and his gang seized power after he was elected and able to form a government in 1933. That was the last democratic election in Germany for the next 16 years. I do hope for the Turkish People that the nightmare they endure right now gets over quicker.

The political System in the US is safe and stable.

The Hitler comparisons are a little too much, but it sure shows everyone how even the USA can end up with a dumbass dictator just like the third world we like to make fun of, like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. It also pulls back the curtain on the racist underbelly that the right has been stoking for decades, and now has turned around and devoured the party. People wonder why there's violence in the Muslim world, and a lot of it is because the government is complicit. Today it's GOP candidates showing up to a rally to exterminate the gays, or shooting a Presidential candidate for treason, tomorrow it sounds a little more normal, and the day after maybe it even sounds like a good idea, and *poof* government sponsored violence just like the countries we abhor.

EA CO AS wrote:

he hasn't said a negative peep about the LGBT community.

Are you joking? The GOP platform is the most odious it's been in a while, combined with one of the most anti LGBTQ VPs Trump could find, and a commitment to undoing the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. That's a pretty f#cking big peep. Or are you into terminating marriages, taking children away from couples, and letting parents send their LGBTQ children to christian torture camp?

Dreadnought wrote:

Why am I bothering with this clickbait thread...

The lies and bullshit in this thread are too much for me to argue with. If you want to think Trump hates gays, women mexicans etc in spite of all evidence to the contrary go ahead, whip yourselves up in a righteous frenzy. Enjoy.

He's too stupid to have any actual opinion on anything. He just regurgitates whatever he thinks he needs to say to impress whomever he's trying to impress. And people like you just eat it up.

EA CO AS wrote:

He's suggested better vetting of Muslims, yes.

No he didn't. He could not have been clearer when he said "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". It is still on his website in case you don't believe me. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration
It could not be more clear: there is no "better vetting"--it's a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". This is the problem: all his minions jump through their own rear end to invent whatever they think he *really* means, when it is crystal clear in black and white WITH his name attached to it.

blacksoviet wrote:

Why is it not okay for America to have a wall on its southern border? Mexico has a wall on its southern border. Does that mean Mexico is racist?

There is nothing wrong with border security. No one is taking issue with that. We need to put more money into border services and security. What people have a problem with is calling all Mexicans rapists and drug dealers and saying that all Mexicans are only hear to steal jobs. Many Latinos are here because they or their ancestors were born here. Until the 1800s, many parts of the Southwest were part of Spain and Mexico.

Another thing that people take issue with is "make Mexico pay for the wall." Why? The Republican controlled Congress can actually work and pass a budget for border security, instead of taking months off at a time.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I would be very nervous, especially when he gets butthurt everytime someone criticizes him. Imagine Russia making a fool out of him; his reaction could be a nuclear blast in Moscow to show who the stronger person is. It sounds farfetched, but for a man who is irrational, nothing can be ruled out.

I don't think a nuclear reaction is all that likely. There would be plenty of advisors (military and others) that would work against this. The chain of command might start at the C-in-C, but there is still the option to ignore orders that are clearly stupid.

blacksoviet wrote:

Why is it not okay for America to have a wall on its southern border? Mexico has a wall on its southern border. Does that mean Mexico is racist?

Mexico has no wall on it's southern border. http://www.snopes.com/mexico-guatemala-border/

L-188 wrote:

The Hitler-Hillary comparisons are much more factual and accurate.


Hilter-Hillary....Hitlery?

Their politics match but the name doesn't quite sing.

How so? Do you see Hillary call for all but rounding up a religious group? I don't.

Do you see Hillary blaming minorities and "undesirables" like LGBT's, Muslims, Mexicans and others for all the nations' woes? I don't.

Do you see Hillary saying "I can solve all this by myself", which is what Hitler basically told the German people? I don't.

Do you see Hillary exhorting her supporters to be violent, or in giving at least tacit approval of violence against those that don't like her? I don't.

Their politics don't match at all. Look, you can't have it both ways, try as you might. You can't call liberals "communists" or, at best "socialists" on one hand, and on the other lable them as fascists. The two are not the same. Trump displays many of the personality traits that Hitler had-narcissism, meglomania, ignorance.

But then again, I believe you're so far out to pasture on the right that you have no real basis to judge anyone else. You've so bought the ever-rightward march of the GOP that now you claim your political opponents are that which you yourself are becoming, and that's headed toward Fascism.

petertenthije wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

I would be very nervous, especially when he gets butthurt everytime someone criticizes him. Imagine Russia making a fool out of him; his reaction could be a nuclear blast in Moscow to show who the stronger person is. It sounds farfetched, but for a man who is irrational, nothing can be ruled out.

I don't think a nuclear reaction is all that likely. There would be plenty of advisors (military and others) that would work against this. The chain of command might start at the C-in-C, but there is still the option to ignore orders that are clearly stupid.

I also think Trump, in addition to being dumb as a box of rocks, is lazy and has zero interest in any of the actual work. The chain of command will be running the country, not Trump.

Don't wait for L-188 to even attempt to make a coherent argument. You'll be here awhile.

EA CO AS wrote:

pvjin wrote:

I'm actually starting to think Trump might win

If he wins PA, OH, and FL, he's the next President of the United States.

And he's leading Sec. Clinton in the polls in OH and FL, with PA being within the margin of error.

Despite being outspent massively by the Clinton campaign.

Actually, he's losing in most polls in those states.

And if you look at the electoral map, even if he wins all three, he probably still loses the election, and substantioally.

Break down what Hillary is probably going to win, vs what Trump is going to win, minus those three states:

Clinton: CA, WA, OR, NV, CO, NM, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, MD, RI, DC, CT, MA, NY, NH, VT, ME, NJ, DE, HI, VA. That's 265 electoral votes, without the three states you mentioned. Trump? He has AK, ID, MT, WY, TX, OK, KS (probably), NE, ND, SD, AK, LA, AL, MS, TN, KY, SC, WV, IN. That's 148 electors. That leaves AZ, UT, GA, FL, NC, OH, MO, PA. Trump is within the margin of error ahead in AZ and GA, and will probably win those in a close race; he's actually showing behind in UT, as the Mormons hate him, but he may still win there. Missouri is a tossup. He's losing in FL, NC, and, in most polls, OH and PA. If Clinton took just AZ or UT, Trump would still lose carrying OH, PA, FL. And he's not going to win all three of those states.

So, to say he has a legit shot is far-fetched.

By the way, Obama's approval rating is now up to 56% in a new poll. I think that tells you what the American people think about a guy like Donald Trump.

coolian2 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

Hitler uses a very nationalistic, or, as many would say, a very xenophobic stance and tone for his speeches. He talks about making America Great Again; in taking back America. Hitler did the same thing in Germany, saying the Aryan needed to take back Germany from Jews.

Oops! lol.

I can see the comparisons. I don't think he'd be able to take things as far as Hitler did, or if he even wants to.

You'd be amazed at what he could do with a complicit Congress and control over the next two or three SCOTUS nominations.

You already have people talking about jailing their political opponents. Mr. Trump has talked about "rounding up" illegal immigrants. But in practice if such a program began I suspect that some legal immigrants and even US citizens might be "rounded up." It's already happened: http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/20 ... give-350k/

Do I think it will wind up with death camps and gas chambers? No, I do not. But concentration camps and many people dying of neglect and lack of basic necessities? Yes. That could very well happen. It's happened before; we did it to the Japanese because they looked different.

Look, as a Jew I don't like Holocaust comparisons unless they are REALLY accurate and alarming. And Mr. Trump is hitting all the buttons.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Imagine Russia making a fool out of him

That's highly unlikely scenario... he can manage that all by himself. Besides, Kremlin loves the Orange Clown and vice versa.
That's the ultimate irony... Republicans have been (often rightfully) ripping Obama for 8 years for being soft, weak, naive and incompetent when it comes to foreign policy and standing up to Russia. Now, when they had an opportunity to fix it, they nominated this loudmouthed bad joke of a politican and Putin's new boyfriend. And people around Trump are paid by the Russians. It's safe to say the pro-Kremlin (useful) idiot now comes for the first time from the Republican party... Priceless. Good ol' Ronnie Reagan must be spinning in his grave!

https://goo.gl/images/0aLSCF

The problem is that it's difficult to look at Hitler as a simple man, a politician, without thinking about some kind of devil, evil incarnate etc. So from there having a reasoned discussion including Hitler is impossible.

I fail to see that Mr.Trump is homophobic.

The Hitler comparison is no more meaningful than comparing Clinton to Karl Marx or Ho Chi Minh.

The Right always favours nationalism, economic awards based on competition, the military and police to solve conflicts, and traditional social structures.

The Left always favours internationalism, economic awards based on need, consensus as a way to solve conflicts, and social structures centred on equality.

Reagan, Thatcher, de Gaulle, Peron, Churchill and Hitler are on the Right.
Clinton, Roosevelt, Marx, ML King, Mitterrand, Atlee, and even Pope Francis in many ways, are on the Left.
.....(subject to their own national/religious/economic permutations)....



All leaders on the Right share basic beliefs, some have been great, some have been terrible. Same for the Left.






Pu.

dfwjim1 wrote:

I fail to see that Mr.Trump is homophobic.

Have you met his VP pick yet? Or the GOP platform? Or his sudden belief in "traditional marriage" which is so laughable as to be almost unbelievable? But I think the latter says more about the christian right's total dearth of morals and principles than anything. They'll suck up to any clown if they think they can get power, money, or nasty things done to people they don't like.

blacksoviet wrote:

Before Hitler was elected the Germans were drowning in debt. This debt was owed to banks owned by Jews. Hitler expelled these bankers and got the Germans out of this debt. The Germans were no longer drowning in debt. The White families were no longer starving. The middle class was revived. This all came at a price however. Hitler is the most lied about man in history.

Enjoy him on your side, righties! You've earned him!

dfwjim1 wrote:

I fail to see that Mr.Trump is homophobic.

Then I can only surmise you fail to see.

dfwjim1 wrote:

I fail to see that Mr.Trump is homophobic.

So is that the reason you're going to vote for him and Mike Pence?

Aesma wrote:

The problem is that it's difficult to look at Hitler as a simple man, a politician, without thinking about some kind of devil, evil incarnate etc. So from there having a reasoned discussion including Hitler is impossible.

Actually it is quite simple to discuss Hitler without reducing him to a devil or simply a madman. The oft repeated claim that Hitler was mad is, in my view, a cop out. It is an attempt to shift responsibility. The argument goes, "Hitler was mad but what could we do?" This helps to avoid a discussion of how and why Hitler could not only rise to power but retain it. Why did so many Germans willingly support the NSDAP? Why was it that major parties were willing to help him rise to power, why was it the army stood by after he pushed through the Empowerment Law, why was it that so many business people rushed to join? If Hitler was simply mad, it would have been not too difficult for those close to him to bring about his downfall. They didn't, not out of fear for their lives, but because they gained through the system they helped to set up.

In response to the OP:

To compare Trump (or Clinton) with Hitler omits some very important factors. Hitler from the very beginning made clear his contempt for parliamentary rule, which he believed led to stagnation (because no one could agree on anything) and weakened the State. He made it quite clear in from the start that the country needed a leader with an iron will to sweep away impediments to the growth of Germany without concern for constitutional niceties. Has either Clinton or Trump campaigned on a platform of abolishing Congress?

Secondly, Hitler and his supporters set about building independent organisations as a parallel State. Think not just of the SA and the SA that were used to physically attack opponents, breaking up meetings, intimidating Jews and so on, but also organising financial support for unemployed members. On coming to power, just about all independent organisations, be they political parties, trade unions, even flying clubs, were either disbanded or forced to merge with party organisations. Has either Trump or Clinton even hinted at building such a parallel state or even banning other parties and trade unions, self-help groups, etc?

HGL wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The problem is that it's difficult to look at Hitler as a simple man, a politician, without thinking about some kind of devil, evil incarnate etc. So from there having a reasoned discussion including Hitler is impossible.

Actually it is quite simple to discuss Hitler without reducing him to a devil or simply a madman. The oft repeated claim that Hitler was mad is, in my view, a cop out. It is an attempt to shift responsibility. The argument goes, "Hitler was mad but what could we do?" This helps to avoid a discussion of how and why Hitler could not only rise to power but retain it. Why did so many Germans willingly support the NSDAP? Why was it that major parties were willing to help him rise to power, why was it the army stood by after he pushed through the Empowerment Law, why was it that so many business people rushed to join? If Hitler was simply mad, it would have been not too difficult for those close to him to bring about his downfall. They didn't, not out of fear for their lives, but because they gained through the system they helped to set up.

In response to the OP:

To compare Trump (or Clinton) with Hitler omits some very important factors. Hitler from the very beginning made clear his contempt for parliamentary rule, which he believed led to stagnation (because no one could agree on anything) and weakened the State. He made it quite clear in from the start that the country needed a leader with an iron will to sweep away impediments to the growth of Germany without concern for constitutional niceties. Has either Clinton or Trump campaigned on a platform of abolishing Congress?

Secondly, Hitler and his supporters set about building independent organisations as a parallel State. Think not just of the SA and the SA that were used to physically attack opponents, breaking up meetings, intimidating Jews and so on, but also organising financial support for unemployed members. On coming to power, just about all independent organisations, be they political parties, trade unions, even flying clubs, were either disbanded or forced to merge with party organisations. Has either Trump or Clinton even hinted at building such a parallel state or even banning other parties and trade unions, self-help groups, etc?

Trump will try to purge Obama appointees from government.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/donal ... ppointees/

I would be dollars to doughnuts that he would not stop at only Obama appointees but those appointees from any administration who worked with Obama to get things done. Like the FBI chief. Trump can only do things when surrounded by yes men.

HGL wrote:

Has either Trump or Clinton even hinted at building such a parallel state or even banning other parties and trade unions, self-help groups, etc?

looking decades back the line gets blurry, but one shouldn´t think that Hitler had all his plans laid out in public long before he was elected. Those that did read "Mein Kampf" may have a somewhat better ideas, but not even in full. There was no way to "know" about his planned Holocaust for example, since that decision was only made a long time later.
If you read his earlier speeches with an eye to the time, political correctness wasn´t invented yet, his speeches for the most part where neither extreme, nor did they ignore issues people were thinking about. And well, there was a lot of "Make Germany great again"... .. restore its rightful place and such non sense.
But then again, no speech writer worthy of his name can ignore Hitler speeches....

best regards
Thomas

@ tommy1808

You are right to say that no one could have predicted the holocaust, how it would be planned or carried out. But it was never a secret that Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews from German society. He did not use terms like "ausrotten" (extermination) or" vernichten" (annihilation) in public speeches but he continuously and unashamedly called for their "entfernung" (removal). As early as 1919, when working for the Reichswehr in Bavaria, he was directed to write on what the Governments attitude to "Jewish Question" should be. His reply:

But antisemitism based on reason must lead to the systematic legal combating and removal of the rights of the Jew, which he alone of the foreigners living among us possesses (legislation to make them aliens). Its final aim, however, must be the uncompromising removal of the Jews altogether. Both are possible only under a government of national strength, never under a government of national impotence.+

Day in day out this message was hammered home at every opportunity, along with the association of Jews with the danger of Bolshevism and a complete opposition to Marxist supporters, among whom he included not only the KPD but also the SPD. In a meeting in the Hotel Atlantic in Hamburg, December 1930, Hitler proclaimed to an appreciative audience,

The future Germany will be freed of three burdens: from the Internationalism of the KPD (a poison for the Volk), from the pacifism of the SPD (You always get on further in the world with your fist) and from Democracy: If a people must fight under the most difficult conditions, it can not afford itself the luxury or madness of a majority decision.#

The location of the speech may have been new, but he had made similar speeches up and down the country to similar groups of worthy burgers.

+ Source of original German text: ―Hitler an Gemlich. München, 16. September 1919, ‖ BayHstA, Abteilung IV Kriegsarchiv, Reichswehrgruppenkommando Nr. 314. Abschrift; reprinted in Ernst Deuerlein, ―Hitlers Eintritt in die Politik und die Reichswehr,‖ Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 7. Jahrgang, 2. Heft/April 1959, pp. 203-05.
# Source: Joachim Paschen in Hamburg zwischen Hindenburg und Hitler, Edition Temmen 2013

HGL wrote:

But antisemitism based on reason must lead to the systematic legal combating and removal of the rights of the Jew, which he alone of the foreigners living among us possesses (legislation to make them aliens). Its final aim, however, must be the uncompromising removal of the Jews altogether. Both are possible only under a government of national strength, never under a government of national impotence.+

Not so differnt from "removing all Muslims" now, is it?
Feeling unbound by international treaties (NATO, WTO,....) is also something Trump and Hitler had very much in common.

best regards
Thomas