Anyone comparing Hitler to Drumpf, how dare you? Hitler was eloquent, well spoken and had actual personality. Drumpf has none. Hitler was a soldier. Hitler raised his country before going crazy, Drumpf was always crazy and is destroying his country from the get go. Hitler gave healthcare, Drumpf took it away. Hitler hated and killed Jews, including children while Drumpf I think hates no one and loves himself and separates children and kills Muslims in the middle East by the thousands, no where near Hitler's kill count. They are both assholes but different kinds of assholes

That is an interesting take to say the least. Hitler was not eloquent, he used passion and emotional overtures. Granted I'm not a German speaker so I can't say for sure the level he articulated his speeches, but he usually started softly, sometimes even pausing for several minutes to get people to anticipate his speech, and once he got going he increasingly raised his volume to inflame the passions of his audience.  He is consider an influential speaker because he was one of the first to master this tactic. His strong man personality was also fake and merely used to attract the guile's of women and the minds of men. 

President Trump is more hyperbolic. At a rally he will use hyperbolic language to have that over the top flare. He also tells inside jokes that mostly his audience would understand and makes fun of his own hyperbolic style. It's why he is so successful with Republicans base because it is that elite vs common man mentality that matches his style and speeches. There are of course similarities to using emotional appeals as a tactic, but what Trump truly excels in is exploiting the press by using ambiguous and unstructured language. It allows his enemies to fill in the blanks to what he says since he does not clarify, which can lead to wrong takes or misinterpreted opinion and make his supporters distrust the news for its biased slant (MS-13 animals). By the way, trust in the validity of the news was down far before Trump announced his candidacy (Gallup). He was just the first to know how to exploit it. 

Hitler is not an asshole, he is homicidal and genocidal maniac that nearly destroyed Europe in his quest for world conquest and his belief in Germanic superiority. There simply is no comparison no matter how crude the analogy unless you compare him to Mao or Stalin. All three have over a 100 million souls of blood on their hands. By all means, you can disagree with or hate Trump's decisions, but you only hurt your own argument with such rhetoric. 

The MS-13 example is not the best one for your example. That case was a simple deliberate attempt at twisting his words, not an omission of Trumps that could be skewed.

His animals comment was an answer when asked about the MS-13 gang.

Be like me writing a review about a movie and saying "If this movie wanted to be the biggest piece of shit movie in the world it succeeds greatly." and then a tv commercial going "...movie ... succeeds greatly"

You know, paraphrasing my comment, except in its paraphrasing completely changing the narrative. That is what the press did with his MS-13 comment. Trump says a gang that goes around rapping, killing, butchering, robbing ect people are animals and the press comes out ands say "trump says Mexicans are animals"

And in todays world, all it takes it one media outlet to report that and htne everyone single one jumps on it like flies on honey and reports its, extrapolates its, blows it up even more out of proportion, ect.  Then when facts come out, there is a quiet apology in the corner whispered by a few that no one hears and if you were to take a survey in the streets right now I would bet the majority of people would say that they heard Trump said Mexican are animals. The media knows that the first news is what sticks in peoples minds, so being completely accurate is not important. They can come out later and say "we revised it"

Yeah, MS-13 was just the most egregious example I could think of of the top of my head. Best case scenario it was an abhorrent gross amount of negligence to cover it that way, but I do agree it was probably deliberate. Omission of truth is usually their MO, though. 

My main concern is how common the use of fascist or Nazi is being used openly to the point that it is no longer simply trolling. I already hate people blanketly calling someone a racist, snowflake, sexist, or SJW because they disagree with them or to score points with their own crowd. But damn, it's not just about dismissing your opponent for having different views on how to run a country. It's saying that people that are maliciously trying to harm others because they are evil. Not only is it incredibly lazy and factually wrong, but it increases the divisiveness and potentially calls for violence to justify the solution. Not to mention the person who says or believes it is narrowing their entire perspective on the issue(s) at hand. Or, they cannot even begin to justify why someone might disagree with them to such a degree. 

Is this any different then what was said during Obama term.  At that time they tried to paint him as a socialist.  Then when that went nowhere they tried to make it appear he was not born in the US and paint him as a muslim.  Do not forget that Trump was one of the leading people behind trying to make this case.  Even more funny, he said he had evidence but as always with Trump producing that evidence is always hard for him to do.  Trump is being treated no better or worst than any other president who make way to many comments without going through the political filters.  He gives ammunition to his enemies because he doesn't have a filter or know when to shut up.  People who love him believe this is some grand strategy and people who hate him believe he is just stupid.  Only time will tell which group is right.

Yes, there is a clear difference. Obviously, part of politics is to slander your opponent since in many cases in today's politics people vote against a party, not for one. But let's go deep into what these attacks mean.

Being painted as a socialist is considered a taboo to republicans, but why? Because for republicans it is messaging a sign of naivety or a lack of understanding of reality. Another way to look at it is they were calling Obama stupid. To paraphrase a very in-depth and complicated argument, 'He ignores historical precedence or knowledge of life and economics.' 

As for the Muslim attempt, I do not condone this attack especially since it was slander, and I believe that was a poor attack that did not work preciously for that reason. The messaging that was likely behind it was to question his legitimacy as an American who could govern the country he ran. Especially since some of his policies were perceived by republicans to demonize or trivialize American heritage. As always, the key word is "perceive." 

...

So, how is the attacks on Trump different ? (Which is a fair question). Trump is considered stupid which is nothing new in the political realm. What is different is that these recent attacks are not merely about his intelligence or his moral character. Rather, the messaging is that Trump and his supporters are trying to emulate the worst dictators of human history. Only a fascist would separate kids. Only a Nazi would try to block people from coming to this country on a basis of race. Trump is racist, sexist, and every other -ist and -ic out there. It's not even the idea that he is evil, it is that he is the definition of evil. Therefore, we as citizens have a moral obligation to stop him at any cost because he is the greatest threat of our time. This is not a fringe statement. Members of the press, Late night shows, cable (political) news, members of the house and senate, celebrities, all have major influence of traditional media.

Now, I do remember times where Obama was compared to Hitler, and I also remember the reaction. No one took them seriously. It was some idiot on the fringe who grossly simplified the President. Just as those attacks should be considered. Politics is an ugly place and I do not expect civility in that realm. However, to use the dictators of the 20th century as part of analogy better be damn well thought out, because as Jordan Peterson would say, it is sacrilegious to use the most tragic events in Human history for expedient gain. 

The numbers also speak for coverage of Trump compared to past presidents. 

...

I have a question. How much research have you done on Hitler? I mean actual research, not Watchmojo videos or high school history class. I say this because as long as I have been alive, every American President dating back to Reagan has been called Hitler by their detractors. Most people who say this know very little about Hitler or Nazi Germany. If you really did actual research, you would come to find that your modern social justice warriors, especially those involved in academia have far more in common with Hitler and the Nazis than any American President ever has. 

For research purposes, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer is a good start. It was published in 1960 and was based on captured Nazi documents, the diaries of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, General Franz Halder, and of the Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano, evidence and testimony from the Nuremberg trials, and British Foreign Office reports. The book also relies on the author's own recollection from his time reporting on Nazi Germany for newspaper publications. It is a long read though. The audiobook version is over 57 hours long. Mein Kampf is also worth reading just to get an idea of what Hitler was about, though despite his skills as a speaker, Hitler was not a particularly good writer. 

As for America's own issues, gun violence actually peaked in the 1990s. Gun violence in America is actually at a 20 year low. Racial tensions are no worse than they were under Obama, though arguably worse than they were under Bush. The foreign relations issue is a result of the changing geopolitical climate around the world. We went through a major shift after World War II and another one after the Cold War. That's what we're seeing now. It would have happened with or without Trump. Right now, the United States is making friends in Asia while not being so reliant on a European alliance anymore. It was going to happen. It just works out better for Trump since he's better at Asian diplomacy than Western-style diplomacy.

Oh, I'm not denying republicans play a part in the spending problem. Even with Trump I had no anticipation of serious budget cuts or reduced spending.

In fact, republicans got trashed by their peers for passing a budget that had significant spending increases. Dems don't care though, more spending is treated as a win.

The manager acted like a fringe idiot and made the establishment a lightning rod for fringe idiots. Essentially, she did something the business as a whole may not have been comfortable with and probably why she's gone. Frankly, if you grandstand a public figure, it may come with consequences.

I genuinely feel people on the left are more likely to be "a holes." But they don't have all the "a holes" if that makes you feel better.

Open borders falls under not protecting citizens. Which should be a primary focus. Its a left wing issue because its some sort of social justice. Some perceive it as pandering to certain groups.

The general consensus is Obama's plan would require increased spending, its just a debate on how much. I get the impression the US either had to stick with that deal Obama proposed or just leave. Otherwise Trump could just make a new proposal, offer very little or virtually nothing like other countries, and get less media flack.

Maxine Waters requested people to harass republicans, now she's experiencing it herself. My advice is just try to be civil because wackos are on both sides.

I'm aware some land would fall under eminent domain. Sucks, but this is a security issue. It wouldn't be the worst use of this law.

For some reason wanting free stuff is more popular than higher taxes. But increased spending in general is more popular among the left.

The democratic party in particular is not right leaning, their party is getting highjack by socialists, SJWs, and often take umbrage with the constitution. People who vote democrat might have right wing views, but the party is becoming strongly against them.

You're taking my comment out of context. I'm saying democrats don't get chastised for increased spending even though high taxes is not popular.

If a baker didn't want to serve someone because his gaydar went off, that would obviously be wrong. That would be difficult to defend even if you aren't a fan of gay marriage.

No, Obama was painted as a socialist because they thought this was the buzz word at the time Americans would get behind.  Obama was painted as a muslim because those same political opponents wanted to paint him as favoring muslim values which would of course put off the Christian base.  As with anything political, people will use whatever they feel is a message that will get enough voters to side with them. 

Yes, Trump is being considered in the same light as current and pass dictators but then again, he helped make that message.  Just like Obama father was Kenyan, it gave his political opponents an avenue to paint him as muslim, Trump praising every dictator from Kim to Putin, gave his political opponents a means to paint him in the same light.    Obama was painted just as evil as Trump from the right leaning sites, Trust me I read them all.  Probably the only reason you believe you see more sites against Trump is because he basically rub a lot of people the wrong way.  Unlike other presidents, he loves to open his mouth about every topic that comes to his mind.  Just like social media, when you talk to much without thinking should I be saying this as president, you will get a lot of flak.  The difference with Trump compared to other presidents is that other presidents treated their position first and then their social status second.  Trump still thinks he is that celebrity TV star first and President second.  As long as Trump continue to give fuel to his political opponents to tie his actions to past and present dictators, they will continue to try to push that narative.