General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

there's objectively better candidates is my point. clinton doesn't have "views," really. she's the quintessential embodiment of the status quo.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Irysa]

A candidate can only be objectively better according to specific criteria. What it means to be the POTUS is a multifaceted state of affairs, so it's concievable that people believe different candidates are better for the Presidency for entirely different reasons. If there is a mismatch in opinion, it is because your criteria do not match (or likely, your criteria are more rigorous than other people's).

I do believe in some objective truths mind, but what I believe to be objectively true isn't going to sway someone else just because I believe it. Declaring "it's objectively true that Clinton and Cruz are crummy candidates yet people are voting for them, thus those voters must not be capable of interpreting reality" (or at least, implying that) seems a bit impetuous to say the least.

EDIT: I should probably say, whilst being more politically aligned with Sanders than anyone else, I'd still vote Libertarian if I was a U.S citizen. I put that down to the fact that I highly doubt any of Sander's social policies will get through the houses, wheras I would trust Gary to VETO the shit out of regressive policies or corporate BS without threatening actual liberties since that's basically his claim to fame as a Governer.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Irysa

[Alertcircuit]

Clinton's the perfect candidate on paper. 8 years of productive Senate experience, 4 years as Secretary of State. She's worked closely with Presidents, and was married to one for 8 years, so she knows exactly what being President entails. It's when you look at what she does and means on a macro scale when she stops looking appealing. (Bought out easily, conforms to establishment views, scandals, etc.)

Why do you guys think she's overwhelmingly winning the black vote over Sanders when he seems to be more concentrated on black issues/working with BLM?

Edited March 6, 2016 by Alertcircuit

[Dr. Rudy Mjølnir]

As a Bernie support, I can't say that I am fully onboard with voting on her in November if she is the Democratic nominee. If she just had more integrity and bestowed confidence that she won't sell out to Wall Street and corporations and go centrist as soon as she is elected in office, then I would happily vote on her. At this point, I may just vote on Jill Stein.

[Radiant head]

If you live in a swing state, I would vote Clinton, because as much as I don't like her, we're really fucked if Cruz or Trump are in the White House.

But if you're like me and live in a strongly red/blue state, voting Green isn't a bad way to go. She won't win obviously, but they do gain visibility and funding if they get a certain proportion of votes, so it's still a productive way to go if you care about Green issues.

[blah the Prussian]

As a Bernie support, I can't say that I am fully onboard with voting on her in November if she is the Democratic nominee. If she just had more integrity and bestowed confidence that she won't sell out to Wall Street and corporations and go centrist as soon as she is elected in office, then I would happily vote on her. At this point, I may just vote on Jill Stein.

Beyond being a sell out, my main problem with her is her support for the idiotic policy of supporting the FSA and Libyan rebels without actually figuring out who we want to win. It was the same mistake the USA made in Afghanistan.

[-Cynthia-]

My hesitation over Bernie is that I don't think a lot of his proposals are realistic. $15 an hour minimum wage is more than doubling the current wage. Free college for everyone compared to pretty much no government assistance presently is also a huge leap. Yeah, European countries(and others like Canada etc.) have similar policies to these, but the United States is larger, more diverse, and has different cultural values.

Hilary isn't my ideal candidate either, for reasons mentioned earlier, but I wasn't surprised when she was my highest match on issues.

[Anacybele]

why? many republican beliefs, at least social beliefs, are toxic to society. why shouldn't i be "a lot of" democratic?

also, why do you find trump reasonable and worthy of nomination?

From what I've learned/researched, Democratic beliefs are mostly toxic. For example, Obuma and the other Democrats cry gun control problems for terrorist attacks like the one at that CA Christmas party, while the Republicans say it's a terrorist problem. More gun control isn't going to fix anything, these terrorists get guns elsewhere/illegally. More gun control is just going to take away guns from people who would use/keep them responsibly. My stepdad told me that a country, I think it was Sweden, actually requires everybody to own a gun. Their crime rate is like zero, because no one in their right mind is going to attack people who have guns.

Just like Republicans say, we don't stop gun violence by taking away the guns, we stop it by USING guns. Fighting fire with fire.

Democrats like Obuma believe in "spreading the wealth" which on paper seems like a good idea. And I'm all for having taxes that help the disabled people that can't work. But I don't want to be taxed just for my hard-earned money to be given to some guy who's too lazy to get a job, which is basically what Obuma and the Democrats have done. Anyone who is considered unemployed can get welfare or something and can just stay on it. There used to be a law where you can be on welfare for like a year if you're not working, but are capable of working, and if you don't have a job by then, you're SOL (shit outta luck). Democrats took this away.

Gas prices skyrocketed after Obuma got elected too. They're down now, but the increased gas prices caused food prices to go up. Trucks are needed to bring food to stores, after all. But food prices have NOT gone back down. The gov doesn't want to do anything about it.

There are military veterans who are poor, homeless, hungry, and cold. But Obuma/Democrats would rather let in Syrian refugees that are probably crammed with hidden terrorists and give them homes instead.

And of course, there's the issue of the national debt, which may actually only be Obuma himself, not really the whole Democratic party (he didn't start the debt, but he made it worse than any other president in history).

I'm not saying Trump will solve every problem I'm listing here. But I think he's the one most likely to help with some of it. He's different from the other politicians in that he isn't trying to tip-toe around everything and stay "politically correct." He's redefining politics, which is what needs to happen.

And why do I find Trump the best candidate right now? Because I agree with him on a lot of stuff, duh...

Also, my sources have been some articles, the radio programs my stepdad listens to in his truck, and the news on TV (sorta). And different news centers too (Fox, CNN, Time Warner, mainly those three).

Edited March 6, 2016 by Anacybele

[Moblin Major General]

Ana, I think you mean Switzerland, where everyone has to enter military service for 2 years and then choose a gun in which to keep. Let me address those points you brought up.

1. True Gun Control would be impossible to implement in the US anyway. There are enough Red States to block the passing of an amendment which repeals amendment 2. I agree that the limitations they want won't actually help, but micromanaging is better than ignoring the problem.

2. I know that true "Spreading the Wealth" is a socialist policy and drastically ineffective, but on the other hand, the 2 holding the 90 is equally unethical. I support flat taxing and no deductions because the conservatives want the rich richer and the poor poorer.

3. That's the fault of capitalism, not the government. And if you want to involve government, the Republicans that want a truly free market are against regulating ANYTHING in regards to the economy, which leads to things like the Gilded Age and Great Recession.

4. Once again, the issue lies not within the Presidency. You have to pass bills in order to help them, and the Democrats want to, but they literally can't do it because of Bitch McConnell. The Republicans refuse to pass initiatives for the sake of refusal. As for the refugees, the ones we have are the Sufis, Yazidis, and Kurds, all people who are oppressed by both ISIL and the main sect of Sunni Islam.

5. The US debt is really not debt at all, seeing as though most of that money is owed to Americans. It was going to get that high during Obama's presidency either way. The only way debt goes away is if the power across the entire world is forever cut.

6. The only good Trump is doing is sending the GOP into it's grave by sensationalizing the right. He's pragmatic, an apologist for racism, a demagogue, and an isolationist. You tell me what leader has done any good by being any one of those things, much less all of them?

[Tryhard]

From what I've learned/researched, Democratic beliefs are mostly toxic. For example, Obuma and the other Democrats cry gun control problems for terrorist attacks like the one at that CA Christmas party, while the Republicans say it's a terrorist problem. More gun control isn't going to fix anything, these terrorists get guns elsewhere/illegally. More gun control is just going to take away guns from people who would use/keep them responsibly. My stepdad told me that a country, I think it was Sweden, actually requires everybody to own a gun. Their crime rate is like zero, because no one in their right mind is going to attack people who have guns.

Just like Republicans say, we don't stop gun violence by taking away the guns, we stop it by USING guns. Fighting fire with fire.

This gets brought up constantly, but many European countries and other places like Australia have had gun control in place for many years and have seen a drastic improvement to their gun homicide statistics.

Regardless, this is pointless to argue because America is never going to even consider banning guns (even minor legislation to change current gun laws are met with the strictest opposition) and so holding views about gun control laws is actually harmful to their public relations considering the amount of gun nuts in America.

Bringing more guns into an already heated and frantic environment is not going to be a wise idea. Shootouts in public areas aren't what you should be striving for and the rhetoric that "only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" comes from the NRA who specifically want to sell more weapons. There's very little circumstances in which a gun may actually help, as well. It may make you feel better with carrying it, but it is not practical to use if someone is targeting you in a premeditated manner.

Democrats like Obuma believe in "spreading the wealth" which on paper seems like a good idea. And I'm all for having taxes that help the disabled people that can't work. But I don't want to be taxed just for my hard-earned money to be given to some guy who's too lazy to get a job, which is basically what Obuma and the Democrats have done. Anyone who is considered unemployed can get welfare or something and can just stay on it. There used to be a law where you can be on welfare for like a year if you're not working, but are capable of working, and if you don't have a job by then, you're SOL (shit outta luck). Democrats took this away.

I'm from Scotland (and by extension, the UK) where there are benefits. While I won't say we have anywhere near a perfect system, because people still take advantage of benefits (and always will, there's not much we can do about it), we do receive a national healthcare system and here in Scotland citizens are giving free tuition fees provided they have lived here for some time. While our taxes are much higher than America, I would rather have the safety of not being in thousands of a currency in debt because of emergency healthcare expenses, fucked because I have a period where I'm unemployed or because I want to go to university.

Once again, this is considered to be a detrimental thing that America is simply not interested in. Indeed, the fact that the national healthcare service is receiving cuts in funding is a major issue here.

Democrats are far from Socialist, by the way. They are pretty right-wing compared to the left-wing parties found in Europe. If they were Socialist I would probably actually support them.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

(1) From what I've learned/researched, Democratic beliefs are mostly toxic. For example, Obuma and the other Democrats cry gun control problems for terrorist attacks like the one at that CA Christmas party, while the Republicans say it's a terrorist problem. More gun control isn't going to fix anything, these terrorists get guns elsewhere/illegally. More gun control is just going to take away guns from people who would use/keep them responsibly. My stepdad told me that a country, I think it was Sweden, actually requires everybody to own a gun. Their crime rate is like zero, because no one in their right mind is going to attack people who have guns.

Just like Republicans say, we don't stop gun violence by taking away the guns, we stop it by USING guns. Fighting fire with fire.

(2) Democrats like Obuma believe in "spreading the wealth" which on paper seems like a good idea. And I'm all for having taxes that help the disabled people that can't work. But I don't want to be taxed just for my hard-earned money to be given to some guy who's too lazy to get a job, which is basically what Obuma and the Democrats have done. Anyone who is considered unemployed can get welfare or something and can just stay on it. There used to be a law where you can be on welfare for like a year if you're not working, but are capable of working, and if you don't have a job by then, you're SOL (shit outta luck). Democrats took this away.

(3) Gas prices skyrocketed after Obuma got elected too. They're down now, but the increased gas prices caused food prices to go up. Trucks are needed to bring food to stores, after all. But food prices have NOT gone back down. The gov doesn't want to do anything about it.

(4) There are military veterans who are poor, homeless, hungry, and cold. But Obuma/Democrats would rather let in Syrian refugees that are probably crammed with hidden terrorists and give them homes instead.

(5) And of course, there's the issue of the national debt, which may actually only be Obuma himself, not really the whole Democratic party (he didn't start the debt, but he made it worse than any other president in history).

I'm not saying Trump will solve every problem I'm listing here. But I think he's the one most likely to help with some of it. He's different from the other politicians in that he isn't trying to tip-toe around everything and stay "politically correct." He's redefining politics, which is what needs to happen.

And why do I find Trump the best candidate right now? Because I agree with him on a lot of stuff, duh...

Also, my sources have been some articles, the radio programs my stepdad listens to in his truck, and the news on TV (sorta). And different news centers too (Fox, CNN, Time Warner, mainly those three).

I'm going to have fun here.

(1) My personal opinion on gun control is that everyone is wrong. Both the NRA and Gun Control Lobbyists.

The reason why the USA has so many mass murders like Columbine (forget Sandy Hook and the rest, let's tackle the original) is still relatively unknown. Banning guns isn't going to solve the problem because people will just find ways to get guns through backchannels. And allowing Joe Schmo to buy an M-4 without a background check is also sketchy. But both sides are addressing the symptom rather than the problem.

To me, that's education and it's a tough one to fix. On the one hand, catering to kids with social problems (who are more likely than popular kids to bring an assault rifle to school) should be addressed since bullying plays into the scenario and it's impossible to eliminate. But then you get 18 year old kids who need a "safe zone" because words hurt. That's a depressing thought for future generations, especially when 18 year old kids here in Israel are drafted into the military.

At the end of the day, nobody is correct and we all need to sit down and figure out the root cause of why kids feel that it is appropriate to shoot up elementary and high schools. If you're basing your vote over the issue of gun control, you have fucked up morals on either side.

(2) Here, you have a point but it's rather narrow-minded. What about people with mental illnesses like autism or PTSD that haven't been diagnosed? Are they also "too lazy to hold a job"? How do you put in system a practice which weeds out those who require welfare to actually live (because they have nothing and no skills) vs. people who just don't care?

Newsflash, it's not cool being on welfare. People don't purposely not work in order to collect these benefits. The vast majority of the time, they are either unable in a mental or physical capacity to hold a job. So if you prefer to have a system that lets the homeless starve to death on the streets in front of you, be my guest. Considering that the government's job is to look after ALL citizens and not just you, welfare is actually in line with being a moral human being.

(3) Holy shit, you do not know anything about the Middle East and gas prices. They soared during the Bush years because he pissed off the vast majority of the Middle East and Obama inherited a war in Iraq, of all places. Placing the blame at Obama's feet means that you selectively ignore history.

As for food prices, blame the fact that there are 7 billion people in this world and food works on a "supply and demand" system. Guess what? The price of food soared in the 1930's, even as the decade closed. Was that FDR's fault? No, he inherited that situation and these are things that take time to correct (try decades). Then chalk up the fact that the USA is so far in debt and a portion of the national budget doesn't even go into paying off the debt but rather the interest. There is so little money in the USA that it's beyond laughable.

I'm not defending Obama but watching you crucify him for his predecessor's fuck ups is hard to stomach. If you want someone to blame, look at Bush.

(4) I don't disagree with you on the end result but ​the vast majority of Syrian refugees are not fucking terrorists. ​The fact that I'm Israeli (we've been fighting the Syrians since 1948) and I have to tell you this makes me laugh. You look like a bigot when you say this because it's flat out not true.

I'm not surprised that you support Trump after this comment. It's so full of ignorance which seems to be going around in the Trump camp. I've been saying all along that Trump will turn into a fascist leader who wants the Master Race to rule America... Now who does that remind me of? Oh yeah, the man who organized the slaughter of my family.

I do agree that the Syrians should fuck off back to Syria but that's because I believe that they made their own bed. Let in the Eritreans instead who have to wait years for visas. Or other refugees from central African countries who literally get slaughtered in the streets by warlords just for sport. But the Syrians? Please. The only thing the Syrians have been concerned about for the past 20 years until this civil war was figuring out the best way to send rockets into Lebanon or Gaza to be used against us. I have no sympathy for them.

(5) I mentioned this earlier but read this properly. Bush fucked up your country nice and proper before Obama got there. Not defending Obama (crap President) but the blame cannot solely be laid at his feet considering that he inherited a cancer.

It's fine that you support Trump. I just believe that classifies you as a closet fascist because I can't imagine a scenario where Trump does not instill the thought of the Master Race deserving to be the only one who should benefit.

[The DanMan]

It's fine that you support Trump. I just believe that classifies you as a closet fascist because I can't imagine a scenario where Trump does not instill the thought of the Master Race deserving to be the only one who should benefit.

Where are you getting this from? This seems like a truly epic amount of reading-between-the-lines if talks about curbing the amount of illegal immigrants from Mexico and trying to prevent Muslim terrorists from entering the USA mean that to you.

Trump himself has said he's willing to compromise on many issues, and that he'll start "acting more presidential" when/if he gets the nomination.

He plays the crowd for all it's worth at rallies and talks actually substance elsewhere.

[Yojinbo]

Clinton's the perfect candidate on paper. 8 years of productive Senate experience, 4 years as Secretary of State.

She failed miserably as a secretary of state though. I'll never understand why that is kept being brought up in her favor [not aimed at you].

[Life]

Where are you getting this from? This seems like a truly epic amount of reading-between-the-lines if talks about curbing the amount of illegal immigrants from Mexico and trying to prevent Muslim terrorists from entering the USA mean that to you.

Trump himself has said he's willing to compromise on many issues, and that he'll start "acting more presidential" when/if he gets the nomination.

He plays the crowd for all it's worth at rallies and talks actually substance elsewhere.

Pardon me for reading between the lines but this exact rhetoric got Hitler and the National Socialist Party elected in 1932.

[Radiant head]

My hesitation over Bernie is that I don't think a lot of his proposals are realistic. $15 an hour minimum wage is more than doubling the current wage. Free college for everyone compared to pretty much no government assistance presently is also a huge leap. Yeah, European countries(and others like Canada etc.) have similar policies to these, but the United States is larger, more diverse, and has different cultural values.

Hilary isn't my ideal candidate either, for reasons mentioned earlier, but I wasn't surprised when she was my highest match on issues.

He's not going to be able to get most of these things passed anyway. The idea is to campaign under the ideals he's fighting for, and if progressive legislation miraculously ever manifested, it would be more compromised/pragmatic.

Having said that, I have no doubt that single payer healthcare is not only totally feasible, but long overdue in the States.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Radiant head

[dondon151]

oh boy leave it to ana to jump in and turn this thread into a hot mess

From what I've learned/researched, Democratic beliefs are mostly toxic. For example, Obuma and the other Democrats cry gun control problems for terrorist attacks like the one at that CA Christmas party, while the Republicans say it's a terrorist problem. More gun control isn't going to fix anything, these terrorists get guns elsewhere/illegally. More gun control is just going to take away guns from people who would use/keep them responsibly. My stepdad told me that a country, I think it was Sweden, actually requires everybody to own a gun. Their crime rate is like zero, because no one in their right mind is going to attack people who have guns.

Just like Republicans say, we don't stop gun violence by taking away the guns, we stop it by USING guns. Fighting fire with fire.

wrong. most dems support measures that would take away guns from people who wouldn't use them responsibly. obama pushed for banning the sale of firearms to people on the no-fly list (i.e., probably dangerous people) and the GOP opposed that.

your stepdad was probably thinking about switzerland. switzerland is a much smaller country than the US and almost all males ages 20-34 are conscripted into the government militia to receive firearms training. this is a much different environment than in the US. furthermore, not everyone is required to own a gun; in fact, the gun ownership rate in switzerland is substantially lower than the gun ownership rate in the US.

Democrats like Obuma believe in "spreading the wealth" which on paper seems like a good idea. And I'm all for having taxes that help the disabled people that can't work. But I don't want to be taxed just for my hard-earned money to be given to some guy who's too lazy to get a job, which is basically what Obuma and the Democrats have done. Anyone who is considered unemployed can get welfare or something and can just stay on it. There used to be a law where you can be on welfare for like a year if you're not working, but are capable of working, and if you don't have a job by then, you're SOL (shit outta luck). Democrats took this away.

ana i'm going to make a wild guess that you're not making nearly enough money to be disproportionately taxed by any dem-backed tax schedule

just a hunch based on the fact that you spend most of the day posting about fire emblem on the internet instead of being out in the real world making oodles of money

i mean are you even financially independent from your parents

Gas prices skyrocketed after Obuma got elected too. They're down now, but the increased gas prices caused food prices to go up. Trucks are needed to bring food to stores, after all. But food prices have NOT gone back down. The gov doesn't want to do anything about it.

your bias really shows in this statement. you're going to attribute gas prices increasing to obama being elected but not going to attribute them falling to the lowest that they've been in decades to obama being elected? please. the gas prices have nothing to do with obama in the first place.

if you were to be logically consistent, then you should be singing obama's praises that the gas prices are this low.

There are military veterans who are poor, homeless, hungry, and cold. But Obuma/Democrats would rather let in Syrian refugees that are probably crammed with hidden terrorists and give them homes instead.

there's no indication that the GOP candidate will do any better for these homeless veterans, but the thought that the syrian refugee population is diluted with terrorists is incomprehensible bullshit. we have had more acts of domestic terrorism committed by US citizens in the years since 9/11 than we have had settled refugees from the middle east arrested for suspected charges of terrorism.

I'm not saying Trump will solve every problem I'm listing here. But I think he's the one most likely to help with some of it. He's different from the other politicians in that he isn't trying to tip-toe around everything and stay "politically correct." He's redefining politics, which is what needs to happen.

trump's perceived strengths are in reality his biggest weaknesses. he throws a punch but his history of litigation indicates that he's too much of a pussy to take one. he's politically incorrect but apparently is really insecure about the sizes of his body parts. he tells it like it is but in fact he lies more often than he tells the truth.

now i know you have an extensive personal history of not being able to take criticism well or never admitting that you're wrong, but maybe you should stop listening to your stepdad for once.

Edited March 6, 2016 by dondon151

[BBM]

Ana, you don't have to agree with Obama or his policies or like him, but he's the president of your country. You should at least respect him enough to spell his name correctly.

4 years as Secretary of State is brought up in Hillary's favour because it's experience on a level nobody else in the race has. The truth is that with how divided the States are these days (a consequence, over time, of its electoral system), there's never going to be widespread agreement on whether or not someone in a high office does well.

[blah the Prussian]

Pardon me for reading between the lines but this exact rhetoric got Hitler and the National Socialist Party elected in 1932.

I would actually compare Trump more to the French Jacobins than to the Nazis. The thing with Trump is that he doesn't have full control over the mobs that support him. The supporters of Hitler supported Hitler the man, not the ideas he supported (okay, they supported his ideas too, but had Hitler died during the war the Reich would have fallen apart). Hitler had a consistent set of beliefs that he tied to himself. Trump seems to so,ply be attcking whoever it would benefit him to attack. Not saying that makes Trump better, but there is a difference.

[solrocknroll]

Ana, you don't have to agree with Obama or his policies or like him, but he's the president of your country. You should at least respect him enough to spell his name correctly.

4 years as Secretary of State is brought up in Hillary's favour because it's experience on a level nobody else in the race has. The truth is that with how divided the States are these days (a consequence, over time, of its electoral system), there's never going to be widespread agreement on whether or not someone in a high office does well.

Yeah, "Obuma" is kindergarten level name calling.

Hillary indeed has experience, and that's a point in her favor. Obviously she isn't as good as Sanders, but she's certainly no Trump.

[Anacybele]

Okay, looks like I got quite a response to my post, and a lot to take in here. I'm not really sure where to start on responding at all. But I guess there are still some things I've missed here and there in learning more about all these politicians and policies and such.

EDIT: I know how to spell Obama's name, I just call him Obuma because I think he's an idiot. Or, a bum.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Anacybele

[Life]

EDIT: I know how to spell Obama's name, I just call him Obuma because I think he's an idiot. Or, a bum.

That shows a lack of maturity and I don't think that I'm wrong when I say that you should stop posting here simply because of this.

Anyone who calls Trump "Drumpf" gets the exact same reaction, by the way.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Pharoahe Monch

[Yojinbo]

4 years as Secretary of State is brought up in Hillary's favour because it's experience on a level nobody else in the race has.

4 years experience of being a shitty secretary of state is really considered a point in her favor? Your country must be in a pityful state if that's true.

Her foreign policies were awful when she was SOS and they will continue to be awful if she becomes president.

[Alertcircuit]

He's not going to be able to get most of these things passed anyway. The idea is to campaign under the ideals he's fighting for, and if progressive legislation miraculously ever manifested, it would be more compromised/pragmatic.

Having said that, I have no doubt that single payer healthcare is not only totally feasible, but long overdue in the States.

But if he can't pass his free college/free medicaid laws, what will he do? Assuming this next election or the midterm gives a cooperating Congress, we already know what Hillary will be pushing for and that she'll probably be able to accomplish most of it. If Bernie's ideas turn out to be just pipe dreams, what will he be trying to pass in their place? Will he go at it in increments (ban student loan interest, free community college, expand medicaid)? Bernie needs to assure the voters that he'll actually be able to do things once he's in office if he wants to beat Hillary.

[The DanMan]

Pardon me for reading between the lines but this exact rhetoric got Hitler and the National Socialist Party elected in 1932.

Hitler clearly wrote out and expressed his ideals in Mein Kampf well before he got elected; if that had happened in the internet age, there's no way in hell he would've gotten elected.

Yeah, Trump says stupid things and flings insults, but seriously comparing him to Hitler is like comparing a riding mower to a Ferrari.

[Yojinbo]

I wouldn't compare Trump with Hitler either but I think a good chunk of Trump voters - willingly or not - feel spoken to by him in a similar way a lot of germans felt spoken to by Hitler.

But yeah the mere though that Trump would commit genocide, start a war with Russia and drag pretty much the whole world into a war is absurd. I'd be much more afraid of that happening if Cruz or Clinton became president.