Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To put Hitlers beliefs on Trump is mostly unsustainable. What is sustainable is that alot of the stuff that made Hitler's rice to power possible. A relitively large part of the population feeling disenfranchised by its goverment. The weimar republic for germany. The change in demographics in the states, the white male is becoming less prevalent (this is generalising of course there are more reason they feel disenfranchised but that's a big one). So human nature turn to the strong leader type AKA hitler,Trump. A strong demagouge with a knack for tapping in that discontenment. Ultranationalism. A simple message and a clear enemy. The jews,gypsies and the like for Germany. And immegrants and Muslims for Trump. A tendency to use inflamotory retoric. Then we come to personality. Hitler was extremely narcisstic and if you ever saw 'der undergang' very petty. This can also be said of Trump.You also ask his supporters to ask to pledge to vote for him , wich you can quite easily compare to the fuhrer oath the wehrmacht had to take. In short is Trump like hitler, maybe not a mirror image but to claim you can draw no comparisens is clearly false.How are Trump's actions and rhetoric like Hitler's?
Donald Trump is not Hitler
Well duh, Hitler has been dead for 70 years.
Ok so in the first he sais basicly argue with your neighbours tell them wat I stand for. He specifies the second amendment and lowering taxes. You can of course focus on the get in your face bit but it's kinda hard to compare half a sentence out of context to what Trump puts out.I don't think anybody (liberal or conservative) would disagree that the description fits Clinton (on top of Trump). However, if you really think it fits Obama then you may want to take in a little bit less of that Fox News (or insert whatever else biased conservative news source you buy your bullcrap from)...Obama is not perfect whatsoever, but if you think the guy fits descriptions like "narcissistic" or "uses inflammatory rhetoric" then your perception of him is so skewed as to have little to no basis in reality.To put Hitlers beliefs on Trump is mostly unsustainable. What is sustainable is that alot of the stuff that made Hitler's rice to power possible. A relitively large part of the population feeling disenfranchised by its goverment. The weimar republic for germany. The change in demographics in the states, the white male is becoming less prevalent (this is generalising of course there are more reason they feel disenfranchised but that's a big one). So human nature turn to the strong leader type AKA hitler,Trump. A strong demagouge with a knack for tapping in that discontenment. Ultranationalism. A simple message and a clear enemy. The jews,gypsies and the like for Germany. And immegrants and Muslims for Trump. A tendency to use inflamotory retoric. Then we come to personality. Hitler was extremely narcisstic and if you ever saw 'der undergang' very petty. This can also be said of Trump.You also ask his supporters to ask to pledge to vote for him , wich you can quite easily compare to the fuhrer oath the wehrmacht had to take. In short is Trump like hitler, maybe not a mirror image but to claim you can draw no comparisens is clearly false.How are Trump's actions and rhetoric like Hitler's?
You just described Obama and Clinton more than Trump. They constantly insist that minorities are being oppressed by white people, the same way Hitler insisted that Germans were oppressed by the Jews. And, now there's the employment of the Left's SA to intimidate American citizens.
You should stop worshipping Obama.
Obama Says "Argue With Them, Get In Their Face" (FOR Obama, OK. But Those AGAINST Are "Angry Mobs"
Obama tells Latinos to ‘punish our enemies,’ the GOP
Well said, I completely agree but it is not just Republicans. There are too many independents and democrats who are susceptible to exploitation on fear, bigotry and ignorance."Donald Trump is not Hitler"
No, he's not.
But seeking to exploit the fear, bigotry, and ignorance common to many republicans, to engage in baseless demagoguery, and to contrive and propagate lies – such as Sanders being 'responsible' for the violence during his Chicago event – is nonetheless a tactic common to dictators and despots.
I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.Ill take that bet if you want , you post blips of obama and hilary saying minorities are oppressed and ill look up Trumps remarks on muslims and immegrants and then we'll compare tone and frequency.You just described Obama and Clinton more than Trump. They constantly insist that minorities are being oppressed by white people, the same way Hitler insisted that Germans were oppressed by the Jews. And, now there's the employment of the Left's SA to intimidate American citizens.
You mean illegal immigrants?
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Conshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBAtitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
1) now you are gonna claim he didn't say it was permanent but i think it hardly matters. again inflammatory and clearly divisive.I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.Ill take that bet if you want , you post blips of obama and hilary saying minorities are oppressed and ill look up Trumps remarks on muslims and immegrants and then we'll compare tone and frequency.You just described Obama and Clinton more than Trump. They constantly insist that minorities are being oppressed by white people, the same way Hitler insisted that Germans were oppressed by the Jews. And, now there's the employment of the Left's SA to intimidate American citizens.
You mean illegal immigrants?
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Constitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
2)He didn't say not best and brightest he said criminals, drug addicts, and rapist. Again clearly inflamatory and divisive
3) The Constitution requires the government to protect the border from invasion not ppl seeking better lives. If you're a white male then you should know that that's the reason you ARE a US citizen.
4) I never said Trump was a fascist what i did say what that I can clearly establish quite a few simmularities. Not one you have been able to disprove I might add.
I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.Ill take that bet if you want , you post blips of obama and hilary saying minorities are oppressed and ill look up Trumps remarks on muslims and immegrants and then we'll compare tone and frequency.
You mean illegal immigrants?
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Conshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBAtitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
1) now you are gonna claim he didn't say it was permanent but i think it hardly matters. again inflammatory and clearly divisive.I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.Ill take that bet if you want , you post blips of obama and hilary saying minorities are oppressed and ill look up Trumps remarks on muslims and immegrants and then we'll compare tone and frequency.
You mean illegal immigrants?
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Constitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
2)He didn't say not best and brightest he said criminals, drug addicts, and rapist. Again clearly inflamatory and divisive
3) The Constitution requires the government to protect the border from invasion not ppl seeking better lives. If you're a white male then you should know that that's the reason you ARE a US citizen.
4) I never said Trump was a fascist what i did say what that I can clearly establish quite a few simmularities. Not one you have been able to disprove I might add.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inflammatory. You're just engaging in the usual fear mongering.
Ok so in the first he sais basicly argue with your neighbours tell them wat I stand for. He specifies the second amendment and lowering taxes. You can of course focus on the get in your face bit but it's kinda hard to compare half a sentence out of context to what Trump puts out.I don't think anybody (liberal or conservative) would disagree that the description fits Clinton (on top of Trump). However, if you really think it fits Obama then you may want to take in a little bit less of that Fox News (or insert whatever else biased conservative news source you buy your bullcrap from)...Obama is not perfect whatsoever, but if you think the guy fits descriptions like "narcissistic" or "uses inflammatory rhetoric" then your perception of him is so skewed as to have little to no basis in reality.To put Hitlers beliefs on Trump is mostly unsustainable. What is sustainable is that alot of the stuff that made Hitler's rice to power possible. A relitively large part of the population feeling disenfranchised by its goverment. The weimar republic for germany. The change in demographics in the states, the white male is becoming less prevalent (this is generalising of course there are more reason they feel disenfranchised but that's a big one). So human nature turn to the strong leader type AKA hitler,Trump. A strong demagouge with a knack for tapping in that discontenment. Ultranationalism. A simple message and a clear enemy. The jews,gypsies and the like for Germany. And immegrants and Muslims for Trump. A tendency to use inflamotory retoric. Then we come to personality. Hitler was extremely narcisstic and if you ever saw 'der undergang' very petty. This can also be said of Trump.You also ask his supporters to ask to pledge to vote for him , wich you can quite easily compare to the fuhrer oath the wehrmacht had to take. In short is Trump like hitler, maybe not a mirror image but to claim you can draw no comparisens is clearly false.How are Trump's actions and rhetoric like Hitler's?
You just described Obama and Clinton more than Trump. They constantly insist that minorities are being oppressed by white people, the same way Hitler insisted that Germans were oppressed by the Jews. And, now there's the employment of the Left's SA to intimidate American citizens.
You should stop worshipping Obama.
Obama Says "Argue With Them, Get In Their Face" (FOR Obama, OK. But Those AGAINST Are "Angry Mobs"
Obama tells Latinos to ‘punish our enemies,’ the GOP
The second he talks about the fact that he wants immigration reform trough a hostile congress again you can focus on the word ENEMIES so if you want you can call it divisive I guess but inflamatory,not hardly.
Well said, I completely agree but it is not just Republicans. There are too many independents and democrats who are susceptible to exploitation on fear, bigotry and ignorance."Donald Trump is not Hitler"
No, he's not.
But seeking to exploit the fear, bigotry, and ignorance common to many republicans, to engage in baseless demagoguery, and to contrive and propagate lies – such as Sanders being 'responsible' for the violence during his Chicago event – is nonetheless a tactic common to dictators and despots.
The most common personal characteristic of those supporting Trump is ignorance.
I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.You mean illegal immigrants?
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Conshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBAtitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
1) now you are gonna claim he didn't say it was permanent but i think it hardly matters. again inflammatory and clearly divisive.I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.You mean illegal immigrants?
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Constitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
2)He didn't say not best and brightest he said criminals, drug addicts, and rapist. Again clearly inflamatory and divisive
3) The Constitution requires the government to protect the border from invasion not ppl seeking better lives. If you're a white male then you should know that that's the reason you ARE a US citizen.
4) I never said Trump was a fascist what i did say what that I can clearly establish quite a few simmularities. Not one you have been able to disprove I might add.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inflammatory. You're just engaging in the usual fear mongering.
Lol if that's the comeback I guess this is over. I can't make you read the English language.
I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Conshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBAtitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
1) now you are gonna claim he didn't say it was permanent but i think it hardly matters. again inflammatory and clearly divisive.I mean immigrants. If you call for a complete ban on all muslims coming into the country, if you say “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” then you can hardly claim you're making fine distinction and you can't exactly caim the tone is anything but incendiary. Hence inflamatorry retoric, if he would really believe it then we would have even bigger problems.
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Constitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
2)He didn't say not best and brightest he said criminals, drug addicts, and rapist. Again clearly inflamatory and divisive
3) The Constitution requires the government to protect the border from invasion not ppl seeking better lives. If you're a white male then you should know that that's the reason you ARE a US citizen.
4) I never said Trump was a fascist what i did say what that I can clearly establish quite a few simmularities. Not one you have been able to disprove I might add.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inflammatory. You're just engaging in the usual fear mongering.
Lol if that's the comeback I guess this is over. I can't make you read the English language.
You can't even write the English language.
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Conshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBAtitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
1) now you are gonna claim he didn't say it was permanent but i think it hardly matters. again inflammatory and clearly divisive.1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Constitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
2)He didn't say not best and brightest he said criminals, drug addicts, and rapist. Again clearly inflamatory and divisive
3) The Constitution requires the government to protect the border from invasion not ppl seeking better lives. If you're a white male then you should know that that's the reason you ARE a US citizen.
4) I never said Trump was a fascist what i did say what that I can clearly establish quite a few simmularities. Not one you have been able to disprove I might add.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inflammatory. You're just engaging in the usual fear mongering.
Lol if that's the comeback I guess this is over. I can't make you read the English language.
You can't even write the English language.
Well I'm a pretty bad typist. I'm also not an English speaker, my first language is Dutch. Perfectly fluent speaker and reader but I'll make a few spelling errors along the way. All of which doesn't change a single bit of the facts I've stated.
Well I'm clearly better at defending my viewpoints then you are of yours.You haven't put out a counterargument I couldn't quite easily disproof. Still waiting on your first succesfull rebuff. 'It's not true' does not count lol.Ok so in the first he sais basicly argue with your neighbours tell them wat I stand for. He specifies the second amendment and lowering taxes. You can of course focus on the get in your face bit but it's kinda hard to compare half a sentence out of context to what Trump puts out.I don't think anybody (liberal or conservative) would disagree that the description fits Clinton (on top of Trump). However, if you really think it fits Obama then you may want to take in a little bit less of that Fox News (or insert whatever else biased conservative news source you buy your bullcrap from)...Obama is not perfect whatsoever, but if you think the guy fits descriptions like "narcissistic" or "uses inflammatory rhetoric" then your perception of him is so skewed as to have little to no basis in reality.To put Hitlers beliefs on Trump is mostly unsustainable. What is sustainable is that alot of the stuff that made Hitler's rice to power possible. A relitively large part of the population feeling disenfranchised by its goverment. The weimar republic for germany. The change in demographics in the states, the white male is becoming less prevalent (this is generalising of course there are more reason they feel disenfranchised but that's a big one). So human nature turn to the strong leader type AKA hitler,Trump. A strong demagouge with a knack for tapping in that discontenment. Ultranationalism. A simple message and a clear enemy. The jews,gypsies and the like for Germany. And immegrants and Muslims for Trump. A tendency to use inflamotory retoric. Then we come to personality. Hitler was extremely narcisstic and if you ever saw 'der undergang' very petty. This can also be said of Trump.You also ask his supporters to ask to pledge to vote for him , wich you can quite easily compare to the fuhrer oath the wehrmacht had to take. In short is Trump like hitler, maybe not a mirror image but to claim you can draw no comparisens is clearly false.
You just described Obama and Clinton more than Trump. They constantly insist that minorities are being oppressed by white people, the same way Hitler insisted that Germans were oppressed by the Jews. And, now there's the employment of the Left's SA to intimidate American citizens.
You should stop worshipping Obama.
Obama Says "Argue With Them, Get In Their Face" (FOR Obama, OK. But Those AGAINST Are "Angry Mobs"
Obama tells Latinos to ‘punish our enemies,’ the GOP
The second he talks about the fact that he wants immigration reform trough a hostile congress again you can focus on the word ENEMIES so if you want you can call it divisive I guess but inflamatory,not hardly.
Nice job defending Der Feurher.
1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Conshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBAtitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
1) now you are gonna claim he didn't say it was permanent but i think it hardly matters. again inflammatory and clearly divisive.1) Trump never called for an all out permanent ban on all Muslims.
2) Mexicans who illegally enter The United States aren't the best and brightest. That's a fact, since most of them get on welfare when they get here.
3) The Constitution requires the government to secure the border. That makes the Founders fascists? I don't think so.
2)He didn't say not best and brightest he said criminals, drug addicts, and rapist. Again clearly inflamatory and divisive
3) The Constitution requires the government to protect the border from invasion not ppl seeking better lives. If you're a white male then you should know that that's the reason you ARE a US citizen.
4) I never said Trump was a fascist what i did say what that I can clearly establish quite a few simmularities. Not one you have been able to disprove I might add.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inflammatory. You're just engaging in the usual fear mongering.
Lol if that's the comeback I guess this is over. I can't make you read the English language.
You can't even write the English language.
Well I'm a pretty bad typist. I'm also not an English speaker, my first language is Dutch. Perfectly fluent speaker and reader but I'll make a few spelling errors along the way. All of which doesn't change a single bit of the facts I've stated.
Well I'm clearly better at defending my viewpoints then you are of yours.You haven't put out a counterargument I couldn't quite easily disproof. Still waiting on your first succesfull rebuff. 'It's not true' does not count lol.Ok so in the first he sais basicly argue with your neighbours tell them wat I stand for. He specifies the second amendment and lowering taxes. You can of course focus on the get in your face bit but it's kinda hard to compare half a sentence out of context to what Trump puts out.I don't think anybody (liberal or conservative) would disagree that the description fits Clinton (on top of Trump). However, if you really think it fits Obama then you may want to take in a little bit less of that Fox News (or insert whatever else biased conservative news source you buy your bullcrap from)...Obama is not perfect whatsoever, but if you think the guy fits descriptions like "narcissistic" or "uses inflammatory rhetoric" then your perception of him is so skewed as to have little to no basis in reality.You just described Obama and Clinton more than Trump. They constantly insist that minorities are being oppressed by white people, the same way Hitler insisted that Germans were oppressed by the Jews. And, now there's the employment of the Left's SA to intimidate American citizens.
You should stop worshipping Obama.
Obama Says "Argue With Them, Get In Their Face" (FOR Obama, OK. But Those AGAINST Are "Angry Mobs"
Obama tells Latinos to ‘punish our enemies,’ the GOP
The second he talks about the fact that he wants immigration reform trough a hostile congress again you can focus on the word ENEMIES so if you want you can call it divisive I guess but inflamatory,not hardly.
Nice job defending Der Feurher.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inflammatory. You're just engaging in the usual fear mongering.
I disagree, Trump is obviously a reincarnation of Mussolini.Donald Trump is not Hitler but his actions and rhetoric are closer to Hitler than Lincoln.
Bernie Sanders is not Karl Marx but his actions and rhetoric are closer to Marx than Lincoln.
What is our country coming too.
Hitler and Marx were both bad but Hitler was substantially worse than Marx. Let's hope we do not have to make a choice between Trump and Sanders.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inflammatory. You're just engaging in the usual fear mongering.
A Trump supporter calling the other side fear mongers?? I almost choked on my toast....Trump LIVEs for fear mongering.
