First of all, calling someone a fascist is different than calling someone Hitler.
Do you think such comparisons are automatically invalid? Despite there being multiple fascist parties throughout history.
If you think it's invalid for Trump, is it also invalid for Le Pen? Hofer?
> A politician using fear of something and promising something else is their bread and butter.
All politicians use fear occasionally, but for a fascist it's used as a wholesale replacement for ideology. Compare the acceptance speeches of Clinton and Trump and tell me there's no difference. Trump's speech was literally depicting America as a fallen nation beset by enemies within and without, only capable of being fixed through his singular vision.
> Every President skirts around the constitution. You can look up numerous examples where Obama has bypassed it or took a very liberal reading.
Yes, all Presidents try to push the limits of their power. They don't campaign on it though and gloat in it.
Take waterboarding, for example. Bush allowed it, but he didn't gloat about it and his argument for it was primarily that waterboarding is "not torture." Trump, on the other hand, makes no pretenses: he openly advocates torture, even if it is blatantly unconstitutional.
It's the difference between playing within a constitutional framework while trying to expand your power (most presidents) and having no respect for constitutional checks (Trump).
> The DNC emails recently came out where journalist were making sure their stories were okay with the DNC before publishing.
The DNC is a private organization. If a journalist decides to run stories by them, it's a bit ridiculous but in no way unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Trump calling for prosecution of anyone who writes negative things for him is literally what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.
Look, I realize that a lot of people reach to the Hitler comparison far too liberally. I don't know a single other modern American politician who deserves the label. But to pretend that Trump is just another normal politician is to have your head in the sand. The previous nominee from his own party won't even support him, nor will the previous president. That's unprecedented. When you have conservative outlets like the National Review calling Trump a fascist, maybe you should consider that something's different this time.
Do you think such comparisons are automatically invalid? Despite there being multiple fascist parties throughout history.
If you think it's invalid for Trump, is it also invalid for Le Pen? Hofer?
> A politician using fear of something and promising something else is their bread and butter.
All politicians use fear occasionally, but for a fascist it's used as a wholesale replacement for ideology. Compare the acceptance speeches of Clinton and Trump and tell me there's no difference. Trump's speech was literally depicting America as a fallen nation beset by enemies within and without, only capable of being fixed through his singular vision.
> Every President skirts around the constitution. You can look up numerous examples where Obama has bypassed it or took a very liberal reading.
Yes, all Presidents try to push the limits of their power. They don't campaign on it though and gloat in it.
Take waterboarding, for example. Bush allowed it, but he didn't gloat about it and his argument for it was primarily that waterboarding is "not torture." Trump, on the other hand, makes no pretenses: he openly advocates torture, even if it is blatantly unconstitutional.
It's the difference between playing within a constitutional framework while trying to expand your power (most presidents) and having no respect for constitutional checks (Trump).
> The DNC emails recently came out where journalist were making sure their stories were okay with the DNC before publishing.
The DNC is a private organization. If a journalist decides to run stories by them, it's a bit ridiculous but in no way unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Trump calling for prosecution of anyone who writes negative things for him is literally what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.
Look, I realize that a lot of people reach to the Hitler comparison far too liberally. I don't know a single other modern American politician who deserves the label. But to pretend that Trump is just another normal politician is to have your head in the sand. The previous nominee from his own party won't even support him, nor will the previous president. That's unprecedented. When you have conservative outlets like the National Review calling Trump a fascist, maybe you should consider that something's different this time.