[DominikR]

This is true, she didn't make a strong positive case for what her policies would look like. And if she did then she didn't spend her time effectively trying to convey this. (can't actually remember even a single policy of hers except for easier abortions and confrontation with Russia over Syria)

But what I feel is problematic is that Trump was painted as some kind of Hitler, which is ludicrous if you spent a few hours watching some of his rallies. He says things he shouldn't say, and some might say he's an a-hole, but he certainly doesn't come across as a Hitler, a fascist or a Nazi.

Why is it so problematic for everyone? It increases the likelihood of violence, not just against Trump and his family, but against everyone showing public support for him.

In some way not only the people engaging in violence are to blame, but also the media and the campaigns, because when you somehow convince a large chunk of the population that a candidate is literally like Hitler then many will use violence believing it's justified in order to prevent a new Holocaust.

Also the Hitler comparison is used today too often. I believe we currently have 4 Hitlers according to the political establishment: Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte

[stcredzero]

He says things he shouldn't say, and some might say he's an a-hole

I voted for Obama in previous elections. But I also remember how he'd said denigrating things about people who "cling to guns or religion." I suspect people voted for Trump because they thought he didn't put on one face for one public and put on another one for a different public. (Which I doubt is the reality.)

Our media "elites" aren't elites anymore, and they're very out of touch with walk of life lower on the socioeconomic ladder. Denigration and painting with a broad brush are now accepted as the "reality" of politics, the news media, and social media. The "savvy" line to to accept and skirt such things. This is done by both the right and the left.

I believe we currently have 4 Hitlers according to the political establishment: Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte

Fox News made various comparisons of Obama to Hitler.

In a book from the 90's, Eric Drexler proposed that a networked world would save society and make it easier to disseminate the truth. In 2016, one finds that instead the internet has given the loudest voices to the coarsest, most hateful, and stupidest among us. (And by this, I don't mean Trump, but rather online activists on both the right and left.)

[DominikR]

I fully agree, though I didn't know that Fox News compared Obama to Hitler (I'm in the EU so I don't watch US TV) - which is equally unacceptable.

But I'm a more of an optimist regarding the Internet and the availability of platforms to share information and express views.

While it is certainly true that some of the loudest voices are indeed the most hateful (Comments on HRC's and DJT's Twitter posts were unbelievable vicious) I also see that there is organically dissent organising on all kinds of issues which we didn't have to such a degree in the pre Internet era.

Of course dissenters also existed before the Internet, but it was much harder to reach an audience. And not all dissent is just hateful and stupid, a lot is legitimate.

[stcredzero]

It's often the stuff that generates outrage that gets viral traction.

[ascotan]

Another example of Godwin's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[kafkaesq]

I upvoted (or rather, anti-downvoted) your comment because (even though it does seem you could use a better historical perspective on things) it was undoubtedly sincere and civil.

But what I feel is problematic is that Trump was painted as some kind of Hitler, which is ludicrous if you spent a few hours watching some of his rallies.

The thing about Trump is that he's better classified as a "proto-" or "quasi-fascist", rather than anything of the old school, early 20th-century sort. For exactly the reasons you describe -- Middle America in 2016 doesn't particularly have an appetite for jackboots or Nuremberg-style rallies, and most likely never will.

But blatant anti-intellectualism, incessant emotionalism, button-pushing, and finger-pointing, combined with a healthy dose of naked bigotry and not-so-subtly implied threats of violence? "You betcha". Those are the seeds of fascist and authoritarian thinking. And they are at the very heart and core of what Trump and his people are about.

[ltorresv]

I remember the leaks mentioned something about reinforcing the "Trump = Hitler" idea.

This was all manufactured by the DNC and it didn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if they're currently planning ways to disrupt Trumps inauguration or other events during the next 4 years to see if he snaps and they can use that as ammo for the next election.

At the end of the day it's politics and playing dirty is expected but now that one side has been exposed it's hard to brush it off thinking everybody does it.

[DominikR]

I agree that it is a normal (but nasty) part of politics to paint an unfavourable picture of an opponent (both candidates did that), but inciting violence is where it goes too far for me.

I imagine how many people in the US are now fearing for their lives because the DNC made them believe that Trump will probably build forced labour camps. And how many of them are not just frightened but even read to use violence.

When I check my Facebook newsfeed it's full of posts from friends who seem to be very afraid about what has happened.

If something terrible happens then it might be that the DNC has created the illusion which justified the violence.