Downplaying the severity of despots like Mao by comparing them to democratically elected leaders is incredibly disrespectful to the 45,000,000 people that died as a direct result of catastrophic and coercive policies.
I assume the reference was to Bush’s foreign wars, which killed _dramatically_ fewer people (under a million even in the most expansive estimates I can find)… although they also brought widespread poverty, rather than mass industrialisation and wealth.
A democratic leader remains democratic throughout their term. W did his time and bowed out at the end of it. Another party stepped in peacefully afterward.
The only way Hitler could have gone out was in a pine box. That's the difference. He may have been democratically elected, but he wasn't a democratic leader.
I guess you mean Jr who consumed a lot of coke when young, not his late CIA father who was shielding Jr from jail numerous times.
Middle east is as it is currently largely to his fuckups and made up invasions for reasons barely better than russian invasion of Ukraine, and Afghanistan failure is proper second Vietnam for US to the last details, just less movies about it so far so its largely ignored and people act like it didn't happen.
Republicans still uncritically celebrate him, when I dared to criticize him even here I got downvoted to hell pretty quickly. Yet he is directly responsible for death of millions of innocent civilians and indirectly caused ie Isis, not on Mao or Stalin level but still.
Downplaying the severity of despots like Mao by comparing them to democratically elected leaders is incredibly disrespectful to the 45,000,000 people that died as a direct result of catastrophic and coercive policies.