<< Hitler destroyed the electoral process and made himself the only party in Germany, eventually becomming a dictator>>
There are people that believe that Clinton is doing just that - I forget which conspiracy theory it is, but it revolves around some Executive Orders that allow for jailing people for hoarding food, and the likelihood that Clinton will declare martial law over the Y2K fiasco, enabling him to stay in power and even invalidate the next elections.
<<Hitler, if you haven't heard yet, declared war on its neighbors including most of Europe.>>
Clinton, on the other hand, doesn't declare war, he just puts American troops in numerous countries as peace-keeping forces, and fires missiles into countries without the benefit of having declared war.
<<Hitler, instead of having a pattern of trying to hide a sexual misconduct, had a pattern of rounding up German, Czech, Polish, French, Italian, Hungarian and Russian Jews to systematically put them to death.>>
Clinton uses character assassination instead of actual assassination. Hitler didn't actually commit the atrocities until well after he was firmly entrenched. Give Clinton time, you never know what he might do.
Okay, I'm just having some fun here, but your points are slightly irrelevant. The comparison was with Hitler's Germany, not with Hitler. The people that are supporting Clinton are exhibiting some of the same symptoms as the people that originally supported Hitler. They were willing to vote for anyone who promised them prosperity and a way out of their powerlessness. Also, after the atrocities began, the people turned a blind eye to them - if they denied it was happening, it wasn't happening. After all, you can't PROVE people were being gassed in those camps.
The implication is not that concentration camps are about to be opened up in America (again), but that the people are willing to ignore almost anything if it brings them prosperity and power. |
