Patriot Act Author Warns EU Against Dragnet Response To Terror (politico.eu)

schwit1 writes: Jim Sensenbrenner, former chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, was one of the driving forces behind the Patriot Act. He introduced the legislation a month and a half after the Sept. 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, and in 2013 he led the charge to scale back its powers, after Edward Snowden's revelations. Now, in the wake of the tragedy in Paris, Sensenbrenner is warning the EU that sweeping surveillance measures are not a proper response. Sensenbrenner said, "The cautionary tale is that democracy depends upon a respect for civil liberties. ... Talking about it in practical terms, the answer is to target the people which you know are up to bad stuff rather than bringing in the 99.8 percent of the inhabitants there, including the vast majority of followers of Islam, who have no intention whatsoever of conducting a terrorist attack."

Comments

Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

Re:Exactly Right

[JackieBrown]

Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

Good point. Any sane reading of the Second Amendment should make it obvious that citizen gun purchases should be financed by government, as part of the militia. Any citizen should be able to pop up to their local National Guard armory and pick up an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo, no questions asked. It's the only way to keep a free society.

Re:Exactly Right

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't understand - if EVERYONE was armed then you'd only have a few people getting shot every day until the suicidal killer is killed, rather than in countries where guns are harder to access in which you have a few people shot every few months until the suicidal killer is killed.

Re:Exactly Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

Glocks? Keep that unAmerican Eurotrash out of here. Give everyone Colt 1911s!

Re:Exactly Right

[Coren22]

That is an interesting, while accurate, way to read the Second Amendment.

Lets pass a law funding it!

Re:Exactly Right

[Coren22]

I prefer the dual Beretta from CS.

Re:Exactly Right

[Kohath]

So instead of having the government bully innocent Muslims, you'd have the government bully innocent gun owners?

Re:Exactly Right

[Nidi62]

That is an interesting, while accurate, way to read the Second Amendment.

Technically no, as a militia at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment was comprised of citizens who brought their own weapons. So a more accurate reading of the 2nd Amendment would be that the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

Re:Exactly Right

[Nidi62]

This assumes that everyone also has gun training, keeps up with their training, and can hit something smaller than a broad side of a barn while under fire.

Anything more than a cursory look at officer-involved shootings shows that even people trained on firearms can often not hit the broad side of a bar when under fire. Even in the military they are firing not so much to hit anything as to fire more than the people shooting at them to keep them pinned down so you can move.

Re:Exactly Right

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I prefer the dual Beretta from CS.

Heckler and Koch MP7A1 . . . then I feel safe.

Although, a Beretta CX4 is also something you might want to have around the house, for personal protection.

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

Heckler and Koch MP7A1 . . . then I feel safe.

How could anybody even consider going to pick the kids up at school without one of these babies ready to hand? You can never be too vigilant.

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

You wimp. You shouldn't need guns to pick the kids up, because the kids ought to be armed themselves.

Only a good toddler with a gun can stop a bad toddler with a gun.

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

It says a lot about America that some moron modded this "Interesting"....

Re:Exactly Right

[jcr]

part of the militia.

Not that stupid canard again.

The militia, as referred to in the second amendment, is every man capable of bearing arms. The second amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it as pre-existing, and forbids the government from infringing it.

The constitution is not the source of our rights. It is the legal document through which we the people delegated certain of our sovereign powers to the government.

-jcr

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

Re:Exactly Right

[Nidi62]

Although, a Beretta CX4 is also something you might want to have around the house, for personal protection.

My home defense is (going to be, my grandfather currently still owns it, but he is going to give it to me) my family's heirloom Winchester 1897 12-gauge pump. It had to be cut down when my grandfather was young because he was out hunting with it, dropped it in snow, then warped the barrel when he fired it, so it is just about the length of the old military issue trench guns. There's just something comforting about feeling that racking mechanism when you pump it.

Re:Exactly Right

[suutar]

I like that idea. They say you don't really understand something until you can teach it, so this will also help the military unit ensure good proficiency. Win-win!

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

The second amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it as pre-existing

Is this sort of like a pre-existing condition, like kidney stones, or do you mean they were granted by Jesus or something?

Re:Exactly Right

[DoctorBonzo]

I'm perfectly OK with a complete ban on guns as long as we start with the military and police...

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

Let's overlook the fact that criminals are much more likely to carry through with their plans if they know that their victims are likely (or better yet, definitely) unarmed. While we're at it, let's scoff at the fact that merely brandishing a gun is usually enough to prevent a violent crime (rape for example). Last but not least, let's ignore the fact that criminals will find a way to obtain guns no matter what the law says that law-abiding citizens may do.

Like Parisians in November, San Bernardinians victimized by this latest attack had no choice but to cower in the hard news accounts. We ve done the vulnerability thing time and time and had asked her pastor if she could carry her permitted concealed handguns on university property, but if an attack occurs, it is getting hard to think of any obligation to allow those they rule the same right. But to appreciate the impact of the worst offenders, featuring strict gun control advocates resort to desperate tactics. “ I believe that if Mr. And stupidity.

Re:Exactly Right

[radarskiy]

That would make us look like the damned dirty socialists in Switzerland. If you can't earn enough to pay for your own gun you clearly don't deserve liberty.

(The Swiss do make you pay for the howitzers.)

Re:Exactly Right

[LessThanObvious]

Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.

Re:Exactly Right

[ceoyoyo]

The US constitution was written to head up a common law system, inherited from the British. Under common law, there are customary rights, responsibilities and laws that are traditionally assumed, but are not necessarily written down somewhere. To confuse things, philosophers at the time were debating "natural" rights which were somehow inherent in all humans. Well, except the black ones, brown ones, female ones, disabled ones, and maybe anybody who didn't own land.

Re:Exactly Right

[GlennC]

...the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

Re:Exactly Right

[Tailhook]

Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

Re:Exactly Right

[Nidi62]

If we're going by the exact language rather than the intent, then the 2nd amendment only mentions the right to bear arms, not to own them.

Except in 1792 the government did not provide weapons to the militia, they used their own personal weapons. Because, you know, the whole point of a militia is to supplement an already existing standing army. A militia without weapons is pretty useless.

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.

After all, it apparently took Braun smart liberal that he is all of two and a ruling class that is at once protected by men and women with guns but disavowed of any obligation to allow those they rule the same to your own lawn. Except that it really isn’ being gun free zone is a bad idea. And his solution: tighter background checks would be illegal without proper Constitutional authority, never entered the president’ t get into right now. This is absurd. Really.

Re:Exactly Right

[Fire_Wraith]

Ironically, one of the laws from the early congresses was about requiring every military aged male to purchase and maintain a rifle, for the purpose of national defense. Can you imagine how many heads would explode on both sides of the political aisle if something like that were put forward now?

Re:Exactly Right

[Nidi62]

...the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

Fine with me, as long as the training focuses on firearm safety/proficiency and medical training, because the bulging disk in my back kind of limits my physical agility. I'd be perfectly capable and qualified to drive an intel desk though.

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

(The Swiss do make you pay for the howitzers.)

The fucking Swiss. Always pinching pennies.

Re:Exactly Right

[PvtVoid]

Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

So, thanks to local politicians, innocents who otherwise might have been able to pass background checks when purchasing their weapons, so those checks were worthless. He never struck me as a health technician responsible for Wednesday’ s the reality. Yet he presumably supports them in front of his home. Because a Gun Free Zone zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Gun free zones, places such as schools, where law abiding people won’ t carry guns. The good people in their echo chamber of effeteness.

Re:Exactly Right

[smooth wombat]

So a more accurate reading of the 2nd Amendment . . .

Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

The catch was, and the NRA will deny this with its last breath, the citizens who owned firearms had to be registered with their local government entity. That's how it was known who to call up in times of war or insurrection (the two main reasons for the militia).

Obviously this will never fly today because, you know, big government, but every time people bring up the 2nd Amendment and their Constitutional right to own a firearm, it's always nice to remind them of everything that was originally involved. Then suddenly their argument changes because we can't do what the Founding Fathers did.

Re:Exactly Right

[Yokaze]

If the Paris attacks happened every month in France, then the rate of homocides through guns would still be lower than the one in the US.

Re:Exactly Right

[CrimsonAvenger]

To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

Have you ever read the Militia Act? Everyone, not just gun owners, are automatically members of the Militia, unless they're enlisted in the Military (which would include the National Guard).

So your suggestion is superfluous, really. It's been that way since the country was founded....

Re:Exactly Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

Yes, because in France you are destined to die at the rate of 0.22 people per 100,000 each year due to gun homicides.

In the USA it's only 3.55 per 100,000 per year, because so many people have AR-15's and Glocks to protect themselves.

Re: Exactly Right

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget the 1800s western expansion of the U.S. where people did carry (a lot that needed guns just to eat) and crimes were rampant. Oh wait. History shot your example in the foot.

Re:Exactly Right

[NormalVisual]

I've been quite happy with my Mossberg 590A1. 18.5" barrel, 9-round magazine, and a Knoxx Spec-Ops stock. The Knoxx stock is amazing - I did a full 8-hour self-defense course with it and after about 600 rounds including 3" magnum slugs, my shoulder wasn't the least bit sore.

Re:Exactly Right

[Kohath]

Other people's civil rights don't primarily exist for you to feel comfortable.

Re:Exactly Right

[hirschma]

I'd love to see this reasonable, succinct take on the 2nd Amendment enacted. Continued participation required to maintain gun ownership; instructors able to weed out bad actors, too. Solves many problems.

Re:Exactly Right

[MountainLogic]

The reason for the 2nd amendment and indeed much of the constitutional convention was Shay's Rebellion. Shay's rebellion really freaked out the powers that be in the early US. Shay's rebellion was precipitated by many rural farmers were getting foreclosed on by banks so some folks rebelled and took-up arms. When the Governors called out the militia to put down the rebellion they found that the arms leftover from the revolution were in federal armories. The feds refused to open the armories to the states, even at gunpoint! The state's found this particularly galling as they claimed that they paid for these arms (historically wrong, but a good propaganda point at the time). That is why you see such an odd prefatory statement for the second amendment that you see nowhere else in the constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...."
Washington responded to a similar insurrection, The Whisky Rebellion, with force using the second amendment as grounds to press the militia into service to put it down. Interestingly, Washington led the force and was the only US president to go into battle while in office. Harrison Ford, exempted.

Re:Exactly Right

[JesseMcDonald]

I'd love to see this reasonable, succinct take on the 2nd Amendment enacted. Continued participation required to maintain gun ownership; instructors able to weed out bad actors, too.

You made that part up yourself. The proposal was only to offer free/subsidized training. While the 2nd Amendment does state that a militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on membership or participation in a militia. It is a right "of the people". Denying gun ownership to people who do not qualify for the militia, or who choose not to participate, or who are classified as "bad actors" absent a conviction for any actual crime, would be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Re:Exactly Right

[blue9steel]

Any citizen should be able to pop up to their local National Guard armory and pick up an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo, no questions asked. It's the only way to keep a free society.

Personally I prefer the Swiss system. All citizens are required to be members of the militia, members keep all personal equipment, including their rifle, at home. An armed populace is a free one and yes I choose freedom over safety.

Re:Exactly Right

[cayenne8]

Folks..it has been settled by the Supreme Court:

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.

It applies to individual rights to bear arms.

Remember, the Constitution isn't there to GRANT you rights, you are born with them. The Constitution is there mainly to enumerate the LIMITED powers the Federal govt is supposed to have.

Re:Exactly Right

[burtosis]

Or, even more importantly, all those dogs that shoot humans like trigger did recently. Only by arming all dogs can we prevent these tragedies.

Re:Exactly Right

[radarskiy]

From the Second Militia Act of 1792 until the National Defense Act of 1916 all able-bodied men (white men only until 1862) were at least part of the militia if they were not part of some other military organization.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 required all able-bodied men to have a gun. I'm not sure when that requirement was dropped.

Re:Exactly Right

[KGIII]

And bears, but we can't really stop them as they've got a right to it.

Re:Exactly Right

[TheRaven64]

Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

That's not quite right. Often, guns and powder would be provided by someone wealthy, who would raise a militia as a show of civic responsibility. They'd fund the training and buy most of the equipment.

Re:Exactly Right

[jcr]

Is this sort of like a pre-existing condition, like kidney stones,

Wow, that's incredibly fucking clever of you. I'll just comply with your wishes that I abandon my right to self defense now, and get killed by a criminal or the government like a good little sheep.

-jcr

Re:Exactly Right

[jcr]

, the whole point of a militia is to supplement an already existing standing army.

Nope. The point of a militia is to defend the public from danger. The existence of a standing army is irrelevant.

-jcr

Re:Exactly Right

[Invalidator]

The National Guard is not a militia, it is a military reserve unit. The second amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, the connection (and there certainly is one) between militia and arms is clear. However, the US is in the "Emperor's Clothes" mode and chooses to ignore the connection and insist that anyone can have arms whenever they want. The consequences of this will-full blindness have been clear for years.

Re:Exactly Right

[Agripa]

Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

And when they do this despite Congress' deliberate inaction to provide training for the unorganized militia, they get demonized as an evil militia. And oddly enough, one of the justifications for the 2nd amendment being a right of the *people* when it was drafted is that Congress could do that very thing which of course they did.

Re:Exactly Right

[Agripa]

I'm perfectly OK with a complete ban on guns in civilian hands. Damn the torpedoes and let's do it and get it out of the way. We can call it the Second Civil War.

Re: Exactly Right

[Coren22]

Actually, you absolutely can. You may or may not be able to buy a gun, but just shooting a gun at a range is not restricted in any way.

You just have to rent a gun instead of buy, and boom, you are able to shoot trap. You could also talk to a lawyer to get the record expunged if it is really preventing you from buying a gun, as accusations are not convictions though, I cannot see how an accusation of something would prevent you from owning a gun. You are innocent until proven guilty, as you haven't actually been convicted of anything.

Re: Exactly Right

[Coren22]

Guns should not be stored with a round chambered. The reason they rack it is to ready the first round, not to eject an unused round.

Re:Exactly Right

[beastofburdon]

I have no problem with this.
As a primary benefit, the world would tremble at the thought of invading us then, which is one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment, right behind keeping the government fearful of the citizens. The government should always fear the citizens.

Re:Exactly Right

[beastofburdon]

Lets expand on this idea further. We take those who are too afraid of guns to use one and press them into mandatory service as well. They can be required to do all the setup and cleanup at all the sessions.
Or you can just admit that you have an irrational hatred for guns and do not care about your own freedoms which are protected from the government by those guns.

Re:Exactly Right

[beastofburdon]

Has it ever occurred to you that the large amount of people who do not know how to handle a gun has a lot to do with the anti-gun movement?

Re:It's time...

[ClickOnThis]

Gaah. The first post to this story has Godwinized it already.

Re: It's time...

[TheReaperD]

Seriously what the hell would you suggest? There will always be terrorism as long as there are radicals with a score to settle. If you're referring to (sudo-)Islamic terrorism only, there is no way to root out all terrorists. If your thinking of rounding them up Hitler style, you still have a problem. Islam is a faith of choice. If you try to round them up, they'll just deny that they follow Islam. So then what? Round up all brown skinned people? Worldwide they outnumber Caucasians by a huge margin and you still will not get all Muslims as they can be Caucasian too. So rather than vague "final" solutions, why don't you try to be constructive for a change.

Day late...

[DoctorBonzo]

... dollar short.

Re: It's time...

[TheReaperD]

The problem with this topic is that Godwin can be invoked and be 100% on topic at the same time. Especially with the vitrol Donald Trump is spewing.

Re: Uh, hello Germans?

[TheReaperD]

Never forget; until it is convenient to do so. FTFY

Re: It's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your thinking of rounding them up Hitler style, you still have a problem. .... If you try to round them up, they'll just deny that they follow Islam.

Don't you think some of the Jews tried that?

And ALL faith is a choice - except for maybe the Mormons who "baptize" people when they're dead.

But serious radicalization is happening. Even here in the States. And it's EXACTLY what ISIS and other Islamic radicals want. They WANT a war with the West.

Of course, saying we shouldn't play their game automatically brings up shouts of "we shouldn't be extorted into doing nothing!"

Basically those people are falling for the "Yer yellar! Draw yer gun!" or "What?! Chicken?!" by those Islamic psychos.

See, they're so delusional, they think that if they die they will go to Heaven. They WANT to die to get into paradise for fighting us Infidel Westerners.

What I'm saying, this is a problem that Muslims and ONLY Muslims can solve. Because when we intervene, we are ganged up upon by the Muslims because they are helping their "Muslim Brothers".

But back to Nazis. It could happen. Folks are getting so pissed that there could quite possibly be another Holocaust towards the Muslims. And the radicals in their community would make it all too easy. See, the Jews never really had any violent terrorists that spawned the hatred towards them. The Muslims do. I see horrific parallels to my families history.

Just saying.

Yours,

Grandson of SS

Re: Uh, hello Germans?

[Coren22]

In Germany, there are laws outlawing iconography of the Nazis. Wouldn't this make it kind of hard to teach history? This even caused Wolfenstein, that was about killing the Nazis to be banned, as it was somehow supporting Nazi ideas to go around shooting them.

Re: It's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that's the only solution. Ship all the 'lams back to the desert they came from, as their beliefs seem to be anti-human. Don't like it? Too f'ing bad. It's already a holy war. The only way to make peace is to separate the 'lams from everyone else.

Re: It's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If Sharia is so glorious, then go to ISIS controlled territory, and stay there and enjoy it.

Re: Uh, hello Germans?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Not the same as the Hindu/Buddhist symbol. The Nazi version is reversed.

Re:PC is a weakness

[codeAlDente]

Well apparently the killer's brother was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Is that active enough for you AC? http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Re: It's time...

[ClickOnThis]

I hope you meant PSEUDO-islamic terrorism, and not really " (sudo-)Islamic terrorism"...

The difference is horrifying(! ahem)

Or worse: apt-get Islamic_terrorism. That kind of describes ISIS.

Re: Uh, hello Germans?

[aaaaaaargh!]

It's no problem. Swastikas can be freely shown in history classes, documentaries, etc.

Only if some stupid neonazi puts these symbols on his jacket and walks around in public, or puts a flag in his dumb neonazi meeting cellar, then it's going to create problems for him.

Re: It's time...

[ClickOnThis]

E: Invalid operation Islamic_terrorism

Oops, sorry: apt-get install Islamic_terrorism.

Although I'd prefer apt-get purge Islamic_terrorism.

Re: It's time...

[vel-ex-tech]

(sudo-)Islamic terrorism

Oh god, they've got root?! Cut the hard line!

Obligatory

[Hognoxious]

(sudo-)Islamic terrorism

https://xkcd.com/149/

Presumably it's not a ham sandwich.

Re: It's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Trump learned a lot from Hitler about coming to power.

Re: It's time...

[davester666]

So, are you saying that Donald Trump is essentially Hitler v2.0?

Re: It's time...

[smooth wombat]

there could quite possibly be another Holocaust towards the Muslims

If that happens, one can be assured Israel will say or do nothing, just as they did with Srebrenica or the near-concentration camps in Bosnia which the Serbs created.

It's only the Jews which have had bad things happen to them and they will keep reminding people regardless if the same is done to others or if they do the same things to others.

Re: It's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that Christians would be doing both the Jewish and Muslim holocausts.

Re: It's time...

[ClickOnThis]

Seriously - name ONE Hillary! accomplishment other than marrying Bill.

Just one? Well, here's a few:

- successful attorney and co-founder of a non-profit advocacy group in Arkansas
- first female senator from New York state
- Secretary of State from January 2009 to February 2013

That beats the hell out of most of our résumés.

No Muslim is Terrorist

[ajyand]

No Muslim is terrorist at birth. They join such groups at some point of time in their lives. Thus even if a handful of them do so, it is needed to monitor activity of all of them so that such a transition can be discovered as it happens. This, however, is a costly process. A long term solution is to educate the public about the effect of fundamentalist religious ideas on the development of minds of our children. Passing on such ideas is a social disease that perpetuates itself. All we need is 'that one single generation' free of fundamentalist ideas.

Re: It's time...

[TheReaperD]

Oops. I didn't even see that error. Nice catch.

Re: It's time...

[TheReaperD]

No, I think Trump knows the stuff he'd spewing is bullshit but, it plays well with scared old white people who are losing power in the US. He's just a narcissistic asshole that knows what'll get him the Republican nomination. Plus, my understanding is, Hitler was actually a likeable guy if you met him in person; I've never heard that said about Trump.