Pretty harsh treatment by Belgian cartoonist Luc Descheemaeker, and, yes, it's pretty easy to yell "Hitler!"
Calling people "nazis" has weakened the insult over the years, and comparing egotistical leaders to Hitler has weakened that simile as well.
I guess the neglected part of the story of the boy who cried "Wolf!" is that he wouldn't have pulled the prank if he'd thought a real wolf might someday show up.
Descheemaeker didn't caption his cartoon. He simply quoted Trump: "These are not people. They are animals."
The response from the rightwing is that the quote is taken out of context, and it's true that Trump was speaking to a group of law enforcement officers and was, specifically, responding to a comment about MS-13 gang members being sheltered by privacy policies.
He was speaking about gang members who had been identified and deported, calling them animals.
I'd say, "Fair enough," except that it isn't fair, because, first of all, it's not clear how many deportees are, in fact, members of the MS-13 or similar gangs or guilty of extremely violent, inhuman crimes.
And Trump is already on record as thinking of Hispanic immigrants as rapists and drug dealers, with decent people being an afterthought, "some of them," exceptions.
He's also on the record as being a pathological liar, so that any claims he makes, including a claim that significant numbers of violent gang members are being identified and deported, need to be backed up by someone more trustworthy.
Last but not least, and probably not "last" either, you would think that, if there were all these horrible people in ICE's records, there wouldn't be a need to demonize one whose greatest crime amounted to mishandling a loaded pistol.
It's like claiming you've cracked a series of major arsons and offering as proof someone who tossed a cigarette butt out a car window and touched off a forest fire. It was stupid, it was criminal. But it's a pretty lame example of a major arsonist.
And there is also this problem: When is the line crossed?
At what point do you differentiate the language of a populist demagogue from the language of a despot?
Most despots begin as populist demogogues, and, if you wait until the Reischstag is burning, you've waited too long.We need, at least, to point out the obvious dishonesty, greed and self-dealing as it is uncovered, and Ann Telnaes specializes in a kind of commentary that is more internationalist than American style, depicting iconic moods and moments rather than doing a lot of comedic storytelling.
She counts on her audience knowing what's happening -- not a bad assumption when you work for the Washington Post -- and riffs upon that knowledge.
And, after all, it should be plain that, when Trump moves to rescue a Chinese company just after getting a half-billion loan from their government for a project he's involved in, that's not "populist rhetoric" but hypocritical, corrupt self-dealing.
The context is clear and it's time to call him out.
Though, once again, his loyalists will not see a connection unless you show him putting the money directly into his pants pocket.
After all, they can't see how he profits from having his security detail rent rooms at Mar-A-Lago when, as owner, he could certainly comp them. Or, as President, he could take his breaks at Camp David where their accommodations are already paid for.
But, hey, he's a deal maker, and his exquisite ability to make complicated bargains is beyond the ken of ordinary people.
It's a subtle talent, mind you, because, from the outside, he appears to be something of a prat, as Mike Luckovich suggests, comparing the on-again, off-again Korean talks with a high school prank I hadn't thought of in many years but is wonderfully apt.
And Tom Toles was not alone in making a more familiar comparison ...
... though I like the way Matt Davies wonders if either of these powerful nitwits is sincerely trying to accomplish anything beyond gaining attention and the rhetorical upper hand.
Though Kim is clearly more experienced, as seen in his offer to let the world witness as he shuts down his nuclear test site.
Which has been rumored for months to be, if not on the verge of collapse, damaged enough that his Chinese sponsors have warned him not to use it again.
So his shutting it down as a sign of peace is roughly the equivalent of the time my son donated a Toyota to the fire department for a Jaws of Life training.
He felt it was important for the safety of the community.
Also the car wasn't running, and, if it had become any more rusted out, they could have torn it open with a good swift kick instead of the Jaws.
Still, what a noble sacrifice!
Speaking of which, what on God's green Earth was going through John Bolton's mind -- perhaps a gentle breeze -- when he said
One thing that Libya did that led us to overcome our skepticism was that they allowed American and British observers into all their nuclear-related sites. So it wasn’t a question of relying on international mechanisms. We saw them in ways we had never seen before.
Shortly after he gave up his nuclear weapons, the whole world saw Gaddaffi in ways they had never seen before -- deposed, stripped, shot in the head and with rebel bayonets forcibly inserted into his rectum.
Well, if I were Kim, that would certainly bring me running to the bargaining table, particularly after the Iran deal showed how faithfully the US keeps its word.
No, I think I'm going with David Rowe on this: Kim is showing us the result of three generations of practice in playing upon "dealmakers."
He doesn't even need the sheet music anymore.
May the Nobel Prize of Peace Fly Up Your Nose