>>remember that the Nazis won seats in the German elections in 1932. "Somebody" has to win. I am not comparing either Hillary or Trump to Nazis, because it trivializes what the Nazis did. But it does mean that even an apocalyptically bad candidate can still win. It's a symptom of how bad things have gotten.

Without wanting to buy into Godwin's Law: actually there were several sets of German elections in 1932.

In the Presidential elections, Hitler lost to Hindenburg.

In the federal elections, the Nazis did worse second time around, ending up without the majority needed to govern.

I'm an inadequate historian to answer why Hindenburg and others allowed what then occurred. However, seems to me it would NOT be true to say that the Germans elected a reprehensible candidate. The President they did elect, was an aristocrat and great statesman. After that, there were no free elections until 1949. So I see few if any similarities to today's situation where voters also selected Presidential candidates with clear majorities. Apart from usual Godwin's Law reasons, I wonder why you'd raise the Nazis in this context. A cynic might find your own train of thought to be more similar to your Nazi example in which a person clearly rejected by the electorate, nevertheless takes charge.

>>I acknowledge - she won. And Trump won. I don't have to like it, but I acknowledge it. I also think they are both reprehensible candidates.

So I ask again: did you participate?

>>And on the "that's your fault"...I would remind you of the story of "false prophets"...of those who promote a false narrative for years.

Not familiar. Care to elucidate?