And apparently the perception didn't change. I can't access the full report and can't tell if it has remained consistently high or consistently low.

Exactly. Hence my "boy who cried Wolf" comparison.

I think we're agreeing, but I'm also saying that it's been used to imply evil so long that it has lost meaning as an actual, historical example. One could easily say, "He endorses federal PSAs, like Hitler," and people would think you're against PSAs rather than just noting a historical fact. It sets the tone as automatically hostile. Hostile people, in politics, tend towards bias. Nobody wants to listen to them (unless they share the bias). It is ineffective to make the comparison in nearly all cases.

This is a list of the big ones, and it handily includes a reference to calling Obama Hitler, too, lest it be forgotten how trivial the comparison needs to be to bring him up by either party. There was also an ad campaign about Bush being Hitler from MoveOn.org.

In short, starting a foreign war means you're Hitler.

Up voted. I just wish the comparison hadn't been used on every conservative. In particular, the Remain in Mexico policy (holding people who want to get into the country while they're being checked) has been likened to death camps (corralling people who want to leave the country so we can enslave and murder them). At this point, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.

To someone who wants no hierarchy, any hierarchy is indistinguishable from a fascist hierarchy. The further left you go, the more everything becomes Hitler.

The evil bit is kind of implied, don't you think? Nobody says "That boy likes painting... like Hitler!"

I think it would go a lot better if populism were only used by one side. There have been a number of "populist" candidates, so clearly populism wasn't the comparison they were going for.

Definitions will vary in statute by state, but Wex defines then as finders of fact. The definition will be used in statute.

There is difficulty in holding them to it, as you cannot dispute the facts once they are found by the jury except on certain circumstances, but the intent / spirit of the law is clear.

Jurors are finders of fact, not determiners of law. That "sometimes" does a lot of work there, as most states and the federal government do not allow juries to determine sentencing.

A jury may be the last line against tyranny, but for a criminal trial, they also almost always have to be unanimous. That means if a single person out of twelve disagrees with the law, nobody can be convicted of it. That would cover pretty much all laws.

Fair enough. Though I'll note that, unlike some European countries, police regulation is set at a state level, like in Germany or Switzerland (cantons). In France and Spain, the police are national. You're already lumping at least 50 different sets of regulation together just by using the US, which also muddles the data. Country-to-country is not a good comparison.

... so? Why would that ruin the comparison?

You underestimate the amount of latitude individual states have. There's fifty of them in the US, and the laws that bind them are primarily economic ones. There are 44 countries in Europe, most of them bound through the EU for economic regulations.

Frankly, I think the best European comparison to the US would be... all of Europe. It's about the same size. similar resources, and about twice the population (which is still a lot, but better than a fourth the population like with the German example). It has varied terrains and densities as well. If you're going to compare individual Euro countries, compare them to states.

More like 2,425 times 9/11. Iykyk.