I knew Bernie Sanders was secretly Mary Poppins

We should all vote for anyone whom wild animals would trust.

We moved to quite the area. :D

“…anyone whom wild animals would trust.”

During one of Hitler’s speeches, a bird landed on his shoulder. I’m not comparing Sanders to Hitler (though they have the same ECONOMIC policies – not social: don’t get me wrong here), but we shouldn’t trust wild animals.

You said you weren’t gonna do it, but you technically invoked Godwin’s Law anyway. :P

By comparing, I meant in personality and social policies. Hitler used the personality of righteous anger, while Sanders uses the tortured old Jewish man personality. For social policies, Sanders is, overall, more accepting of other demographics than Hitler. And the social policies are why we hate Hitler, not his economic policies.

Besides the major point of “don’t trust animals; they’re stupid” still stands since a bird landed on Hitler’s shoulder during a speech. I’m not saying distrust animals: just don’t trust them.

Furthermore, Godwin’s law is stupid, and even dangerous. If people start using the same rhetoric and social manipulation of the German National Socialist Party, they should be called out for it; it is fair and valid to say people are acting like Nazis when they act like Nazis, and saying that forfeits the argument – even when accurately applied – could and will be dangerous as it will allow the bad Nazi ideas to grow without opposition.

“ By comparing, I meant in personality and social policies. Hitler used the personality of righteous anger, while Sanders uses the tortured old Jewish man personality. For social policies, Sanders is, overall, more accepting of other demographics than Hitler. And the social policies are why we hate Hitler, not his economic policies. “

Then show sources of how Sanders’ personality and economic policies make him more American Hitler than other candidates that use the “personality of righteous anger” like Trump, for example. (For that matter, if I’m not backing it up like you didn’t, I could easily put Clinton, Cruz, Obama, and any other name in place of “Sanders” or “Hitler” because of how fallible this argument is.)

“ Besides the major point of “don’t trust animals; they’re stupid” still stands since a bird landed on Hitler’s shoulder during a speech. I’m not saying distrust animals: just don’t trust them. “

Taking things too literally.

“ Furthermore, Godwin’s law is stupid, and even dangerous. If people start using the same rhetoric and social manipulation of the German National Socialist Party, they should be called out for it; it is fair and valid to say people are acting like Nazis when they act like Nazis, and saying that forfeits the argument – even when accurately applied – could and will be dangerous as it will allow the bad Nazi ideas to grow without opposition. “

It exists because it forces you to do more than just compare someone to Hitler’s or Nazis’ reputation like you are now. It’s superseded by facts.

In relation to what you may be meaning to convey, I’ll take this from the TV Tropes article at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw:

“ Note that the Law is not supposed to apply to serious discussions of Nazi Germany or its policies, but rather describes the logical fallacy of Hitler/Nazi comparisons. The most common forms of this are “The Nazis supported X, therefore X is bad/The Nazis opposed X, therefore X is good”. “

and:

“ Occasionally Stalin is referenced, often by people who are aware of Godwin’s Law but want to convey a similar message; in this case, this might slip into the Commie Nazis trope. Some people will be topical and use Osama bin Laden or slavery (especially America’s brand of it) as the canonical ultimate evil. However, any of these can also be seen to have violated Godwin’s Law, since the point remains: comparing your argument to a clear and non-debatable atrocity is simply bad debating, since it implies that the opposition has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and is obviously insensitive to real-life victims and their descendants. “

and in relation to your observation of Godwin’s Law overusage:

“ The usage of Godwin’s Law also has “Henderson’s Law” as a corollary, referring to an observation by Joel Henderson that while Mike Godwin specifically stated this to pertain to “gratuitous Hitler-comparisons”, Godwin’s Law has been frivolously thrown at any comparison no matter how accurate or on-point. Case example: Jon Stewart of The Daily Show criticizing comparisons to Hitler. “

Simply, your argument is how [one candidate in particular] is the modern American [infamous figure from history] without sources or proof. Stop arguing with fallible comparisons if you’re meaning to debate on facts.

(This is an example of why the “stupid” Godwin’s Law exists.

Here’s also some info about Henderson’s Law on Godwin’s in regards to comparisons: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/09/hendersons_godw.html)