I am sure - if I search hard enough - I can find at least ONE redeeming characteristic of Pol Pot, or ONE thing Idi Amin did that was good. (I actually have been trying to find something with Pol Pot and I haven't found anything yet).
Believe it or not, before Hitler even fought in war, he drew. I haven't found evidence of paintings, but as he aspired to be an architect, he made a modest living sketching drawings and he was pretty good at it. Vladimir Lenin was a magnificent orator - as was Trotsky. The Duvaliers - in Haiti - were great at vaccination programs. I've read that many of the familiar dictators in Central America - were good fathers to their children.
And so on.
The point is - why does anyone need to hear a Presidential candidate - bring it up? I CAN see if it is because they did something so excellent that it wouldn't be a bad idea to see how they did it. If they had begun something so ambitious it might warrant scrutiny. Although I've read a lot about Nazi Germany, to this day I am still astonished that a nation so incredibly desperate during the Depression somehow became a threat to the entire world. But I don't see any reason why it should be held as some kind of remarkable example of resource and personnel mobilization.
It doesn't need to be brought up. Was Castro's education system INNOVATIVE? No? Then I don't give a crap that he educated people. So did Hitler. It was creepy, actually.
I absolutely freaking guarantee that if a Republican EVER brought up the good things done by bad men - we would never hear the end of it. Dear God, people are still completely distorting what Trump said about Charlottesville ("some very fine people on both sides"). But that was Trump saying the neo-Nazis and troublemakers WERE contemptible - unlike BERNIE, he wasn't DEFENDING them.
Bernie is DEFENDING these guys.
And if you are still too stupid to read the big words in communist propaganda...you can still read the letters of slogans designed for morons...like M.A.G.A.
