You’re being downvoted but looking from the outside in, Gitmo being scaled up to house 30k people that the administration expects never to be able to repatriate, an unelected billionaire running around destroying institutions and a president actively starting trade wars and threatening occupation with allies looks an awful lot like it.
People aren't downvoting because they disagree about what's happening. They are downvoting because they agree with fascism, but don't like it when people say the truth out loud. It's a fundamental reality of fascism that those who support it will also deflect all valid criticism of their movement.
A majority of U.S. voters chose this. After all that was already known about this admin, they aren't backing down, he's doing what he promised he would do.
It is going to be more catastrophic than I think anyone knows.
I was sure this was wrong, but it's true: according to official state counts, Donald Trump won 49.80% of the popular vote to Kamala Harris's 48.32%. The top 5 was rounded out by Jill Stein (0.56%), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (0.49%), and Chase Oliver (0.42%) [1].
While technically true the difference between 49.8 and 50.01 is quite small and not very interesting. I think the major point was probably that a lot of US citizens don't vote.
He also has the assurance from SCOTUS that he can do no wrong as POTUS. That's a very disconcerting thought about the supposed checks and balances. Now that his party controls both houses, he'll never be impeached for anything he does either. And that was the one limit that Trump was stipulating existed--the only way POTUS could get in trouble was to be convicted in the Senate after the House impeaches. So he essentially is untouchable.
If fascism means secure borders, an end to the kinetic conflict in Ukraine, an end to social media censorship, and a booming economy, more than half the country will vote for fascism. Promises fulfilled or not aside.
The article we're discussing talks about removal of publicly accessible data. Huge amounts of it. How is that better than "social media censorship"?
At some point you're going to have to stop spouting the bullshit talking points and accept that this administration are actively worse on most metrics that they campaigned on improving.
"The government of Columbia has agreed to all of President Trump's terms, including the unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia returned from the United States, including on U.S. military aircraft, without limitation or delay. Based on this agreement, the fully drafted IEEPA tariffs and sanctions will be held in reserve, and not signed, unless Colombia fails to honor this agreement. The visa sanctions issued by the State Department, and enhanced inspections from Customs and Border Protection, will remain in effect until the first planeload of Colombian deportees is successfully returned. Today's events make clear to the world that America is respected again. President Trump will continue to fiercely protect our nation's sovereignty, and he expects all other nations of the world to fully cooperate in accepting the deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States."
Indeed 20th century fascist revolutions used the guise of law for their takeover. Following them would include banning the existence of other parties, changing the constitution to give all power to executive, cancelling elections, etc.
I assumed the poster was using facist to mean “bad authoritarian government” - not that trump is actually a disciple of Mussolini style philosophy.
Right now the democratic system is working as designed, minus the incredible power of the executive branch which has been built up since FDR. Obama pioneered this approach to executive order.
Basically, your argument boils down to "you're wrong, the current sitation is not fascist enough yet"?
banning the existence of other parties
They don't need to. Similar to Russia, they will allow the appearance of other parties and elections, but the outcomes will be pre-determined.
changing the constitution to give all power to executive
SCOTUS has already done that: everything the president does is legal by default.
cancelling elections
Again, they won't need to. They proved in November that they already have done the right amount of voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering to secure a win.
You took that burden upon yourself by choosing to deride the GGP above, who said "The US is undergoing a fascist takeover basically". Don't put this on me, you opened this line of argumentation. I am merely trying to get you to commit to an actual argument with substance rather than deflecting and whining.
>Following them would include banning the existence of other parties, changing the constitution to give all power to executive, cancelling elections, etc.
Let's check back on these in a few years (months?).
Which cabinet position was Musk appointed to? (In fact, in the U.S. the president doesn’t appoint cabinet members, but sure, you don’t understand the basics of how the govt works but you know what fascism is better than experts who’ve studied and written about it for decades).
Is Musk the head of the OPM?
Also, policy cannot break the law and certainly cannot break the constitution. That is fascism. The executive doesn’t get to rewrite laws and the constitution.
> In fact, in the U.S. the president doesn’t appoint cabinet members
What? That's exactly what happens. The president (or his puppet masters) chooses the person, and then they go through a Senate confirmation process. I don't see how this isn't being appointed
There is another comment explaining his appointment.
It’s really hard to argue why the president cannot get advice from anyone he would like. His staff includes anyone he wants to employ. He just can’t freely give them positions of official authority.
> The executive doesn’t get to rewrite laws and the constitution.
the judicial branch is working and can challenge orders and take them to court. And is already doing so.
> That is fascism.
It’s really not. You should study what fascists believed rather than using them as a caricature for bad policy.
I won't argue about immigration here because I don't want to get mired in that shit, but what is common sense about denying the existence of climate change and attempting to destroy/reverse our progress as a nation against it, and further engaging in activities to make it worse rather than alleviate it?
What is common sense about sewing chaos in the federal government, inhibiting it's ability to function? In removing datasets that help us keep track of how effective our actions are?
