https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
> In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.
https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit...
> The two primary forms of the slippery slope argument are the logical form, (in which acceptance of A must logically lead to acceptance of the undesirable B), and the psychological form, in which it is argued that the acceptance of A will, over time, lead people to be more willing to accept B.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Also: general hand-waving like "based on this government's track record" does not a pattern make. Like most of my cited sources say: "based on little or no supporting evidence."
Personally, I don't think that a government which stamps out protest and bank accounts of political rivals is anywhere but at the bottom of the slope. I've lived in Africa and I've seen how this goes.
What _would_ make a pattern? Is it possible to make any negative predictions without falling into the Slippery Slope?