[flagged]
The Republican Party essentially doesn't exist anymore, it has been replaced lock, stock and barrel with a cult of personality. There are no longer any "Republican principles" or "conservative principles", whatever curries favor with the Party Leader is what goes.
To emphasize, I think there is plenty wrong with both parties, and I yearn for the days (long time gone I know) where you could at least sometimes have debates about policy, and not just about personalities or tribalism. But I think it's a huge mistake to "both sides" over policy differences when it's core things like peaceful transfer of power that are at stake.
This is UFO level conspiratorial thinking, but it's however encouraged by the established press.
What exactly happened in 4 years of Trump? Basically more of the same.
The idea that it represents some kind of fascist danger or whatever is oversold for partisan gains by the other party.
Or that same President trying to persuade another State’s elected officials to “find votes” so he could win.
Where's the hyperbole?
> Where's the hyperbole?
Fascism was highly ideological – Mussolini wrote a whole book explaining his ideology – The Doctrine of Fascism - partially ghostwritten by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. It contained specific doctrines, such as the primacy of the State.
While Nazism is often equated with fascism, it had a different ideological flavour, with a much heavier emphasis on race. Still, while the ideology was different, the strong emphasis on ideology remained – you can read all about it in Mein Kampf (I tried to read it once, it was so boring I fell asleep), in Hitler's speeches, in the works of his various acolytes.
Trump's ideology isn't fascism. Trump doesn't have an ideology. All he really believes in is his own personal power. Ideas aren't really that important to him. So, I'm not saying that various things he did weren't bad, but they weren't fascist. Calling them fascist is definitely inaccurate, and maybe even hyperbolic.
On the contrary, Hitler's ideology of racist nationalism and antisemitism wasn't just some "pretext for authoritarianism"–he had convinced himself it was the truth.
> I'd recommend reading up on this, just making things up as you go along isn't a great way to approach this particular topic
I don't think this response is really in the spirit of the HN guidelines, [0] especially the part which says "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
> Eco's Ur-Fascism
That's just one scholar's opinions among many. There is a lack of scholarly consensus on how to define "fascism"–as the noted historian of Nazi Germany Ian Kershaw once wrote, "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall".
Do you realise how condescending you sound? You aren’t trying to have a conversation, you are just lecturing. No thank you
Aren't those the very opposite - attempts to uphold democracy? (even if misguided and there was no fraud)?
In general, anybody that believes that somebody like Trump would have subverted democracy and established some authoritarian rule, is beyond hyperbole.
It would probably look something more like calling a Secretary of State to get them to change the election results.
Or to ask the Vice President to count the electoral votes incorrectly. You know. Things that we know actually happened.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...
2 - https://www.factcheck.org/2023/08/what-trump-asked-of-pence/
Putting together a slate of false electors, asking the VP to certify them, or calling states and asking them to find more votes however is not that.
Complaining about the president trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power by getting his vice president to block the results "looks like a joke" to you???
I really hope that you can only say that because his plan failed.
Sorry but denying the reality of the current GOP's open efforts to subvert democracy while they speak openly of sedition and overthrowing democracy really makes you look like a fascist apologist. At CPAC ending democracy was the buzz among attendant, Posobiec got applause for saying it was time to end democracy in America.
It was histrorically bad corruption and abuse of power, honestly. I mean, lots and lots of people curated lists. Here's a quick one from the weeks before the 2020 election:
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/president-tr...
Now I know you'll want to argue specifics for every element and that the source is partisan or suspect, etc... and I'm not going to get involved. But suffice it to say that any one of those items would have been enough to sink any other administration. It's the authoritarian tilt of the modern GOP that led it to green light all this, and that is only going to get worse with a more ambitious candidate.
Now imagine that months earlier a member of one of those groups had asked him what to do and he’d said “stand back, and stand by.”
Meanwhile the others are too busy showing off PC and LGBT progressivism, to the point that it just creates too much needless tension in American society and the conservative reactions to this are discussions about criminalizing abortion.