https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...11777683410530&ei=62

The Atlantic Dedicates Entire Issue to Warning ‘Fascist’ Trump Poses Dire Threat to America: Second Term ‘Will Be Much Worse’
Story by Ken Meyer • 10h

The Atlantic announced that their first issue of 2024 will focus on what they believe to be the potentially disastrous consequences of Donald Trump being elected president again.

“The next Trump presidency will be worse,” the magazine declared Monday on X (formerly Twitter). It outlined The Atlantic’s planned January/February 2024 issue, in which 24 of the publication’s contributors will lay out the “potential ramifications” on a variety of subjects if Trump gets reelected.

In his note, Goldberg recalls a conversation he had with Jared Kushner where Trump’s son-in-law oddly complimented him by saying “No one can go as low as the president. You shouldn’t even try.”

Goldberg pairs this with The Atlantic’s coverage over the years to explain that Trump’s rhetoric has grown more and more corrosive to the point that it is now comparable to the language used by “fascists.”

From the note:

It is not a sure thing that Trump will win the Republican nomination again, but as I write this, he’s the prohibitive front-runner. Which is why we felt it necessary to share with our readers our collective understanding of what could take place in a second Trump term. I encourage you to read all of the articles in this special issue carefully (though perhaps not in one sitting, for reasons of mental hygiene). Our team of brilliant writers makes a convincingly dispositive case that both Trump and Trumpism pose an existential threat to America and to the ideas that animate it…

Our concern with Trump is not that he is a Republican, or that he embraces—when convenient—certain conservative ideas. We believe that a democracy needs, among other things, a strong liberal party and a strong conservative party in order to flourish. Our concern is that the Republican Party has mortgaged itself to an antidemocratic demagogue, one who is completely devoid of decency.

Thanks. I think I fixed it in the OP.

Accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing. Good old Saul. Another glass of Kool Aid? But do tell what old Donnie can do when he becomes fascist dictator? This ought to be rich.

I’ve translated the title, it reads “must kill Hitler before it’s too late”. Hateful black hearts

Not to mention even if DJT wanted to become what they say he couldn’t do it without a complicit legislative and judicial branch along with the 4th estate. Ya know, kinda like the people in control now slowwalking us toward a greater and greater administrative state…

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing.

Like this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...29607ec1e14917&ei=52

Trump tries to turn the tables

(excerpts)

former president Donald Trump unveiled a new campaign strategy over the weekend by attacking President Joe Biden as "the destroyer of American democracy."

Trump's senior campaign adviser explained the real reason for this new campaign slogan: "To watch the lefties heads explode":

I don't think I saw any lefties heads exploding over this but many people did explode with laughter. The claim is ludicrous, of course. But he said it and it wasn't off the cuff. They passed out placards before the rally that said, "Biden attacks Democracy" and flashed the words on a big screen above him as he said it.

But I'm not sure this marks much of a change in strategy. All of his talk about electoral fraud for the past five years is essentially saying that the Democrats in general and Biden specifically are destroying democracy by stealing elections. This has been the central message of his ongoing campaign. Why anyone thinks that this is a new tack is beyond me.

Trump does this to get his followers all excited and angry so they'll send him money and come out to vote. It's a fundamentally dishonest but rational approach and it's one that's kept the Republican Party under his spell for the last eight years. In that respect, it has been a great success. But if swing voters haven't been convinced that Biden stole the election from Trump by now, all this bellowing about Biden "destroying democracy" is going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone in America has heard it all before.

It can be powerful in a different way, however. It serves to neutralize the topic as just more political "tit-for-tat" and some people may just dismiss the entire argument that the Democrats are making.

Witness how Trump and his Republican henchmen have managed to persuade a majority of the American public that Biden is involved in corrupt activity with his son.

They have even managed to convince 40% of Democrats that Joe Biden acted unethically or illegally based solely on lies and innuendo . It's a stunning result that proves the power of repetition and propaganda . The AP reported that result and then added this, proving that Trump has gotten exactly what he wanted:

A similar percentage of adults (67%) said former President Donald Trump acted unethically or illegally in his interactions with the president of Ukraine according to an AP-NORC poll taken in October 2019, with 38% believing he acted illegally.

Trump is at this very moment pushing hard for the House of Representatives to impeach Joe Biden over all of this and the new speaker, Mike Johnson, said that he thinks it's just about ready to go. Everyone knows that it's dead on arrival in the Senate but that doesn't matter. All Trump wants to do is ensure that Biden is impeached to neutralize his own impeachments.

Trump's claims of Biden "weaponizing" the government against him, despite no evidence that Biden had anything to do with the Justice Department's decisions, is now serving to open the door for his authoritarian agenda of retribution which he portrays as legitimate:

Trump on Truth Social suggests he would use DOJ in retaliatory ways, says the charges against him opened “Pandora’s Box” and that Biden should tell prosecutors to drop them “before it’s too late for him and the rest of the country.” To Dems he adds “be careful what you wish for.”

That's really rich coming from the man who told Hillary Clinton on a debate stage in 2016 that she would be jailed if he won:

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/st...n-democracy-remix%2F

As you can see, the Pee-Wee Herman strategy isn't springing from Trump's Mar-a-Lago brain trust. This is Trump's one true talent. He instinctively understands the power of turning his own flaws into his rivals' and then criticizing them for it. Psychologists call this "projection" and it is. But it's more than that. Trump is corrupt and incompetent and he's projecting that onto Biden to be sure. But he's also feeding the cynicism that has overtaken our political culture.

His own followers may believe that he is an innocent martyr being persecuted unjustly, but all those swing voters or "low information" voters who may be unhappy about other things can be persuaded that "they all do it" or even "they've always done it" so what's the big deal? He knows that all he has to do is get his fan base out and convince a small sliver of the rest of the voting population that there's not a dime's worth of difference between him and Joe Biden and he could pull off another win like he did in 2016.

ahh, the good old brownshirt playbook -
do you know when antifa/blm plan their night of long knives on known enemies of the state?

i might need to buy party supplies..

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Not to mention even if DJT wanted to become what they say he couldn’t do it without a complicit legislative and judicial branch along with the 4th estate. Ya know, kinda like the people in control now slowwalking us toward a greater and greater administrative state…

"They say" - hummm

Look at what he says.

It takes more than complicit. The GOP part of the legislative branch and the far-right justices have more than adequately shown they are enablers and are on-board. Daily.

Slow walking? The administrative state is an integral part of what makes govt functional. It works that way in most civilized countries. It develops and morphs as need be over many years. What people like you and the GOP want is to fast walk it into dysfunction, and you have a well developed plan (Project 25) to do just that, if given power.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a144fe50d8fc97&ei=18

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing. Good old Saul. Another glass of Kool Aid? But do tell what old Donnie can do when he becomes fascist dictator? This ought to be rich.

How about utilizing the DOJ to settle scores with folks he deems to be a political enemy? In fact, he has already stated he will do this.

How about refusing to accept the result of the next election? Like the last?

Or arguing that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply to him since he didn't have consecutive terms and trying to run again in 2028. It's exactly the kind of thing trump would do.

That rich enough for you? The man poses a danger to the republic.

quote:

How about utilizing the DOJ to settle scores with folks he deems to be a political enemy? In fact, he has already stated he will do this.

Cannot happen. The DOJ is way too busy investigating practicing Catholic terrorists and horrible parents who do not want their children gender confused.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9607ec1e14917&ei=100

Is it time to do something about the Insurrection Act?

As the self-proclaimed "President of law and order," Donald Trump spent much of his time in office threatening to deploy military forces domestically to quell instances of civic unrest, insisting at one point that sending troops to cities rocked by protests over the 2020 death of George Floyd would "quickly solve the problem." While Trump "did not mention it by name," his suggestion of a domestic military deployment was invoking the Insurrection Act — legislation allowing a president to use troops as law enforcement "under some conditions," The New York Times explained at the time. The act, actually a series of combined statutes stretching back more than 200 years, "temporarily suspends the Posse Comitatus rule" which ordinarily bars military forces from acting as a domestic police force, and is intended to be applied only in exceptional cases "truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage," according to the Brennan Center for Justice. It also affords presidents powers that are, per the Center, "dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse."

Now, as he sits comfortably atop the pack of Republican presidential hopefuls, candidate Trump is once again conjuring the specter of domestic military deployments, with The Washington Post reporting that he and his allies are already drafting plans to "potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office" should he win the presidency next year. It's a prospect that has chilled some legal experts, and prompted many to ask whether it's time to adjust the law's broad latitudes before it's too late.

Here's a sample of Trump doing his projecting thing, which is working for the already conned.

It's easy for the rest of us to see through it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9607ec1e14917&ei=119

Note: I didn't want to cut and paste this entire article, but in order to read it a subscription is required. I paid for the subscription.

===============================================

https://www.theatlantic.com/ne...l&utm_campaign=share

What Trump’s Second Term Could Look Like
The Atlantic’s writers offer a detailed warning about the future.

By Tom Nichols

DECEMBER 4, 2023, 6:59 PM ET

In the January/February issue of The Atlantic, 24 writers explain how Donald Trump could destroy America’s civic and democratic institutions, including its courts, national political culture, and military, if he succeeds in returning to the Oval Office.

What a Collapse Would Look Like

For years, Donald Trump’s many opponents were often accused of alarmism, and early on, this seemed a justified criticism: Before he was even sworn in, words such as fascist and autocrat were in the air. Although I was a charter member of the Never Trump movement, I worried that catastrophizing Trump and depicting him as an invincible Demogorgon would induce helplessness and resignation among American citizens. When Trump was defeated in 2020, however, many voters took that as a sign that the guardrails had held and that America was out of danger. Even January 6, 2021, has receded from the public’s consciousness, and a fair number of Americans seem unaware of just how close we came to the violent overthrow of our electoral institutions.

Trump’s autocratic instincts have now fully mutated into an embrace of fascism. And yet, America shrugs: Millions of voters think of the upcoming election as just another contest between a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat, instead of an existential contest between democracy and authoritarianism. The early hysteria about Trump has ended up submerging deep concerns about democracy in a haze of equivocation and complacency. Even people who have no particular love for Trump typically argue that life under his administration was mostly normal, and that all of the fears about how Trump could collapse American democracy were just overheated rhetoric.

By now, I have been asked many times: What is everyone so worried about? What would it even look like for American democracy to collapse?

These are reasonable questions. In our January/February edition, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, and 24 writers at the magazine have accepted the challenge to answer them in detail. We describe the threats that a second Trump term would pose to the United States government, the country’s institutions, U.S. national security, and the American idea itself.

Several articles from the issue appeared online earlier today, and more will be published as the week progresses. Each of them explores the damage Trump could do to a particular area of American life.

David Frum opens this edition with the overarching warning that America’s “existing constitutional system has no room for the subversive legal maneuvers of a criminal in chief.” If Trump’s voters somehow expect that he will undertake policies to improve their lives, they are mistaken. Instead, Trump will envelop the Oval Office in a storm of panic and vindictiveness as he fights multiple felony indictments (and, by 2025, possibly convictions). As David notes, “For his own survival, he would have to destroy the rule of law,” which would allow him to both evade justice and exact revenge—political and physical—on his enemies.

Barton Gellman writes in detail about exactly how Trump could thwart constitutional limits on his power while pursuing these goals. In a particularly disturbing observation, Bart suggests that the failure of imagination about how bad things could get is not just a problem among the public; even “government veterans and legal scholars” are possibly “blinkered by their own expertise when they try to anticipate what Trump would do,” because they are focused on how he could abuse “the ostensibly lawful powers of the president, even if they amount to gross ruptures of legal norms and boundaries.”

But, as Bart notes, “Trump himself isn’t thinking that way.” Rather, Trump may simply make good on his threat to “terminate” parts of the Constitution that he considers obstacles to his power. He would then count on getting away with such moves by inducing shock and paralysis in a judicial system that has no mechanism for enforcing court decisions against a sitting president. (And don’t rely on the military to stop him: In an article coming later this week, I describe how Trump is likely to try to subvert the constitutional loyalty of America’s armed forces and turn them into a praetorian guard loyal only to him.)

Corruption, as Franklin Foer’s coming article describes, is endemic to Trumpism both as a business practice and as a theory of government; friends benefit, and enemies suffer. Ron Brownstein writes that Trump would not hesitate to replicate this idea on a national level by using the power of the federal government to impose red-state priorities on cities and states that do not support him, in effect conducting a war against blue America that could be the greatest threat to national unity since the Civil War.

None of the officials inside a second Trump administration is likely to put a stop to any of this. In Trump’s first term, several establishment Republicans thought they had a duty to serve and be a restraining influence inside the White House. “Don’t expect it to happen again,” McKay Coppins writes. This time, he would surround himself with bottom-of-the-barrel appointees who would care nothing for the Constitution and would only amplify, rather than restrain, Trump’s narcissistic rage.

Nor would the damage be limited to U.S. political institutions. Trump, supported by this cast of misfits, would ramp up the poisoning of American social and cultural life that he began in his first term. Caitlin Dickerson—who won a Pulitzer Prize for her investigation into the horrifying family-separation policies of Trump’s first term—tells us that the Trump adviser Stephen Miller (who would likely return to the White House) would “move even faster and more forcefully” to reinstate such sadistic and shameful practices.

In addition to immigrants, women would be a target: Sophie Gilbert writes about how we would endure another four years of Trump’s misogynistic vulgarity, which would not only coarsen life in the public square but also be a permission structure for more attacks on the rights and dignity of women. Later in the week, Elaine Godfrey will discuss more hard-line efforts to restrict abortion. If Trump is reelected, racial and sexual minorities will fall under attack as well; also to come this week, Vann R. Newkirk II will explore the dangers to civil rights, and Spencer Kornhaber will describe how Trump would try to use gender issues to stoke an ongoing moral panic.

Science and knowledge have already suffered from Trump’s preening ignorance, and things will only get worse: Zoë Schlanger notes today that climate denial will flourish, and Sarah Zhang will write tomorrow about how Trump would accelerate his efforts to subordinate science to partisan tribalism.

Abroad, Trump will stand shoulder to shoulder not with America’s allies but with its worst enemies, and especially with Vladimir Putin’s neofascist Russia. As Anne Applebaum warns today, it won’t end there. “Once Trump has made clear that he no longer supports NATO,” she writes, “all of America’s other security alliances would be in jeopardy as well.” The beneficiary of this American exit from the democratic world will be China, as Michael Schuman foresees, another autocracy—and one that will only get stronger while Trump unleashes chaos at home.

In the end, as David Graham puts it later this week, Trump is telling us what he’s going to do; he’s not bluffing. Some Americans know this and are cheering on Trump’s return. But many more seem unable to internalize how close a shave their country had only a few years ago, and how bad it could get a very few years from now.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ahh, the good old brownshirt playbook -
do you know when antifa/blm plan their night of long knives on known enemies of the state?

i might need to buy party supplies..

I wish I had a barrel of 5.56.

quote:

when antifa/blm plan their night of long knives on known enemies of the state

Feed the fantasy and revel in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_of_the_Long_Knives

Night of the Long Knives

Well, it worked.

The Atlantic got a bunch of money from the Trump is a Nazi conspiracy theorists out there.

You guys are almost as gullible as the MAGAts you denigrate…

Weaponizing the DOJ = bad
Meeting with the AG in private when your wife is being investigated = good!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, it worked.

The Atlantic got a bunch of money from the Trump is a Nazi conspiracy theorists out there.

You guys are almost as gullible as the MAGAts you denigrate…

The Atlantic has been around since 1857, if I recall correctly. They don't need to do an issue on trump to get a bunch of money or be around.

They did get ME to pony up.

I suspect this issue got them a substantial number of subscriptions.

The Atlantic (at least when my family subscribed, back in the day) was a literary magazine, not a news or opinion journal.

Darn it Doc.

Did you look at the facts and the issues?

WTF is the relevance of your last post?

Is my willingness to read articles from a reliable source, not fringe at all, and used the info therein got anything to do with the tsunami Trump has caused, presently and the potential for the future?

If nothing else, countering the BS mass out there, yours and others, it's something to at least not feel helpless while the stream of nonsense is flowing all around.

Simple, the Atlantic is not a news organization. Everything in it is op/ed.

My mother dropped it when it became so painfully left wing in its choices of stories that it was neither educational nor entertaining to read, even for a literature major.

And Winner is? ME as our conspiracy theories resident/president

ME does like opinion pieces

quote:

Simple, the Atlantic is not a news organization. Everything in it is op/ed.

These articles in this edition are not intended to be "news". Dismissing them because of that is missing the point, probably intentionally or perhaps ignorantly.

Rightists can't decern and appreciate journalism anymore, if ever.

The problem with the Atlantic, WA-PO, NYT, and several others, from a rightists POV, is that they don't offer you the affirmations you crave. They challenge your critical thinking skills, which we know are deficient, and you would rather not bother.

Your dismissals are worthless.

Take the facts and evidence in the articles, and dispute them and justify your alternate conclusions.

Otherwise, you are just blowing vapor residual from absorbing lies.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Simple, the Atlantic is not a news organization. Everything in it is op/ed.

My mother dropped it when it became so painfully left wing in its choices of stories that it was neither educational nor entertaining to read, even for a literature major.

You can criticize The Atlantic but stating they are not a news organization is not correct.

You’ve just admitted it’s affirmation for you.

I sure as god made little green apples ain’t going to pay for it.

What you posted had no factual analysis, its opinion.

Could it be accurate? I suppose.

I am troubled by Trumps rhetoric- just not for the reasons you complain of.

In another thread folks were complaining of tit for tat. That’s Trump in a nutshell. He’s complaining about how he was treated; and not entirely without merit. He is going on about vengeance which makes for pretty poor policy.

Ok when did they become a news organization?

Because I have copies around somewhere that it’s masthead call itself a literary magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Simple, the Atlantic is not a news organization. Everything in it is op/ed.

My mother dropped it when it became so painfully left wing in its choices of stories that it was neither educational nor entertaining to read, even for a literature major.

You can criticize The Atlantic but stating they are not a news organization is not correct.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You’ve just admitted it’s affirmation for you.

What you posted had no factual analysis, its opinion.

Could it be accurate? I suppose.

Well, Doc, maybe I'm wishful thinking, but I think we are communicating, which is part way to agreeing.

What you claim is affirmation for me certainly didn't elude me. I have no problem with it mostly because I look for evidence and facts in the articles. Granted, there may be some deficiencies and the articles lean on opinion a lot. I'll have to be more vigilant about that.

I thought about picking apart some of the articles and highlighting just the facts in one color and the opinions or conclusions in another color. That's a lot of trouble.

Instead, as I read it, I automatically sort the facts which base opinion. If not focused on the distinction it could be muddy.

I still maintain that your blanket dismissal is flawed.

I think "journalism" today still has ethics, or it's not journalism. Thus, I think practically nothing out of Fox qualifies as journalism, but propaganda instead.

Okay, Doc, I re-read the article from the Atlantic, which you called opinion.

The thing missing as you say is factual analysis, which means to me evaluating facts, accuracy, stand alone, without inference.

The author breezes along with summation of fact and opinion, so it's difficult to sort out.

The thing is, IMO, your expectations of "news" or journalism are not-to-be-found nowadays, if ever. Maybe PBS comes close, Snopes closer, but others take short-cuts, some far worse than others. I have not seen articles that take (structure) the classic approach to logic, namely the premise or proposition, the facts and evidence, then the conclusions or range of possible conclusions. It seems to me that to expect that is unrealistic given what we have. If I were to limit my reading or posts just to such articles, there would be few or none.

Take one paragraph for example. I highlighted in red what I think are facts, which are embedded in opinion.

None of the officials inside a second Trump administration is likely to put a stop to any of this. In Trump’s first term, several establishment Republicans thought they had a duty to serve and be a restraining influence inside the White House. “Don’t expect it to happen again,” McKay Coppins writes. This time, he would surround himself with bottom-of-the-barrel appointees who would care nothing for the Constitution and would only amplify, rather than restrain, Trump’s narcissistic rage .

The parts not highlighted in red are probably true, but the factual analysis supporting it are not thorough. There are facts and evidence in support, but the author doesn't elaborate or analyze them. Thus, it's a short-cut. The article would be too bulky otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing. Good old Saul. Another glass of Kool Aid? But do tell what old Donnie can do when he becomes fascist dictator? This ought to be rich.

How about utilizing the DOJ to settle scores with folks he deems to be a political enemy?

Oh! You mean like Obama did???? It wasn't bad then......


.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...2400cee8dd86c5&ei=30

How Donald Trump Warped America’s Reality

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Okay, Doc, I re-read the article from the Atlantic, which you called opinion.

The thing missing as you say is factual analysis, which means to me evaluating facts, accuracy, stand alone, without inference.

The author breezes along with summation of fact and opinion, so it's difficult to sort out.

The thing is, IMO, your expectations of "news" or journalism are not-to-be-found nowadays, if ever. Maybe PBS comes close, Snopes closer, but others take short-cuts, some far worse than others. I have not seen articles that take (structure) the classic approach to logic, namely the premise or proposition, the facts and evidence, then the conclusions or range of possible conclusions. It seems to me that to expect that is unrealistic given what we have. If I were to limit my reading or posts just to such articles, there would be few or none.

Take one paragraph for example. I highlighted in red what I think are facts, which are embedded in opinion.

None of the officials inside a second Trump administration is likely to put a stop to any of this. In Trump’s first term, several establishment Republicans thought they had a duty to serve and be a restraining influence inside the White House. “Don’t expect it to happen again,” McKay Coppins writes. This time, he would surround himself with bottom-of-the-barrel appointees who would care nothing for the Constitution and would only amplify, rather than restrain, Trump’s narcissistic rage .

The parts not highlighted in red are probably true, but the factual analysis supporting it are not thorough. There are facts and evidence in support, but the author doesn't elaborate or analyze them. Thus, it's a short-cut. The article would be too bulky otherwise.

Some of what you highlighted fact, is still opinion by definition. its probably correct, but yet to be proven.

Have they no faith in the other two branches of government?
Or do the fancy Trump as the Mule in Asimov's Foundation Series?

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
Have they no faith in the other two branches of government?
Or do the fancy Trump as the Mule in Asimov's Foundation Series?

The Supreme Court is, for the first time in my lifetime, corrupt, both financially and philosophically. Rulings no longer reflect what the Constitution says, but rather what 6 Federalist Society ideologues wish it said.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Okay, Doc, I re-read the article from the Atlantic, which you called opinion.

The thing missing as you say is factual analysis, which means to me evaluating facts, accuracy, stand alone, without inference.

The author breezes along with summation of fact and opinion, so it's difficult to sort out.

The thing is, IMO, your expectations of "news" or journalism are not-to-be-found nowadays, if ever. Maybe PBS comes close, Snopes closer, but others take short-cuts, some far worse than others. I have not seen articles that take (structure) the classic approach to logic, namely the premise or proposition, the facts and evidence, then the conclusions or range of possible conclusions. It seems to me that to expect that is unrealistic given what we have. If I were to limit my reading or posts just to such articles, there would be few or none.

Take one paragraph for example. I highlighted in red what I think are facts, which are embedded in opinion.

None of the officials inside a second Trump administration is likely to put a stop to any of this. In Trump’s first term, several establishment Republicans thought they had a duty to serve and be a restraining influence inside the White House. “Don’t expect it to happen again,” McKay Coppins writes. This time, he would surround himself with bottom-of-the-barrel appointees who would care nothing for the Constitution and would only amplify, rather than restrain, Trump’s narcissistic rage .

The parts not highlighted in red are probably true, but the factual analysis supporting it are not thorough. There are facts and evidence in support, but the author doesn't elaborate or analyze them. Thus, it's a short-cut. The article would be too bulky otherwise.

Some of what you highlighted fact, is still opinion by definition. its probably correct, but yet to be proven.

The restraining influence part came from statements in interviews made by people like Kelly, Mattis, and others.

Next time, although not yet happened, is per a well-documented plan, Project 25 and more, as well as Trump's own words and promises.

Is it a fact or opinion that there will be a full moon in January 2024? It hasn't happened yet. Do facts have to be history to qualify as facts?

Are we going to let a little two-letter word, "if", get in the way of our "facts"?

For example: If Trump is elected for a second term, it will be regrettable.

Trump is hiding his fascist plans in plain sight

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...48476e910b25f5&ei=50

(excerpt)

Watching cable news is a frequent source of despair, but one especially fraught spiral occurred Monday while subjecting myself to "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. The segment guest was Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, who was promoting his magazine's thorough, frightening and entirely accurate warning that Donald Trump's goal is to end American democracy and replace it with a fascist system. A variety of Atlantic journalists from across the political spectrum contributed with heavily researched and smart analysis laying out Trump's agenda of ending the rule of law, using extra-legal violence to suppress dissent and securing his power so thoroughly voters will be unable to remove him peacefully.
There's been a surge of such reporting in recent weeks, from some of the most reputable publications in the country. On Monday, the New York Times published a lengthy exposé of Trump's long history of admiring authoritarian dictators, even ones who use murder to silence opponents. This follows another investigation into the ominously named "Project 2025," created by a team of very smart but evil people who want to dismantle democracy and are working through the details of how to pull it off. The Washington Post has even tried to draw attention to Trump's plans through listicles that use bold fonts and short paragraphs, so even the drunkest uncle could probably read it — if he wanted to.

It's all very much journalism of the kind called for by NYU professor Jay Rosen, who encourages reporting on "not the odds, but the stakes."

Goldberg outlined his hopes for this coverage: "With any luck, maybe at Christmas, people could read it and bring it to their relatives who are on the fence and say, look, here's what's going to happen. Do you want this or not want this? It's very simple."

That was when my heart sank. Because while it should be that simple, it's not. A Venn diagram illustrating "people who aren't sure who they're going to vote for" and "people who are willing to read the Atlantic, the Washington Post or the New York Times" would show two circles with little to no overlap. Put these articles in front of the people who most need to hear the message, and most of them will not get past the headline. It's too easy to dismiss it as liberal hysterics, especially when headlines have language like "A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable."

ME,
Please define what fascists means to you --

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ME,
Please define what fascists means to you --

Define Trumpism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpism or Christian Nationalist (Christofascism) and that's it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fascism

I subscribe to the definitions generally accepted, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Tenets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#


fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Criticism

Unprincipled opportunism

Ideological dishonesty

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless

In his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018), Jason Stanley defined fascism as "a cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists and minorities and immigrants who are supposedly posing a threat to the character and the history of a nation" and that "The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors."

Robert Paxton says: "[fascism is] a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

nope
no links, redirects, whataboutism

please define what fascists means to YOU

don't forget the economic aspects