I mean I really don’t really disagree it just doesn’t feel exactly right to call it that, I guess I can give some reasons for it. For instance only about 35% of the population even voted for Trump, so he doesn’t really have the support of the people. Our democratically elected officials are still voting on bills, and they are still (mostly) being signed off by the president. The FCC did TRY to silence someone, but the will of the people made it not happen. They do try and suppress protestors from speaking against the government, but it’s been largely pretty ineffective, minus the random brutality.
I think it’s also just the reasons someone is doing something matters, even if it practically doesn’t. If trump fires all the judges that disagree with him and appoints people that agree with him, the reason is narcissism and hurt ego, and the effects are fascist. Which is why I would say fascist actions rather than a fascist, which might be a meaningless distinction but to some it’s not.
For instance only about 35% of the population even voted for Trump, so he doesn’t really have the support of the people.
The Nazi party got 43% of the votes the election before secondary parties were banned. They had 88% turnout. This means they had 37.8% of the population vote for them.
Its extremely common for people to really, out of an excess of optimism and fear hope that clearly the nazis were so obviously different, but that wasn’t the case.
The Nazi party in that last relatively free 1933 election had to form a coalition government. None of that meant that they weren’t fascists.
The idea that they don’t really have the immediate majority support of the people is not relevant to the damage that followed. Support can be manufactured by guns and threat of financial and social ruin.
Our democratically elected officials are still voting on bills, and they are still (mostly) being signed off by the president.
The same things were applying at this point in time in Nazi Germany. They just started to do increasingly wild illegal things and had their fire hose of falsehood machines up and running. There were continuous events of large scale that if they occurred on their own would take over news cycles for months, just like are occurring now. Rights were being dismantled just like they are now.
Many things pretty strongly align with the idea that this very well might have been the last fair election.
The FCC did TRY to silence someone, but the will of the people made it not happen.
Did it? or was this, as their strategies have been, to repeatedly do heinous things until they are normalized.
What actually happened here? Rights were flagrantly violated, then they soft backtracked, and then they issued the same threats again (on going) where they will likely backtrack less this time, and so on.
No one was punished. No one is in jail. The people in power then, are still in power now.
I think it’s also just the reasons someone is doing something matters, even if it practically doesn’t.
If it practically doesn’t, it practically doesn’t.
Why did hitler act the way he acted? We aren’t sure, but the results of this unhinged hateful man leading their country became obvious.
I mean I really don’t really disagree it just doesn’t feel exactly right to call it that, I guess I can give some reasons for it. For instance only about 35% of the population even voted for Trump, so he doesn’t really have the support of the people. Our democratically elected officials are still voting on bills, and they are still (mostly) being signed off by the president. The FCC did TRY to silence someone, but the will of the people made it not happen. They do try and suppress protestors from speaking against the government, but it’s been largely pretty ineffective, minus the random brutality.
I think it’s also just the reasons someone is doing something matters, even if it practically doesn’t. If trump fires all the judges that disagree with him and appoints people that agree with him, the reason is narcissism and hurt ego, and the effects are fascist. Which is why I would say fascist actions rather than a fascist, which might be a meaningless distinction but to some it’s not.
The Nazi party got 43% of the votes the election before secondary parties were banned. They had 88% turnout. This means they had 37.8% of the population vote for them.
Its extremely common for people to really, out of an excess of optimism and fear hope that clearly the nazis were so obviously different, but that wasn’t the case.
The Nazi party in that last relatively free 1933 election had to form a coalition government. None of that meant that they weren’t fascists.
The idea that they don’t really have the immediate majority support of the people is not relevant to the damage that followed. Support can be manufactured by guns and threat of financial and social ruin.
The same things were applying at this point in time in Nazi Germany. They just started to do increasingly wild illegal things and had their fire hose of falsehood machines up and running. There were continuous events of large scale that if they occurred on their own would take over news cycles for months, just like are occurring now. Rights were being dismantled just like they are now.
Many things pretty strongly align with the idea that this very well might have been the last fair election.
Did it? or was this, as their strategies have been, to repeatedly do heinous things until they are normalized.
What actually happened here? Rights were flagrantly violated, then they soft backtracked, and then they issued the same threats again (on going) where they will likely backtrack less this time, and so on.
No one was punished. No one is in jail. The people in power then, are still in power now.
If it practically doesn’t, it practically doesn’t.
Why did hitler act the way he acted? We aren’t sure, but the results of this unhinged hateful man leading their country became obvious.