People --- more of them on my side of this debate than yours --- say this a lot. But I think more highly of Sam Altman than to believe he's standing by Peter Thiel, despite Thiel's work to elect someone both Altman and I believe to be an American Mussolini, simply out of financial expedience. It's that basic respect for Altman that motivates me to keep pressing this argument: the effort seems hopeful.

> Mussolini

This is the type of thing that really bothers me. Not only is that a ridiculous comparison, it's completely baseless and anti-intellectual. Trump has made a few off hand fascist remarks, but nothing that could substantiate him establishing legal dictatorship. So why even make that comparison? Just fuel the witch hunt?

I agree that Trump is no Mussolini - however I see why it's tempting to compare them, as they are both slightly comical figures with a great regard for themselves.

The closer parallel would be to another Italian leader: Silvio Berlusconi. He was also a businessman, is also famous for his attitude to women, also authoritarian, etc. Both men are great showmen, and populists who 'speak their minds'.

Of course, any analogy is imperfect - but it seems closer than the whole Mussolini/Stalin/Hitler one.

Saying he's made "a few off hand fascist remarks" is a pretty generous characterization. I'd say he's shown strong contempt for the rule of law and division of powers, has gleefully stoked racist and misogynist resentments to excite his base, and has very literally encouraged violence at his rallies (and is continuing to lay the groundwork for significant election day violence for the first time in a century).

Does any of this mean he could establish a legal dictatorship? I don't know, hopefully not, but I would hardly say the comparisons are baseless.

What strikes me as actually anti-intellectual is the trend among Trump sympathizers (particularly the ones I see on HN and other more cerebral contexts) to refuse to acknowledge that the inflammatory language he's used during the campaign can and already has materially impacted the way millions of Americans perceive and act upon their world.

it's weird then how, at this point, overwhelmingly violence has been against rather than by trump supporters. Except actually it's not, because when you label someone a fascist, then anything is justified in stopping it before it takes hold. so you have people trying to jump the stage, you have headquarters being firebombed,you have physical assaults of people outside events, people being beaten up for wearing trump hats.

Violence against Trump supporters? I watch live feeds from rallies on both sides.

I've seen Democrats calling out to protesters and hecklers, suggesting that those protesters are wasting their time trying to gain support for their candidate, and reminding them of the expectation of civil discourse. Mocking, sure, but not "hate speech" (if you'll forgive the loaded term) and not violence.

I've seen Republicans punch, kick, slap and spit on protesters and hecklers, and shouting that they have no right to be there. Demanding the arrest of the protester, in some cases, with the candidate actually suggesting that, back when "America was great", the police would've locked them up sooner, or that the person who had the audacity to speak out would often be carried out on a stretcher. That seems quite violent to me.

I'll admit I may have missed something, as I can't watch every rally, but I've watched an equal number from both sides as far as I can recall.

> to refuse to acknowledge that the inflammatory language he's used during the campaign can and already has materially impacted the way millions of Americans perceive and act upon their world

You're using real numbers here so I assume you're not just making things up. I've not seen those, but if you have those sources I'd like to see them.

Here's the thing. I'm much more concerned with policy than Trump's rhetoric. He's mostly insincere and anyone that has spent time with a politician can see that. His discussions and ideas around policy are as empty and baseless as his threats to build a wall. He's a performer. Not a threat.

It would behoove liberals to focus more on policy and demonstrations of how their candidate can positively change the economy than to continue feigning outrage about the things that come out of Trump's mouth.

"He's a performer. Not a threat."

What is this magical ability you have to see into Trump's mind and know which of his words he really means and which he doesn't?

How is it baseless and anti-intellectual? If Trump were elected, he would be able to push through an agenda by exercising a significant aggressive minority of the population. This power to summon millions (who call legislators, picket, rally, etc.), who are compelled to participate if only for the spectacle, would be unique among American presidents.

You should direct that question to the person who made the comparison. I agree with it, but I think you'll understand this thread more if you ask the person I'm referencing.

You said both you and Altman felt that way. Maybe you didn't create the comparison but you just repeated it and said you agreed. It's hyperbole like that that makes people not care about your Clinton zealotry.

What, you think someone seeking power is going to stand at a podium and announce "I want a fascist dictatorship"?

He has been relentlessly attacking the legitimacy of democracy, encouraging political violence, stoking racial hatred, and threatening to imprison his opponent. On most days he does all of this before 11am.

How much of a fucking hint do people need?

No, we can just see right through the gross hyperbole that people are so fond of invoking. It's like the anti-circumcision folks saying things like:

"Circumcision is a barbaric practice in which babies have their genitals violently mutilated by religious nutjobs."

People that have actually been circumcised roll their eyes at such a phrase because it completely disregards the meaning and weight of the words "barbaric", "mutilate", "violent", etc.

> encouraging political violence

And where did actual violence happen? How is it that it's his rallies that are violently attacked?

And his headquarters that got firebombed.

Not only that, the attackers had the gall to draw swastika and call the victims nazis.

The parallels with what happened a while ago in Europe are interesting.

That particular fire's cause was never 100% cleared up, a false flag operation was suspected but never proven. But by 1939 it didn't matter anymore...

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

It was not Trump's headquarters that were firebombed. It was a NC county's GOP office. Those are very much not the same thing.

The Left is the party with the rent-a-mob

This got modded down, I guess, because people haven't seen the video that outright proves that Democrats are paying people to start violence at Trump events.

Willful ignorance

It doesn't matter what actually happens; it only matters what Trump haters want to happen. Trump is being taken to the woodshed over things he hasn't even done yet and may never do, yet Obama, the Clintons, the Bushes, et al--who actually have committed crimes--get free passes.

You'd support an affiliation filter?

Only if it's to filter out Republicans.

Looking for a little affirmative action? ;)