1)

" he wants to strengthen the [non-existent] libel laws, so that "press can't get away with lies about me"?"

The press has called him out for his lies - but they have also blatantly lied about him - and others.

There is nothing 'totalitarian' about being able to sue someone for printing lies.

2)

You're blaming me for having 'alternative facts' when you're inventing them?

The video indicates that 'campaign trail' Trump indicated that he was pro-life - because he was asked. (Of course, his whole life before that he was pro-choice, but to get GOP votes, he had to have this position publicly).

But in the very video you offered as 'evidence' - he didn't at all indicate he'd be legislating on the issue. In fact - he said it would be decided in the courts.

So a president indicating that issues 'decided in the courts' is now a 'Hitler totalitarian'?

Just today, on Charlie Rose - the leftist PBS commentators were indicating that he's made no real indication of anything related to social justice.

He did not mention 'abortion' in any of his policy docs, nor during any of his major speeches.

I'd argue you're making up facts if you think Trump has any plans to press the abortion issue in any meaningful way. There will be zero legislation.

But it doesn't matter - there's nothing at all in Trump's outlined policies that hint at 'totalitarianism'.

Nothing.

Obama murdered American citizens without a trial via drone strikes - and oversaw a massive expansion of the surveillance state. Those are 'scary totalitarian' things.

And I don't even like Trump.

> I'd argue you're making up facts if you think Trump has any plans to press the abortion issue in any meaningful way. There will be zero legislation.

He literally already has signed an executive order about it.

'Donald Trump has signed an executive order to ban federal money going to international groups which perform or provide information on abortions.

'The US president's order shows he "wants to stand up for all Americans, including the unborn," his press secretary Sean Spicer said.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38724063

He should have done that. There is absolutely no reason why other people should pay for someone's abortions.

The US already had a ban against paying for international abortions. This is a ban of funding organisations that even talk about abortions, even if the US funding isn't related to abortions.

(I also disagree with your point from an ethical point of view, but that's not relevant here.)

Federal funding. You are free to fund it yourself.

Twist it however you want, it's still about abortion.

>There is nothing 'totalitarian' about being able to sue someone for printing lies.

There is everything totalitarian about being able to sue people for printing anti-Republican lies, but not pro-Republican lies. If you could sue people for printing or broadcasting lies, we would have driven Fox News off the air years ago.