> He openly talks about his autocratic desires

to be honest I've seen it as his form of jest, where he's constantly tryin to rile up his opponents. And he can get away with it because he knows his supporters have all the guns (at least amongst civilians). We'll see what the military does and if that institution is solid.

I don't see it as jest because I see he's purposely riling up his base to commit terrorist attacks on his behalf against fellow Americans like that mail bomber Cesar Sayoc.

Like his undermining of mail-in voting right now, it's obvious that he's doing it so that when/if he loses, his base will "defend" him as he disputes the legitimacy of the results and rejects a "coup".

Am I concerned that he actually would remain in office after losing? No. But I am concerned elements of his base will commit more terror attacks in the name of "preventing a coup".

That's why I don't see his undermining of institutions and democracy as funny or trolling to "own the libs". I think by now he's smart enough to be aware there are violent members of his base ready to use violence against perceived opponents and prevent a "deep state coup", and he is purposely trying to rile them up to commit violent acts against Americans by making them feel like they are "under attack/coup" by the deep state/left.

But we're supposed to pretend like a President "trolling" about term limits, illegitimate elections, coups, assassinating opponents, and civil wars is normal. This really shouldn't be a left vs right thing. In a normal world, these would be things everyone agrees are bad.

But I'm being too political/biased/left/Trump derangement syndrome for rejecting his undermining of democracy and fomenting violence so I'll get downvoted for my unfair pro-democracy anti-violence bias.

>because I see he's purposely riling up his base to commit terrorist attacks on his behalf

Both our positions are just presumptions. Only time will tell the facts.

> In a normal world, these would be things everyone agrees are bad.

I never said it was good or bad, but that I think he is aiming for jest.

IMO, which no one actually cares about, a president would be virtuous, rabbinic and self sacrificial... But that would require us to bring athens, israel and the new testament back into the class room.

The problem is that your political opponents say similar things. They're convinced - perhaps wrongly, but as far as I can tell honestly - that anti-Trump politicians are encouraging political violence and will commit more terror attacks in the name of preventing an authoritarian takeover. They point to James Hodgkinson the same way you point to Cesar Sayoc. As someone who's extremely opposed to political violence but not strongly partisan, how can I avoid splitting the difference here?

The differences are obvious and numerous.

  * James Hodgkinson wasn't motivated by a politician's platform or speeches. This is the material difference that makes me wonder if you're asking this in good faith or not. No mainstream politicians suggested violence against standing Republican congressmen. None of Trump's opponents are saying they are going to ignore the results of any election.
  * The politicians Hodgkinson supported immediately condemned his actions in no uncertain terms. There were no half measures. No "both sides" talk.
  * This is one unprompted (see point 1 above) incident compared to dozens of cases of violence or threats motivated directly by Trump & his speeches [0]. Trump supporters specifically have this history of violence.
  * Among right-wingers, this history of violence is not specific to Trump [1], [2].

0 - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-case...

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_a...

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_St...

Again, your political opponents say the same thing. They tell me that their leaders immediately and definitively condemned Sayoc, tell me that your leaders did not condemn Hodgkinson to their satisfaction, and show me lists [0] of citizens being threatened or assaulted for wearing Trump campaign gear. There may well be obvious and numerous differences - I tend to agree with you that there are! - but you're not getting a complete picture if you're seeing political violence as a one-sided phenomenon.

0 - https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190409/109266/HHRG...

When he tells you who he is, believe him.

I have to say this is generally horrible advice, especially in politics. Humans rarely are honest.

He's remarkably frank about his ambitions, and people have been warning about him for years. You can rely on trump to lie about the past on almost any subject, but his dreams of the future (like those of many dictators to be) are quite clear.

Contextually it means more "remember who the sociopath really is when their mask slips" essentially. If a man lets it slip that they "want to beat the shit out of their wife for some peace and quiet" or a desire to commit genocide they aren't joking - they really are an abuser or genocidal monster wearing the mask of a decent person.