Whether or not it objectively meets the definition of a fascist regime, you can't talk to people that way here.

I didn’t see what the post you’re replying to said before it got flagged, but if it was objecting to me labeling the government as fascist, I’ll point to “The 14 Characteristics of Fascism” by political scientist Lawrence Britt [0]. The current government clearly checks at least 12 of the 14 boxes here, and I could probably make reasonable arguments for the rest.

[0] https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

> The current government clearly checks at least 12 of the 14 boxes here...

Well, I wouldn't go that far. But out of curiosity, which two do you think it doesn't check?

10. Labor Power is suppressed and 14. Fraudulent elections. But they're both more of a "not yet, at least..." for me.

> Well, I wouldn't go that far.

Which others do you feel are not applicable? I have concrete examples for all of the others.

Heh, I wrote the parent comment last night, and saw this story this morning:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-28/trump-fir...

So we're pretty quickly heading toward #10 being checked off as well.

Regarding the last item, VP Trump said some weird things about President Musk helping with voting machines (during his speeches at the inauguration, or maybe in the days after -- I can't keep track anymore). To be clear, I don't think that rises to the level of "fraudulent elections." But it is something that I think is worth investigating further, if we as a nation care about free and fair elections anymore.

4. Supremacy of the military. Trump has been big on wanting to be supreme over the military, but I don't think he's been as big on making the military the supreme thing in the country.

5. Rampant sexism. Sure, he's sexist, and he says sexist things. The person responsible for keeping all the people around him pulling in the same direction is a woman, though. So are some of his cabinet nominees. So while he's in this direction, I don't think he's there yet.

6. Controlled mass media. Again, he's trying (the lawsuit against the pollster in Iowa is a really bad sign), but he's not there yet, not by a long shot. He arguably is trying for this one, more than the previous two.

7. Obsession with national security. Do you really think most Americans are living in fear of "them out there"? I don't. Migrants who are here, maybe. Crime, maybe. National security? Not really, no. (Unless you lump immigration with national security, which I suppose is defensible.)

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. The police haven't been given virtually unlimited power... at least not yet.

Look, I won't deny that he's trending in the wrong direction on many of these. It's worrying. (The ones I'm not arguing are even more worrying.) But I don't think he's as close as you're making it sound.

Supremacy of the military: his recently confirmed SecDef has publicly supported carpet bombing and explicitly endorsed the killing of innocent civilians on multiple occasions.

Sexism: Seriously? Not even going to comment on this one. If you don't see it, nothing will make you change your mind.

Controlled mass media: Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, Instagram, and TikTok are now all now definitively controlled by party loyalists. This is where most of the non-seniors in the country get their news these days.

Obsession with national security: immigration should absolutely be part of this and it's one of the defining topics of the administration thus far.

Obsession with crime and punishment: Trump has himself repeatedly stated that he is the "LAW AND ORDER" candidate (oftentimes via tweet, in all caps). This would be funny given his conviction on 34 felony counts, but I don't really consider anything about the administration to be funny anymore. Also, "The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism": Republicans do this all the time, especially if it involves white officers and Black victims. "Blue lives matter", etc.

LOL

This is kindergarten level of political analysis

Your comment on sexism made me laugh out loud

Everyone is fascist now. Meaningless buzzword.

Please stop.

Democratic Party ticks many of those boxes.

You are a simpleton if you believe Democrats are pure innocent angels. That is idiotic.

The Proton CEO was not endorsing anything harmful. It was the exact opposite of that. Something wrong with your reading comprehension.

I never stated anything about the party that is not currently in power. I’m sorry that you’re angry but this is whataboutism and doesn’t address any of my points (and you’re wrong about the specifics of your post as well).

You’re wrong about the facts, not me.

Not whataboutism.

You completely missed the point. It’s about the idiotic interpretation of the Proton CEO’s tweet. Kindergarten level of understanding of politics based on ultra dumbed down MSM propaganda for brain rotted individuals. He got attacked for nothing by shit for brains Redditors.

Fair enough that people irritate you too much these days. I can't cast the first stone on that one...