Basically, your argument boils down to "you're wrong, the current sitation is not fascist enough yet"?
banning the existence of other parties
They don't need to. Similar to Russia, they will allow the appearance of other parties and elections, but the outcomes will be pre-determined.
changing the constitution to give all power to executive
SCOTUS has already done that: everything the president does is legal by default.
cancelling elections
Again, they won't need to. They proved in November that they already have done the right amount of voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering to secure a win.
You are putting the burden on me to argue they are NOT fascist? (whatever meaning you want to attach to that word)
> They proved in November that they already have done the right amount of voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering to secure a win.
Ah so you think the election was stolen?
> gerrymandering
How do you gerrymander state boundaries?
Let's check back on these in a few years (months?).
I assumed the poster was using facist to mean “bad authoritarian government” - not that trump is actually a disciple of Mussolini style philosophy.
Right now the democratic system is working as designed, minus the incredible power of the executive branch which has been built up since FDR. Obama pioneered this approach to executive order.