Centralized power, promises of historical greatness (literally in the campaign slogan), ostracization of the other. He speaks like a dictator, makes extra-legal threats to his domestic enemies and has surrounded himself with people who have repeatedly made strong endorsements for white nationalism.

I think you know this, it's just that you probably want all those things because, ding ding, you're a fascist.

I’ll take the dictionary definition:

Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

I genuinely and in good faith do not believe Trump fits this definition. You can’t just call all your political opponents fascists. We’re kinda over that by now.

> I genuinely and in good faith do not believe Trump fits this definition.

To be fair, as I read this I expected the punchline to be "this admin checks all the boxes" and not "I don't see it". Which is not to say that you're wrong, but it's not the dunk that you picture it as being

No dunking… I just don't see it. One human to another.

Too bad, he is and you are.

Nice thought terminating cliche. Kafka traps don’t really work anymore.

You're not arguing in good faith, the opposite, and as such aren't worthy of treating with anything but contempt.

I’m not calling people names.

Me neither, that's kind of the point. I'm not using the word fascist as a pejorative (though it is inherently a bad thing to be a fascist).

I guess you should re-read your given phrase, even by the light of parent posting. We have:

"populist political philosophy, movement, or regime" > appeal to populist rethoric, check

"exalts nation above individual" > mass deportations and gov firing, "means justify the ends", check

"centralized autocratic headed by dictatorial leader" > executive orders, disregard for federal laws, DOGE, check

"economic and social regimentation" > "nationalists" vs left, woke or whatever it is this week, check

"forcible suppression of opposition" > no-process deportations, name-calling opposition, incentives to war against neighboors, check

It's all fascism MO; you probably learned fascism in school by only learning the last days and steps before WWII, not how it started.

> "exalts nation above individual" > mass deportations and gov firing, "means justify the ends", check

I mean, "America First" is even openly their slogan.

Nationalist is not fascism.

Ffs they aren’t ethnically cleansing the nation. They are removing illegal aliens who have no legal right to be here, and they’re open to those removed people coming back legally.

A lot of people have a really big problem footing the welfare bill required to sustain that type of policy.

The way I see it, it was incredibly irresponsible for the Biden administration to import a bunch of people without strong legal protections for their residency here. I mean seriously wtf. If your policy is “import immigrant labor” then at least do it legally. Otherwise you only have yourself to blame when reasonable people start asking questions.

> Nationalist is not fascism.

Not all nationalism is fascism, but fascism is nationalist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement..."

> Ffs they aren’t ethnically cleansing the nation. They are removing illegal aliens who have no legal right to be here, and they’re open to those removed people coming back legally.

Yeah, that's how it tends to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

> I’ll take the dictionary definition:

Your definition is a fine one; I can agree on that as terminology.

> I genuinely and in good faith do not believe Trump fits this definition.

… I read that same definition, yet I cannot see which part you do not think he fits. Piece by piece:

> that exalts nation

Lit. MAGA, that anyone in his administration that is against him should be out (suppression of individual thought in favor of singular national identity), threats toward taking Greenland, Panama; most of the race stuff below ties in indirectly here too. Criticism of globalization. A general view of American exceptionalism and not "America is great because we're free (and that we show the world the power of what a free democracy is capable of)" but rather more "America is great because it is America." Christian nationalism ("I really believe it’s the biggest thing missing from this country, the biggest thing missing. We have to bring back our religion. We have to bring back Christianity in this country."; the GOP is in favor of the destruction of 1A's church/state separation, in order to promote Christianity.)

> and often race

His policies towards immigrants; the party's overtly and directly racist comments on numerous occasions (e.g., the Springfield lies told at the national debate, or the "poisoning the blood of our country" comments); sending alleged gang-member immigrants to a concentration camp…

(I'd extend this to include "women", too; it's fundamentally the same problem: people who are members of certain groups are "lesser" than others.)

> above the individual

Again, suppression of individual critical thought within his own administration; the party's desire to ban books, freedom of expression, and basic human rights for minority groups.

> that is associated with a centralized autocratic government

Trump has stated numerous times that he believes the Presidency has full, unconditional power, even above that of the other branches of government, and has demonstrated plain contempt for both the legislative branch (e.g., destruction of legislatively-mandated departments) and the judicial branch (lies about "radical judges", threats to impeach judges he disagrees with).

> headed by a dictatorial leader

Literally, he's referred to himself as "dictator", and "king". His party has equated him to an emperor (CPAC, dipicting Trump as Caesar). "Third term and beyond".

> severe economic and social regimentation

Suppression of LGBTQ+ people, women, Vance's comments regarding women…

> and by forcible suppression of opposition

The attempted coup.

Threats to fire anyone in the executive who isn't 100% going to lick the boot, threats to impeach judges, kidnapping of protestors, threats towards journalists…

Every single word in the definition you've provided fits.

> Frankly I’ve seem more threats of violence and acts of violence from the left by a long shot…

We're just gonna pretend Jan 6 never happened, eh?

Only one party's supporters has seriously attempted to overturn an election by force.

People need to look at the totality of his actions and policy. It is about character rather than litigating a particular argument.

I think Trump and his administration are patriots. Clearly to a fault at times, but everyone has faults. I do not step back and see America on a course to fascism with Trump at the helm. If we drown in debt we don’t have a nation. Full stop. Someone has to look at how we spend our money, ask fundamentally whether it serves the taxpayer’s interest, and make calls. Illegal aliens are expensive. Corruption is expensive. Unfair trade is expensive. Dependence on other nations for strategic manufacturing is expensive. Exporting labor is expensive.

I mean what actually is the outrage here? I do not see it. I see patriots trying to defend taxpayer interests. Taxpayers are the in group. That’s not racist or ethnic. It’s nationalist. Defending its citizens is what nations do. Since when is that equal to fascism?

But perhaps the issue is how we go about defining who is corrupt, who is an alien, what trade is unfair etc.

> If we drown in debt we don’t have a nation.

"That's why I voted for the guy who added 1/3 of it in just four out of ~250 years!"

(And plans to do it again. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce81g9593dro)

> I mean what actually is the outrage here? I do not see it. I see patriots trying to defend taxpayer interests.

Yikes.

> Taxpayers are the in group.

The in-group is right-wingers, such as farmers[1] and Likud[2].

[1] https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/...

[2] https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/

As long as you keep convincing yourself that this is just a phase of right wing crazies, it will keep happening. Support for the democrats has never been lower. There is bipartisan support for the current administration. It’s not just right-wing personalities. Take it or leave it, but I’m not living in a vacuum.

I don't understand the spending argument. Trump raised the deficit by 3 trillion in his first term and plans to raise it again during this term as well. Of course, he's not the only president to do it, but it seems strange to me that people defend Trump with this line.

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism

Just go down this list:

https://www.keene.edu/academics/cchgs/resources/presentation...

Concentration camps in El Salvador, with extrajudicial extradition and no due process?

Or, less dramatic, a drive for national autarky. A very much dirigiste economy. (Cf. massive tariffs). A drive towards a one-party state without a rule of law - explicitly punishing people with dissenting viewpoints to the point of economic exclusion. (Columbia. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton. Jenner & Block).

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

Or, you mean, sending criminals back to the jails from whence they came? Concentration camps sheesh…

I fundamentally do not believe that the path forward involves calling all your political opponents fascists. It’s how they fucking got elected in the first place. And if people don’t learn that then we’ll see many more years of Trump facsimiles.

I don't object to jailing people, or sending them back. I do, very much, object to lack of due process or recourse.

Which is a fundamental element of, at the very least, autocracies.

> Or, you mean, sending criminals back to the jails from whence they came?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278...

"While it is true that many of the TdA members removed under the AEA do not have criminal records in the United States, that is because they have only been in the United States for a short period of time."

That's the official position of the US government, in a court filing - that some of those deported did not have a criminal record.

(Even their membership in the org is an assertion/allegation, not one that's been proven in court.)

Let's use Wikipedia's definition, sure? "far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."

>>forcible suppression of opposition

There's the revocation of citizenship, the deporting people to foreign jails without full due process, crackdowns on protestors generally, opposition to trans existence. Do you want links to where this has happened or can we agree these are actions and policy the state has taken recently?

>>subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation

"We need an economic reset, so don't worry about the inflation", DOGE cutting services, tariffs as a means to...whatever the fuck the tariffs are supposed to fix?

A fascist is not “far right”. I think the dictionary definition is more accepted.

So far the people in power have not used violence to suppress opposition. They have not promoted one ethnicity or race above others. They have not made trump a dictator. Trumps authority has remained scoped to the executive office of the government…

I mean come on. Just because the party in power across the board is effective at pushing policies you don’t fully agree with does not a fascist regime make.

Every single president back to Clinton and probably beyond, including Obama, has spoken out against government waste and spending abuse. These aren’t new soundbytes. Everyone is just up in arms when it’s not their party getting shit done.

> A fascist is not “far right”. I think the dictionary definition is more accepted.

Which dictionary?

Oxford (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...) and Collins (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/fasc...) say right-wing.

> So far the people in power have not used violence to suppress opposition.

Forcible deportation for opposing views is exactly use of violence to suppress dissent.

> Every single president back to Clinton and probably beyond, including Obama, has spoken out against government waste and spending abuse.

And none of them have usurped Congressional spending power and mass violated civil service protections in law using that has a pretext, until the present Administration.

It is extremely disingenuous to redirect from the controversial action to the less controversial pretext here.

It’s not just “opposing views”. It was calls for violence and support of terrorists. I guess the media didn't include that detail.

> It’s not just “opposing views”. It was calls for violence and support of terrorists.

No, it factually wasn't, though all opposition to the Israeli polciy of genocide is being characterized that way to justify it.

Let’s see what the courts say. I will respect whatever outcome happens there. I sympathize with not continuing to grant visas to people who lead protests that involve crimes like trespassing as part of their demonstrations in support terrorist organizations. We are not obligated as a country to keep guests who are not supportive of our national interests and feel the need to commit crimes to make points. But I also recognize the chilling effect that has and believe in extending some level of freedom of expression even to non citizens and believe in civil disobedience. If the protesters were not occupying private buildings after being told to remove themselves and attempting to “negotiate” with authorities the whole situation would be benign. I have pretty low tolerance right now for demonstrations that turn criminal.