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.