Well, there's Hitler who did exactly the same: publish a book, try not one but several coups, still get named chancelier legally. In France we like them too: we have 2 Napoléon who did the same thing. It almost happened another time in 1958, but the man they put in power was reasonable for once.
Just let them gain power for a short time and people will see their true face and not vote for them again. Worked in Germany. The NSDAP never got a majority of votes.
Doesn't work. I have several. And I have a concealed carry. A conservative knowing these things has never been scared. They use it as an excuse to pull out theirs because they think like children and have to show and tell. Even if it's in a public place, like the damn corner of a courthouse. Which is not the kind of place a responsible adult should ever reveal a weapon.
Also, learn how to fly drones if you can, if (when?) things go shit-fan-hitting globally, that seems like a really useful skill to have in your group, considering how the face of warfare looks at the moment.
With a quick reminder: If you in any way can, don't do this solo, connect with others, don't get arrogant about it, either. The fascist preppers have a huge weakness in their narcissistic individualist "I am better than the sheep" prepping style. Being able to actually support and organise a community in the potentially coming chaos is important.
It makes me so mad when people pretend that we shouldn't take this seriously. Aaaand even if he hadn't already promised to become a fascist dictator, taking the shit he says seriously in that scenario would still be better than not taking it seriously in the scenerio where he has already promised to become a fascist dictator, which is the scenario we are living.
I watched the video itself. He barely mentioned it and it pretty obviously was one of his on-the-spot incoherent ramblings that he was just trying to form into a somewhat coherent thought. But the media and memes have been milking it for 3 days straight. That was a 1-day milk, 2-day at most. I'm sure he has done something moronic more recently, let's move on.
"Sure, there's a whole written plan about this you can read for yourself on the internet, but he barely mentioned that he has a plan to become a dictator. It doesn't really mean you should care." - that asshole, probably
I'm honestly baffled by how many upvotes this take is getting. "Let's move on from Trump's fascist rhetoric" is not a take I would expect to be popular with this community.
Exactly, we all already know this.
Democrats and those who weren't gonna vote for him anyway already know this and it won't affect their vote.
Republicans and those who were gonna vote for him really hope he's a dictator and are glad to hear this. Will continue to vote for him.
Him accidentally stumbling into sorta saying it openly doesn't change anything.
Yeah man, a presidential candidate with a real chance of winning is telling his base that he'll get rid of elections as president, and this is something that his biggest wealthiest supporters actually want him to do. Multibillion dollar right-wing think tanks that work directly with him are openly discussing how the "Democratic experiment" has failed, and that Washington should be "burned to save America".
He checks off just about every other box on the fascism checklist too, including genocide...
But I would hate to overreact, so I'll just pretend it didn't happen.
Why is Lemmy so rich in people hell-bent on interpreting comments in the worst possible light, then make assumptions about the author based on that interpretation of a single comment? Oh and then proceed to be rude, in one shape or form.
Am I right that the most charitable possible interpretation is that he only needs four more years to permanently fix the country, and then he’ll leave office, and the country will be so great forever that it’d be OK not to vote - because the country is so perfect and beautiful?
It’s a stupid thing to say given the horrible horrible possible other interpretation (dictator for life). But I wonder what his buddies and apologists would claim he meant.
No, my actual interpretation is explained in another response. I'm still very confused how people think that I'm in any way pro-Trump, while I called him moronic in the same comment. And this was your "most charitable" interpretation?
Tl;dr: I was taking about media blowing it out of proportion based on how he said it, causing desensitization.
I mean it's the NYTimes. I don't necessarily like their editorial biases, but I trust them on statements of fact like definitively saying Trump said x, because I trust them to not want to be sued for libel.
If the law stays the same, he can’t serve more than two terms and this will be his second. Possible that if he gets in a second time, I doubt he cares if anyone votes again.