2 ms·

Following them would include Basically, your argument boils down to "you're wrong, the current sitation is not fascist enough yet"? banning the existence of o

by tremon 2y ago

Following them would include 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.

liontwist 2y ago
> the current sitation is not fascist enough yet"? 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?
- tremon 2y ago
  You took that burden upon yourself by choosing to deride the GGP above, who said "The US is undergoing a fascist takeover basically". Don't put this on me, you opened this line of argumentation. I am merely trying to get you to commit to an actual argument with substance rather than deflecting and whining.