Let's Call Trumpism what it is - American Fascism.

Can nonsense offer something? what

 

Your analysis of what is going on is hamstrung by an overly-theoretical notion of what Fascism consists in, a notion that is over-reliant on some of the more spectacular examples of Fascist states, particularly that of Nazi Germany. I think of Fascism as not exhausted by such examples. Fascism should rather be understood as a political Authoritarianism that has its roots in post-Revolutionary era Mass Society. It will take many different forms, according to the cultural milieu in which it emerges (conditioned also by highly contingent historical events).

Even so, we can discern the country's slide into Fascism, under the Trump regime. The Modern State in general has increased in centralization, ever since it was established five centuries ago. The question is not "Is the State centralized", the question is how is the power deployed, on whose behalf, and - crucially - are those who exercise power truly accountable under the law?

Trump, specifically, has massively increased the already-existing Republican drive for the "Unitary Executive," where Republicans have sought to politicize the entire Executive branch, to make its officers direct agents of the President. This is what the campaign against "the deep state" has been all about. It is dangerous for the rule of law for various reasons, which only become clear when the latently-massive power of the presidency is exercised without scruple. And it's a perfect example of how a small-r republican order breaks down - norms of good governance are violated, because the Executive can get away with things (like indiscriminately firing Executive branch officials like IG's) that previously were "simply not done," simply because he can.

And you don't have to be successful in pursuing the consolidation of executive power, in order to be a Fascist. Your attempt to do so, and your stated intentions to have such power, are enough. Trump himself is extraordinarily incompetent as a dictator, but by any measure, he wishes to the wield the power of one. And even the mere rhetoric of the Chief Magistrate, the rhetoric of the Head of State, can massively undermine the principle of the rule of law. "The fish rots from the head down." So when he publicly, unabashedly declares that he has "no responsibility" for a public health disaster which he is as a matter of fact is actively doing nothing to curb, when he asserts that his power over provincial governors in our federal system is "total" - well, such words are deeds, and they are the deeds of an Authoritarian leadership, which in this context is more specifically understood as Fascist.

In all this you really just come off as a defense attorney trying to get a client off on the basis of the letter of the law, because the plain facts are against you.

Trump is a Fascist because 1) he is unquestionably Illiberal and Authoritarian in his political values 2) he has predicated his personal arrogation of power on racially charged (specifically White-identity) politics. Personal aggrandizement is his primary aim, and he has used the grievances of White-identity (which he does personally share) to promote it. Yes, there is a Nationalist agenda which is potentially constructive, I don't equate all nationalism with Fascism. But I am wise enough to know the difference, rather than hide behind the skirts of case-based academic conceits of how Fascism is defined.

I would be interested to know what in your mind constitutes a "Neocon." Not least since the Neocons were primary advocates of the theory of the "Unitary Executive" which is the predicate of the strong Executive which you are clearly enamored with. As far as simply refusing to make any appointments which the Legislature will not rubber-stamp, that is ultimately a violation of Constitution, and more broadly is an example of the kind of norm-breaking that has led historical republics to unravel.

You complain of "corruption," but your actual problem is with checks and balances and the rule of law. And no, Liberal democrats (who are found on both the Right and Left) will never accept your attempts to set up a dictatorship. Democracy works by translating martial conflict into political conflict; and if your aim is to subvert democracy itself, sooner rather than later we will find ourselves pursuing Politics By Other Means.

 

Thanks for this, Golem. All exactly on point.

 

Of course it is no surprise. Both those politicians supported religious freedom and opposed the totalitarian tendencies of the left.

 

one of the tricks of the fascist/demagogue is to demonize your opposition.

 

There is no aspect of the left that is not based on democratic principles. If we achieve a result you do not like, it will not happen without the vehicle of democracy getting us there. That is the opposite of fascism.

Trump, on the other hand, is actively undermining that most sacred of American institutions, the vote, as evidenced by his cries, long before the vote, that 'in order for Dems to win, they have to rig the election'. To be fair, neither the moderate right or left define themselves by the barking of their extreme members. However, on the right, the extreme part of the right are now mainstream, it's like the inmates have taken over the asylum. Well, fortunately, democracy has won, Trump will be out on Jan 20, at 12 noon.

Your dictator wannabe has been defeated, and thank God ( providence, etc., ) for that.

 

Guess what History will do with your stupid post!

 

A bunch of overthinkers detached from reality. Meanwhile it's the conservatives that fight to preserve freedoms like free speech, the ability to protect yourself, keeping the government from indoctrinating our children, and keeping the government out of our Healthcare.
Somehow because we don't condone killing the unborn second term, we are authoritarian.
It's ludicrous!

 

1) Obama was not a Theocracy - your claim is simply wrong - and you are projecting the traits of some of the Religious Right Red on to Blue.
2) "Demonization of the Other" is a ploy used by both sides .. and in big helpings.

 

What is ludicrous is the claim that Red has respect for " freedoms"/ Essential liberty - other than those which Red Agrees with.

In general - Red hates the founding principles and principles of Republicanism .. and yes - those who force religious belief on others through physical violence are authoritarian.

 

Who is Red and what are you talking about violence to force religious beliefs on people? This isn't an Islamic nation or China. Sure we have a few cults tucked away in their little societies but usually they keep to themselves.

 

Trumpism has become a religion whose fanatics are as dangerous and noxius as the islamist extremists; only a step or two from turning terrorists.

 

Of course. My statement simply meant that I agree with the poster. And for that reason felt any comment on the rest of your points would be just a repetition of what the poster explained.

As I said, Democracy and Republic mean exactly the same thing. What you say is like claiming that you like pork but don't like to eat pig. Their use today is to indicate what I explained. "Democracy" to mean that its not a dictatorship. This refers to how the decisions are made. And "Republic" simply means that it's not a monarchy. Which explains how power is passed from one person to another.

There are Democratic Monarchies, like the UK, Canada, The Netherlands, ... And there are dictatorial Republics like the Republic of China or the Republic of North Korea.

It has nothing to do with the many forms a democracy or a Republican can take.

And you're saying we are a "Republic" because we don't have any of that?

Our Founders created the modern concept of democracy. Obviously the concept (other than, as I said, that of ancient Rome and similar) didn't exist before they created it. But after our founding fathers created it, many other countries took it as a model. The period of enlightenment after the French Revolution was modeled in no small part on our democracy. The title of "President" didn't exist before our Constitution. In other words we created the concept of "democracy" as the term is generally used today.

What follows on your post about whether democracy is desirable or not, good or bad, perfect or imperfect... that's a whole different discussion. I only wanted to clarify the meaning of the term. Which is a system (any system) in which the people directly or indirectly make the major decisions such as selecting the leader of the country who, therefore, is not a dictator. And Republic only means that that leader is not a Monarch, and therefore can be periodically changed.

That's all I wanted to clarify.

 

I am able to view these events in their actual context. One of first acts of Trump's AG was to dismantle the civil rights oversight that the Obama DOJ has set up for police depts. nationally in the wake of the Michael Brown discord. The killing of George Floyd itself was evidence that that oversight needed to continue; the Trump Admin hurriedly announcing a post facto investigation of Minneapolis atrocity was a pure CYA move that fooled no one (except I guess the White-identitarians, of whom there are very, very many... and the fact that they are useful idiots was established long before Trump was even "elected"). Police brutality against Blacks also has a context, reaching back without break in American history, back to Emancipation. It is simply no surprise - not to me, anyway - that after all this time despair and anger in Black communities would boil over into violence, in the wake of triggering events like Floyd's lynching at the hands of police.

This, by the way is the stock dishonest rhetoric that you always get from the American Fascists on this topic. No, Minneapolis hasn't been "burned" or "destroyed." There were few actual riots (as opposed to turbulent street-unrest) in the wake of the Floyd execution, and in places where they did occur (as in Minneapolis) again they pale in comparison to the kinds of riots we have seen in earlier in American history.

You are willfully blind, it comes I suppose from a deliberate refusal to cultivate any sense of empathy, which is a feature not a bug of the Fascist psyche. The unrest and violence we saw this summer was not simply occasioned by the death of a single individual, not even merely by the multiple deaths of Black Americans at the hands of the authorities this year. Again, it goes back to an injustice which is at the very root of American history and culture. That history and that culture was tapped directly by Trump in his "when the rioting starts, the shooting starts" tweet - which was unbelievably racially insensitive at best, and more likely a direct goad to further violence - coming again from the Head of State. That you enthusiastically endorse it is just despicable.

No one deserves to die in social unrest of the kind we've seen this year. Each death is a tragedy for all concerned. But at the same time we can frame these historical events in context. The country today is a better place, for all the turmoil of the 1960's. That's not to say that the country is yet good or just - but there is reason to expect that the agon of this year will contribute to a more Perfect Union in the long run. I won't allow your waving-the-bloody-shirt anecdotes distract from this bigger picture.

I regard it as NO coincidence that we saw this explosion of social unrest, while a racist Demagogue was occupying the White House. It is just one a series of hammering blows to our political and social fabric, which Trump was held accountable for in this election.

Democrats of course also need to be held accountable for failures of government, when they are liable for them. Indeed they are held accountable, even when they aren't to blame (this being a Republican specialty). Democrats this cycle were to some extent the victims of their success last time, in their absolutely historic sweep of House races. It's not too surprising that in the wake of the unrest sweeping the nation over police brutality, that they would lose a lot of more conservative districts. Trump's strategy of deliberately stoking the flames, rather than trying to calm the situation, does appear to have paid off there.

Look, you can try your revisionist history on the clearing of Lafayette Square all day long. It was an utter disgrace and there is not and never will be any excuse for such a event to unfold on American soil, much less the capital of the United States. That you are actually calling out the former Defense Secretary for what was in fact his brave stand against a fundamentally Un-American regime, just self-condemns you all the more. Your views are what being on the wrong side of history looks like!

Liberal Democrats have the perpetual disadvantage of being morally out in front of the rest of the population. Biden is on record for condemning the violence occasioned by the protests, which is very different from incessantly equating the protests with "rioting," "looting," "burning cities." It's a sad fact that the GOP was able to make political hay with such lies. But Democrats are not going to sacrifice truth to the Fascists' political narrative. It might have cost Democrats somewhat, this election. But we're on the right side of history and we know it.

I'll admit that the Left has been too apt to throw the charge of "racism" at Conservatives, in recent decades. Identity-politics, though it originated among Conservatives, still can have pernicious effects no matter who is invoking it. What Trump's gains among minorities attests to, is that is not White Americans exclusively who can be of Authoritarian bent of mind and/or are receptive to the narratives of toxic masculinity. I find the fact that the vast majority of minority-crossover vote for Trump was a male vote, was actually more significant than its racial component.

The ongoing revisionist view of race in the history of America is one of the deep drivers of the Culture War in our time. Thymos-driven Ressentiment seems to be motivating all sides, prompting all sides to see themselves as being victimized. I can understand how many Whites, having little historical understanding themselves (including understanding of the recent experience of minority communities, since the 1950's and '60's) would be bewildered and offended by novel uses of the term "racism" that are being promoted by liberal elites (y'know, the ones who actually know the history). But those new understandings of what racism is and how it works (the ethos of 'White Supremacy,' which is usually subtext but has become text at the hands of the American Fascists) I think will gradually become more mainstream, hopefully in tandem with a true general social habilitation of minorities.

More of the Big Lie. Part of the reason it's Big of course is that you have deceived yourself in thinking what you say is true. All I can say is, the Founders would take one look at Trump and know immediately what he is, see immediately the threat that he represents to our Experiment. And they knew that there would always be Americans like you, ready and willing to be duped.

 

If merely preventing the 51% from deciding how the 49% should live is 'fascism', then I guess I'm a fascist.

And here all this time I thought I was a classic liberal republican.

Heil individualism! *clicks boot*

 

You and I both are guilty of using intellectual language to dismiss the other's argument, so let's try to tone down the intellectual artillery and be very simple about what you're saying in this quote: You're essentially saying "It has none of the characteristics of Fascism, but I want to call it fascist anyway."

But if we adapt that as a philosophy for discerning political theories, then a democracy can be a fascist regime, a communist can be a fascist regime and so forth(well, this is paraphrasing Himmler at the Nuremberg trials.). I however disagree with him at least on the premise, because it would mean that politics is devoid of any meaning at all and that giving it any critical thought is pointless.

And if that's the case, then not only will voters be disinterested, but the kind of political corruption that's been highlighted will continue unabated. It will be viewed as normal, the status quo and no one will be interested to change it. For the 70 million losers, the political defeat means that politics is increasingly irrelevant, and voter participation will go down.

For every "crazed" nut that you might highlight, millions are depressed as the violent mobsters now are empowered in the government. To them, there's no real reason for participation, especially if there are enemy lists. Why risk the public reputation you worked so hard to build, just for AOC or Ms. Rubin to destroy it?

It's quite possible in 2024, we will return as a percentage of the vote back to the 90's when the politicians were complaining about the citizens voting.

It's really laughable, the only time Trump approached this, was his feud with the governors during the shutdown and in the end, the governors want from Biden, what they claim they DIDN'T want from Trump: A national federal plan. It's absolutely hilarious hypocrisy. Trump didn't govern as a Fascist, not in the western historian "These are the kinds of evil people that put the undesirable in camps" way, or in the intellectually accurate sense of the word either.

He was a liberal Republican on social policy, and on foreign policy he was decidedly very neutral on most manners not named China. It's not our fault(well, actually it is, but different topic) that the Europeans think we're gonna kiss their ass and pay them whatever and when we didn't, they allied with the Chinese.

Pfft, so called allies.


Now to address wit large the current state of the American Government. That is, how it actually is and not how we either wish it to be or interpret it as being, there is no unitary executive in the US. Yes, there are executive orders and these orders are seen as "law", but they're also not protected like law(well, that, uh, depends. You can tell I'm pissed off by the SCOTUS ruling on the executive orders outstripping the DACA arrangement.)

Another fine outstanding issue of hypocrisy that you're probably okay with since said hypocrisy favors a certain political outcome.

The great irony of this is that while this SCOTUS acted to protect a mere executive order, it did not act to protect a bill passed by Congress(the line item veto). Had it done so, a lot of economic damages to the US would've been avertable, and the shutdowns probably never happen.

Meanwhile, the greatest proof of the unitary executive not existing, is the federal government's apathy to the States which is causing the current health insurance/premiums/retirements crisis. It's why Pelosi was trying to get it from Trump. If Washington does not wit large govern on behalf of the 50 States, how can we in any fashion call it a unitary executive?

It's not. It's a failed military State that has a bloated budget, that I'll be honest if we came crashing down to earth that'd be good for our politics.

I feel rather sad for you, and for several Liberals who think along the same lines who used to be ideological comrades. You're likely going to have the real racial grievances, probably for the rest of your life. Likely so long as there's a Republican who wins the WH in the near or far distant future(I can't predict the political winds). Your belief that there's racists behind every tree is shared with Kamala Harris, and it's the kind of Presidency we're going to have to deal with, hopefully with more success than the last one.

In any event, as I mentioned earlier you're also using academic conceits on defining democracy. The same ones we'd been all propagated and taught as children. It's only growing up and seeing democracy in it's actual practice that led me to rebel and revolt against the system personally. I promise you, this rebellion doesn't stop just because Trump's not President. I joined since 2013 and had the same mindset, the revolution continues until a proper Empire is created and then led to prosperity.

But since it's also an attack on me, I respond in that my academic conceits come from actually reading Mussolini's book, being an ardent student of Fascism and an adherent. I neither apologize for it, nor hide from it. I only have the uphill battle of refuting the historically incorrect assertions of what it is, by what the masses think of it. And they think of it in this way, as the obvious victor of WW2.

Let's address this one to wrap up. The Neocons aren't so much a fan of a Unitary Executive(nor a minor executive). As far as they're concerned, it's irrelevant. The neoconservatives are war mongers who, because they are aligned and funded by defense contractors(or oil companies, or BOTH), they led us into the wars of the 21st century and to be sure, they will lead us there again.

More broadly, it's been identified that establishment Democrats are in alignment with them, as the case was to destroy the Tea Party. Ironically, if you hadn't destroyed the Tea Party, there wouldn't have been a place for Donald Trump. Rand Paul would've won the nomination in that case.

The alignment with democrats and neocons to destroy the Tea Party gave an impetus to Democrats who saw that alliance as a betrayal, and thus the syndicalist movement was born in America. Since then, Democrats went on their "cancel culture"(which you identified as a movement of "superior views"), further distancing themselves from the nation.

What Democrats rightly fear and saw took place is that these voters have no interest, ZERO in returning to the status quo as we saw it. But what you again miscalculate, is that you think this is a Trump thing. Syndicalism can put anybody in the position of Head of State.

It's not Trump, it's not racism. It's the purity of the government, long corrupted by money'd interests and now social activist interests who seek to redefine society as they wish it to be, while punishing winners and losers.

We do not wish to live in this "democracy" anymore, you're precisely right about that. If a democracy cannot serve our interests, as the framers told us in the declaration, it's our rights to reform the government(through running for electoral seats) to change it to a government that actually does serve its people. And I do mean all of the people, not just democrat leaning or republican leaning.

Ooh, scary. I don't have to subvert a system that subverts itself. The rebellion against democracy is because democracy's corrupt, not that it's about to become corrupt. Also, democracy doesn't 'translate martial conflict into political conflict', it promotes conflict by enabling the political sides to equally vie for power in the country and for the conflict to 'temporarily' be settled.

It was John Quincy Adams who burdened us with this curse, when he theorized that by creating an alternative party, it would actually deescalate the conflict, rather than a one party state. ROFL, how wrong was he both in history and in practice. If you want to blame anyone for my existence, blame him.

In reality, it's the opposite. Once the political battle ends, and if the one state can unify the people the people will be able to activate their energies to the maximum for the good of the nation. We saw this during the 50's-60's, when to rebuild our country we underwent positive changes and invested in our economies and in our country's prosperity.

Fascism is the true solution to the corruption of the democratic societies. And a temporary setback like one "outsider" being defeated, isn't going to change the revolution.

 

So, according to you, the President who limited the imposition of the Federal Government on states is a fascist, but the Islamic Terrorist who preceded him, the terrorist who spied on millions of Americans and investigated a reporter he didn't like was not a fascist. Mussolini was a Marxist before he adopted Fascism for Italy.

When Fascism came to the United States it called itself Progressive. Woodrow Wilson, the patron saint of Progressivism, was also the most racist President in history. So, not only was he a model for the Stalinists and European Fascists, Democrat Plantation Owners, Woody and FDR were envied by the Nazis who framed the Nuremberg Laws.

But, keep believing that small government Conservatives are fascists and genocidal big intrusive government Progressives who today are openly calling for the murder of people who don't share their political beliefs somehow fit the meaning of the adjective, liberal.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ht-police-agencies-just-it-was-starting-work/

In continuing our intellectual battle, it was actually Jeff Sessions who did it and he turned out to be precisely right about that. Because while the anarchists were looting and destroying from Atlanta to Chicago, the PD were like "Nah bro, we're not going to risk our careers and livelihoods to solve your problems, you're on your own." Such as the case for example in Baltimore where after the Freddie Grey riots. After giving them the space to seek and destroy, Baltimore's a dump. Missouri's a dump. Despite claiming that these movements are "progressive" towards a better America, no one can give me even a slight example of where it's better, unless savage destruction for its purpose is better.


Also, I find it funny that the same people who claim that he's ignored the responsibility of the coronavirus(we'll see if the Biden 'task force' is any marginal improvement, ROFL) also want to call it a 'cya move' whenever he actually tries to help out an issue. It's remarkably two-faced. Which is what the Democrats have been in the successful resistance to defeat Trump(note the word: Successful, you did it. Somehow, you did it. I just want you to know what it means with what you put in. We only had four years of an outsider. Well, if he can be called that.)

If Trump didn't immediately call for an investigation, you would've pointed out what Sessions did and you would've said its proof that Trump's a racist white supremacist(you're still saying that anyway, and THAT is why Trump rallied to his base. Never, did democrats give him ANY indication that it would've been useful. So why bother?)

https://www.startribune.com/skyrock...amaged-properties-delay-rebuilding/572269302/

This reminds me of the oft-posted picture of CNN calling it "peaceful protests" while their building in Atlanta was under siege. Like, dudes, it's OKAY to acknowledge reality. So sure, not every single building in the entire state of Minneapolis was attacked, but more than enough were. I still remember the Fox News interview, and if you wanna talk about duped citizens, none is more devastating than the misguided youth where a 14 year old kid was out at night and he said the destruction was "necessary".

Is that what we want the future of America to be? Because for some political activists, that's where they're taking it.

It's racially insensitive, because unlike Democrats, conservatives don't see race. They don't pander to race, they don't campaign to race they don't even think about race. That's a Democrat thing, we're dealing today with the most racist political party in America and it has won the Presidency. Let's hope we're not going to get a repeat of "He acted stupidly". We need Biden to actually go against the racist activists of his party and to get them to chill out, for democrats to return to being a national player.

It was however politically accurate. Those who bring violence on our streets, should be met with every effort to subdue their violent acts and then to bring them to justice within the justice system. They harm their fellow man and they violate the rights of their fellow man. That cannot be held acceptable. We've got to hold them accountable with the justice system.

The racist Demagogue would be Kamala Harris, as well as the guy who said that if you weren't voting for him you're not black. I guess they can be proud to keep their 'blackness' for whatever it's worth(I'm poking fun at democrat racist theory in the 21st century. It's the Democrats, who awake the ghost of Thurmond, not the other way around.)

It's not an anecdote, it's the reality of the situation. You know it was the reality of the situation by saying no one deserved to die and I'd like to think your heart might be a little bit heavier about the children who died. Now, take another step and condemn the protestors and you're on your way.

From January 20, 2021 onward there's no Orange Man Bad. I'm seriously curious on how you're going to resolve that internal conflict because Biden's not walking into a Obama-bush situation. No one wants to give Biden a pass for anything. He's got to step right in on day one and produce, and if the production isn't good enough he's easily a one-term President.

You guys really need to start evaluating the situation for what it is, and not a OMG racists. It's not even an OMG Fascists, because there is no legitimate third party movement. I should know, I don't have a party. I don't have a place to call home. I would have one in the UK though. The UK has more political rights(though civil liberties have been under assault in the UK lately) than we do in terms of the two party system.

What part am I revising? The part where the WH was attacked literally the night before and the church was on fire? Did I illustrate the 7 PM curfew and the real complaint is that they got gassed at 6:45. Like, seriously. There's no revision, there's just the simple fact of the matter, the crowd was dispersed as it's not their space per se.(technically, it's owned by the government.). As I said, they were fortunate they were allowed to be there at all. It should've been treated like a crime scene(which it was.)

You're the one revising with the "brave stand", since FDR used troops for example to integrate the schools in Little Rock, Arkansas and I think putting down a rebellion is a much more tenacious situation.

To you, it's a 'brave stand against a fundamentally Un-American regime.' To me, it's just disobeying orders. He should've been canned in real time, that he was canned five months later just makes it symbiotic and nothing more.

That's a WONDERFUL way of excusing the lack of winning over the voters you'd lost. "Morally out in front of the rest.". You already sacrificed the truth. When we heard that laughable 93/7 thing, or when people tried to excuse the rioting and protesting as not spreading the virus.

Democrats are hypocrites, as democracy has led to our social divide. A new political paradigm will be created as a result and as a solution to the chaos and infighting. And there is no such thing as "right side of history". History is a past event, it is recorded. It's not possible to be on the right or wrong side of it. We can only be present, in the present moment.

LMAO. Please stop with the excuses. If it's not ascribing to Trump a fascism/authoritarianism that he's not, now it's Toxic Masculinity. Let me guess, were you taken aback by the Kavanaugh embarrassment? That a non-member of Congress should grace the floor of Congress with her presence, just to tell a story was a debacle of the umpteenth degree.

Our Congress and its ineptitude is the greater threat as opposed to who occupies the Presidency. If our Congress continues to falter then whoever's President matters not.

Maybe...just maybe(though it's something you don't want to believe, hence you're calling it a Big Lie), the one who revised what racism is is not conservatives, but liberals? Maybe, just maybe you ascribe a heinous view of your fellow man that isn't there and never was there?

And even when it comes to actual Fascist Americans like myself, the true and actual definition of Fascism(as the Brittancia article gets close to) is far more nuanced and far more in depth than a simple "OMG racists" and that's not something you like very much.

 

You got to be kidding me. Half your party is at least talking about holding everyone who worked for or with Trump or voted for accountable in some and sorry no there isn't a damn thing Democratic about it.

 

Sorry. But the only terrorists are those that have caused billions in damage and killed a great number of people and injured countless. BLM and ANTIFA. Both are tools of the Democrats.

Only a handful of so called Trump supporters have committed violent acts. BLM and ANTIFA acts of terrorism this year alone can fill an ocean. It’s not even comparable.

 

That's called justice, that's called rule of law, which is spelled out the constitution, the document which is the bedrock democracy. which sets up the government and the legislature, who make the laws that DOJ enforces,
People in the peanut gallery venting their opinions are not in a position to hold anyone accountable, only the law is, and rule of law is the essential cornerstone of democracy.

You apparently do not understand the difference between fascism and democracy. Trump wanted to 'jail Hillary' and no president before Trump would ever say such a thing, it is not up to the president. He, like everyone else in the peanut gallery, does not have that power. It's one thing for people expressing their opinion, which is free speech, but a president has to be careful with words, because with a president, words matter.

 

BLM is just an idea. Antifa is a rag tag group of agitators who have nothing to do with the democrating party.

The right pushes this narrative to further their right wing agenda. To that end, Antifa is a tool of the right to create a false narrative to make democrats look bad.

The real threat are white supremacists and right wing extremists, they are the ones playing paint ball in the woods, pretending to be legitimate armed forces, carrying their AR 15s and donning military garb, who praise Hitler and Trump, who are 'standing by' for further orders from Trump, planning to kidnap Democratic Governors, and such.

 

Ah, the old 'they do it, too' defense.

You are confused, when dems accurately describe someone with evil qualities, such as Trump, that is not demonizing, because demonizing means to characterize someone who is not evil as evil. But, when Trump says Biden “will kill your jobs, dismantle your police departments, dissolve your borders, release criminal aliens, raise your taxes, confiscate your guns, end fracking, destroy your suburbs, and drive God from the public square.” which is a total lie, that is demonizing.

 

He most certainly has proposed to raise taxes and to end fracking. The irony about that is that fracking is an Obama baby. It's one of the few things the Obama Administration did right: It's balanced energy policies helped ween us off of ME oil.

I will confess that Biden doesn't want to go all the way with defunding the police, but he's in line with the general gist. Time will tell if social workers can resolve violent at-home disputes and other such routine calls, but if we elected Trump as an outsider in 2016 then the social workers deserve a chance as well, even if we don't think they'll be realistically successful.

 

"Orange man Bad!"...