Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah rally.

I don’t know what to tell you other than read the room. A majority of voters apparently didn’t share your view that they (trump, Vance) were fascists or authoritarians. It doesn’t matter at all if trump and his cabinet can “handle” it because it isn’t about them. It’s about voters and whether they can handle it. The left has overused the labels so much they become meaningless. For a year and a half leading up to the election the left absolutely hammered trump as fascist and a threat to democracy, and even said if you vote for him you are supporting racism, fascism, etc. Yet they still voted for him because they don’t believe it because it became meaningless due to over-exaggeration and hyperbole. Continuing to beat that ineffective drum hasn’t worked and continuing to won’t work either. We could have a different conversation on another thread as to what it means and what would have to happen to overthrow the country. Not much more I can say on this topic but that the right isn’t going to tone down the rhetoric and the left can either continue the spiraling downward or use this as an opportunity to rebrand itself in a way that appeals to non hardcore righties and swing voters.
I think a lot of MAGA voters like the idea of an authoritarian as long as it’s their guy. As for the independents and cross-over voters, the economy and inflation were the issues that motivated many of them and I imagine if you’re struggling to stay afloat, you might not give a shit as long as things change on the economic front.
 
Continuing to do so isn’t going to stop him from anything either. But it will continue to be lost on voters. The left should shift its focus from concentrating on trump to concentrating on reaching voters. Trump will be gone shortly. The right will still be stuck in its current funk. The left has the chance to get out in front with voters before the right ever wakes up. Does it continue with a failed message or find one that resonates.
Again, I hear you. I haven’t seen any evidence that Dems calling Trump a fascist or authoritarian had a material impact on the 2024 election. It appears that election was about inflation and the utter lack of confidence in the Biden administration. I agree with you that Dems should be focusing on a positive message of what they’ll do for Americans. I think Dems will likely benefit from the economic anxiety that hurt them last November. But I also think Dems should continue to call out Trump’s authoritarian actions every single time he does them, because that’s something that should never, ever be ignored or whitewashed.
 
I truly do respect you for rethinking your position on Trump, but I hope you’ll appreciate it’s tough to take it at face value when you’ve been such a strong Trump defender for months now. We wouldn’t have to weather his rhetoric if you guys hadn’t voted for him in November.
We’ve had this conversation before. I have expressed my disdain for him personally. You don’t have to agree with me and I don’t want to debate these political issues again but I voted for things that were extremely important to me that the left couldn’t or wouldn’t provide. Besides, im not the type of voter who swung the election. It was the fence sitters. They’re the ones that you need to reach and the ones who will put a D back in the WH. I feel strongly though that the labels and continued discourse won’t get you there. First one who starts with a positive message and rises above it will win.
 
Continuing to do so isn’t going to stop him from anything either. But it will continue to be lost on voters. The left should shift its focus from concentrating on trump to concentrating on reaching voters. Trump will be gone shortly. The right will still be stuck in its current funk. The left has the chance to get out in front with voters before the right ever wakes up. Does it continue with a failed message or find one that resonates.
I think this is a fair point. I thought it was appropriate to ring the authoritarian alarm bell in the run up to the election. Now that he’s in office, I think the protest to his actions needs a different tone and focus. We can disagree on whether it’s true or not, but I agree that it’s become stale. Like with so many issues, Dems have a messaging problem.
 
I think a lot of MAGA voters like the idea of an authoritarian as long as it’s their guy. As for the independents and cross-over voters, the economy and inflation were the issues that motivated many of them and I imagine if you’re struggling to stay afloat, you might not give a shit as long as things change on the economic front.
I don’t in any fashion. But we may be defining “authoritarian” differently or it needs to be broken down into smaller sub topics. Agree on economy. But there shouldn’t have been as many struggling to stay afloat as many on this board argued the Biden economy was great (not intended to be sarcastic). You made a fair point
 
I think this is a fair point. I thought it was appropriate to ring the authoritarian alarm bell in the run up to the election. Now that he’s in office, I think the protest to his actions needs a different tone and focus. We can disagree on whether it’s true or not, but I agree that it’s become stale. Like with so many issues, Dems have a messaging problem.
Well as a republican, to me that becomes a big issue, especially if you shift back to the center (Jeff Jackson land) because trump hangover is going to be a problem for the right for at least one election and maybe two.
 
Again, I hear you. I haven’t seen any evidence that Dems calling Trump a fascist or authoritarian had a material impact on the 2024 election. It appears that election was about inflation and the utter lack of confidence in the Biden administration. I agree with you that Dems should be focusing on a positive message of what they’ll do for Americans. I think Dems will likely benefit from the economic anxiety that hurt them last November. But I also think Dems should continue to call out Trump’s authoritarian actions every single time he does them, because that’s something that should never, ever be ignored or whitewashed.
Calling it out? Certainly. Having that be the center of the left’s universe? No. But that’s just my opinion.
 
I don’t know what to tell you other than read the room. A majority of voters apparently didn’t share your view that they (trump, Vance) were fascists or authoritarians. It doesn’t matter at all if trump and his cabinet can “handle” it because it isn’t about them. It’s about voters and whether they can handle it. The left has overused the labels so much they become meaningless. For a year and a half leading up to the election the left absolutely hammered trump as fascist and a threat to democracy, and even said if you vote for him you are supporting racism, fascism, etc. Yet they still voted for him because they don’t believe it because it became meaningless due to over-exaggeration and hyperbole. Continuing to beat that ineffective drum hasn’t worked and continuing to won’t work either. We could have a different conversation on another thread as to what it means and what would have to happen to overthrow the country. Not much more I can say on this topic but that the right isn’t going to tone down the rhetoric and the left can either continue the spiraling downward or use this as an opportunity to rebrand itself in a way that appeals to non hardcore righties and swing voters.


I agree that the majority of voters didn’t share the perspective thst Trump and Vance are authoritarian, although I do believe some folks are yearning for authoritarianism.

With that in mind, there is a lot of evidence that supports the argument that Trump is an authoritarian. Show the evidence that he is not.

Regarding your point that the right is not going to tone down the rhetoric, why not? Why is this something that is solely the left’s responsibility?
 
My fear is post trump. We can weather trump’s rhetoric but the discourse must get better post trump. My hope is the CK shooting is the bottom of the barrel and people will wake up. It has absolutely rocked me.
Unfortunately I have ceased to believe there is a post Trump for this nation. We won't make it. The spiral is accelerating too quickly. I hope i am wrong.
 
I agree that the majority of voters didn’t share the perspective thst Trump and Vance are authoritarian, although I do believe some folks are yearning for authoritarianism.

With that in mind, there is a lot of evidence that supports the argument that Trump is an authoritarian. Show the evidence that he is not.

Regarding the right not toning down the rhetoric, why not?
Last part is easier for me. Why not? Lots of reasons. Because it’s trump driving it and others are trying to copy him and trump doesn’t give a shit if it makes things worse. Do you think LB would have a thought if trump didn’t give it to her? Same with mtg. The right thinks we still want to hear it and im sure there are some who do like it as if it’s some pregame speech. Others like me are tired of it and see its destruction, but the right won’t recognize it until losing an election. That is why I think the left, if it rises above it will be in better shape for the next election.

As for trump being an authoritarian I would first need to understand your definition of it.
 
Biden before and Kamala after put forth a positive agenda for improving the lives of American families who are not the 1%. They reminded them of the the damage Trump did in his 1st administration which led to their election in 2020.

I hate to say it, but Clinton, Obama , and Biden won because Poppy Bush, GWB , and Trump left the country in dire straits. Fortunately, Clinton, Obama, and Biden righted the ship ( or as Obama said took the keys from the GQPers and got the car out of the ditch )

So the only way for the Democratic candidates to win in 2026 and 2028 is for the country to suffer yet another severe economic hardship which will remind swing voters that GQPers have never improved the lives of working and middle class families, and the good news is that those voters outnumber the 10%ers who always thrive when a GQPer is in office.
 
Last edited:
As for trump being an authoritarian I would first need to understand your definition of it.
Below is the AI synopsis from a Google search “characteristics of authoritarian governments.” If you don’t think Trump and friends are playing most of these tunes or clearly trying to, well, let’s just agree to disagree and be thankful for what has been, IMO, a very civil, good-faith discussion.



An authoritarian government is a political system characterized by the consolidation of power in the hands of a single leader, a small group, or a ruling party
. Unlike democratic systems, authoritarian regimes do not allow for free and fair elections, extensive political pluralism, or robust protection of civil liberties. The stability of these regimes is often maintained through political repression, control over information, and limited political participation.
Concentration of power
  • Centralized authority: Power is concentrated in the executive branch and is not held accountable by the people it governs.
  • Weak checks and balances: Authoritarian governments often weaken or eliminate independent institutions like legislatures, courts, and election administration bodies to remove any limits on executive power.
  • Indefinite political tenure: Rulers or ruling parties in authoritarian systems have no term limits, allowing them to remain in power indefinitely.
Control of information and dissent
  • Limited political pluralism: The government suppresses or controls political opposition by restricting rival parties, interest groups, and political dissent.
  • Controlled media and propaganda: State-controlled media is used to spread propaganda and disinformation, while independent media is suppressed through censorship, legal harassment, or control by government allies.
  • Quashing dissent: Authoritarian regimes actively suppress free speech, peaceful assembly, and protest. Dissidents and activists are often harassed, imprisoned, or face other consequences.
  • Political violence: These regimes may tolerate or actively encourage political violence to intimidate and silence opponents and maintain power.
Control over elections
  • Corrupt and unfair elections:Authoritarian systems often hold elections to create a facade of democratic rule, but the process is heavily manipulated to favor the incumbent. Tactics include suppressing votes, biasing rules, and manipulating results.
  • Limited participation: Political participation is minimal and is often manufactured through state-sponsored rallies to consolidate in-group identity and support.
Legal and social controls
  • Weak rule of law: The government adheres to "rule by law," using the legal system as a tool to advance its interests, rather than the "rule of law," which holds that all are subject to the same legal code.
  • Abuse of state power: The power of the state is misused to advance the personal or partisan desires of the ruling elite. This includes persecuting political opponents and funneling resources to loyalists.
  • Scapegoating: Minority groups, immigrants, and "outsiders" are often blamed for a country's problems to exploit national insecurities and rally support.
  • Stifling civil society: A wide range of social controls are used to suppress civil society, including restrictions on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other forms of collective action.
 
Last part is easier for me. Why not? Lots of reasons. Because it’s trump driving it and others are trying to copy him and trump doesn’t give a shit if it makes things worse. Do you think LB would have a thought if trump didn’t give it to her? Same with mtg. The right thinks we still want to hear it and im sure there are some who do like it as if it’s some pregame speech. Others like me are tired of it and see its destruction, but the right won’t recognize it until losing an election. That is why I think the left, if it rises above it will be in better shape for the next election.

As for trump being an authoritarian I would first need to understand your definition of it.
Absolutely a fair response. Can I have a day to gather my thoughts on this? I’d like to answer your question in a genuine, and precise, way.
 

Below is the AI synopsis from a Google search “characteristics of authoritarian governments.” If you don’t think Trump and friends are playing most of these tunes or clearly trying to, well, let’s just agree to disagree and be thankful for what has been, IMO, a very civil, good-faith discussion.



An authoritarian government is a political system characterized by the consolidation of power in the hands of a single leader, a small group, or a ruling party
. Unlike democratic systems, authoritarian regimes do not allow for free and fair elections, extensive political pluralism, or robust protection of civil liberties. The stability of these regimes is often maintained through political repression, control over information, and limited political participation.
Concentration of power
  • Centralized authority: Power is concentrated in the executive branch and is not held accountable by the people it governs.
  • Weak checks and balances: Authoritarian governments often weaken or eliminate independent institutions like legislatures, courts, and election administration bodies to remove any limits on executive power.
  • Indefinite political tenure: Rulers or ruling parties in authoritarian systems have no term limits, allowing them to remain in power indefinitely.
Control of information and dissent
  • Limited political pluralism: The government suppresses or controls political opposition by restricting rival parties, interest groups, and political dissent.
  • Controlled media and propaganda: State-controlled media is used to spread propaganda and disinformation, while independent media is suppressed through censorship, legal harassment, or control by government allies.
  • Quashing dissent: Authoritarian regimes actively suppress free speech, peaceful assembly, and protest. Dissidents and activists are often harassed, imprisoned, or face other consequences.
  • Political violence: These regimes may tolerate or actively encourage political violence to intimidate and silence opponents and maintain power.
Control over elections
  • Corrupt and unfair elections:Authoritarian systems often hold elections to create a facade of democratic rule, but the process is heavily manipulated to favor the incumbent. Tactics include suppressing votes, biasing rules, and manipulating results.
  • Limited participation: Political participation is minimal and is often manufactured through state-sponsored rallies to consolidate in-group identity and support.
Legal and social controls
  • Weak rule of law: The government adheres to "rule by law," using the legal system as a tool to advance its interests, rather than the "rule of law," which holds that all are subject to the same legal code.
  • Abuse of state power: The power of the state is misused to advance the personal or partisan desires of the ruling elite. This includes persecuting political opponents and funneling resources to loyalists.
  • Scapegoating: Minority groups, immigrants, and "outsiders" are often blamed for a country's problems to exploit national insecurities and rally support.
  • Stifling civil society: A wide range of social controls are used to suppress civil society, including restrictions on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other forms of collective action.
This is basically everything that’s happening currently, almost every single part of the definition. Some of the points are obviously true today. Others are being pursued actively.

So is it dangerous rhetoric to call some authoritarian if they match the definition? I’d say it’s more dangerous not to.

Doing the same for fascism would lead to similar observations.
 
For me, it’s not that voters weren’t moved by Harris and other Dems calling Trump authoritarian. It’s that Republican voters — and many swing voters — didn’t care that so many CONSERVATIVES said Trump was a danger to our democracy.

Liz and Dick Cheney. I get that lots of folks, including Republicans disillusioned with the establishment, are not will about Dick Cheney. But good grief — hardcore conservative, tough politician. The same folks who voted for him and George W. Bush twice just didn’t care.

Conservative political scholar Michael Luttig said Trump was a threat.

John Kelly.

Adam Kinzinger.

Former Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh.

Trump didn’t get an endorsement from George W. Bush.

That’s what should have convinced enough swing voters and reasonable Republicans to reject Trump. I mean, right?
 
This is basically everything that’s happening currently, almost every single part of the definition. Some of the points are obviously true today. Others are being pursued actively.

So is it dangerous rhetoric to call some authoritarian if they match the definition? I’d say it’s more dangerous not to.

Doing the same for fascism would lead to similar observations.
Well, you see if you call behavior and propaganda out for what it is, you apparently increase the likelihood 1. People will vote for it and apparently 2. Make the authoritarians become authoritarians, whereas they wouldn’t have, otherwise. Because the right is always made to do what it does - it has no apparent agency nor responsibility for their own behavior.
 
For me, it’s not that voters weren’t moved by Harris and other Dems calling Trump authoritarian. It’s that Republican voters — and many swing voters — didn’t care that so many CONSERVATIVES said Trump was a danger to our democracy.

Liz and Dick Cheney. I get that lots of folks, including Republicans disillusioned with the establishment, are not will about Dick Cheney. But good grief — hardcore conservative, tough politician. The same folks who voted for him and George W. Bush twice just didn’t care.

Conservative political scholar Michael Luttig said Trump was a threat.

John Kelly.

Adam Kinzinger.

Former Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh.

Trump didn’t get an endorsement from George W. Bush.

That’s what should have convinced enough swing voters and reasonable Republicans to reject Trump. I mean, right?
I think the one difference with Trump, and one critical contributing factor to his getting re-elected, is the way has has been able to get people who are generally otherwise unengaged with the political process to go out and vote for him. Most of these people are people who would tell you both parties suck. They don’t follow politics closely, nor do they necessarily have a grasp on how US government works.
 
I think the one difference with Trump, and one critical contributing factor to his getting re-elected, is the way has has been able to get people who are generally otherwise unengaged with the political process to go out and vote for him. Most of these people are people who would tell you both parties suck. They don’t follow politics closely, nor do they necessarily have a grasp on how US government works.
A good chunk of those are motivated by racism.
 
I think the one difference with Trump, and one critical contributing factor to his getting re-elected, is the way has has been able to get people who are generally otherwise unengaged with the political process to go out and vote for him. Most of these people are people who would tell you both parties suck. They don’t follow politics closely, nor do they necessarily have a grasp on how US government works.
I agree.

But there have been quite a lot of well educated, affluent, professionally successful Republicans who were solidly supportive of Bushes, Reagan, McCain, Romney, etc. and have fallen right in line with Trump — despite the warnings of strong conservatives.
 
Back
Top