[sofixa]

That's because people confuse generic fascism with nazism. A big part of the difference is the virulent antisemitism.

Trump and his friends are fascists (corporatism, corruption, strongman rule, us vs them with human rights abuses vs the "them", etc).

[lazyeye]

I dunno...the Dems campaign funds were 3 times the Republicans at the last election so the corporate donors were very much on their side.

And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.

The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.

And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.

I think your description far more accurately describes the Democrats than the Republicans.

[sorcerer-mar]

> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.

Please share evidence. Links to X of people simply stating the same thing does not count as evidence.

> The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.

The platforms never claimed to be coerced, the platforms themselves said in court filings they were not coerced, SCOTUS determined they were not coerced.

The actual way this played out was that random crybabies on the Internet were sad their posts were moderated, so they complained to the courts that the government pressured the platforms. The platforms responded "no, we did that because you broke our ToS."

Here's Twitter's own lawyer in their legal filing on the matter:

> Such requests to do more to stop the spread of false or misleading COVID-19 information, untethered to any specific threat or requirement to take any specific action against plaintiffs is permissible persuasion, and not state action... as [SCOTUS] previously held, government actors are free to urge private parties to take certain actions or criticize others without giving rise to state action. The evidence provided does not support a plausible inference of state action because they suggest neither the degree of deep public, private entwinement necessary for joint action, nor the kind of threatened sanction necessary for coercion.

And here are Zuckerberg's own words:

> Ultimately it was our decision whether or not to take content down and we own our decisions.

Both platforms receive millions of government requests per year, the vast majority of which (from the US government) they are free to decline and frequently do decline.

> And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.

The entire purpose of a legal system is to "take out" criminals. Do you think running for office somehow gives someone criminal immunity? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some astoundingly stupid ones!

[sofixa]

> the Dems campaign funds were 3 times the Republicans at the last election so the corporate donors were very much on their side.

I'm not going to fact check that because it's probably wrong, but regardless, it doesn't matter.

Trump literally appointed a billionaire to be a minister of his, after said billionaire spent hundreds of millions on his campaign. Same billionaire also has government contracts, was in charge of "optimising" government spending. Oh and he runs a social media with blatant censorship. Trump had a coronation event where billionaires had to donate big sums of money to be able to attend. He launched shitcoins and collectibles and a fucking mobile phone.

Nothing any recent politician in any western country has done comes even close to this level of brazen corruption. Hell, well known corrupt autocrats like Putin are more delicate in public about their corruption.

> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends

Like preventing HIV from being transmitted to babies in Africa? Darn Democratic HIV infected babies!