>>>This argument that opposition is now unpatriotic is raher George Orwell.
>
>LOL. funding and contriving fake groundswells to steer an undeserved win, certainly is somewhat Orwell, as is insisting that it's merely "opposition", as is the Newspeak insistence on "Muslim Bans" and comparing Trump to Hitler.
>
>FWIW, the Hilter comparison is quite a laugh. For a start, Hitler didn't win the Presidential election. Hindenburg did. Nor did Hitler's party win its elections. It lost twice, with fewer seats the second time around.
>
>Nevertheless Hindenburg was persuaded to appoint Hitler as Chancellor to mollify his violent supporters - which would be similar to Trump appointing Clinton as Secretary of State to mollify her peaceful "we won the popular vote" lighters of fires and beaters/pepper sprayers of women.
>
>Seems to me the comparison already is going badly wrong.
>
>Anyway, once Chancellor, Hitler's Antifa brownshirts contrived demonstrations similar to those in the document I provided you. They attacked and beat opponents, they shut down opposing viewpoints by lighting fires and smashing Starbucks windows, and they resisted and protested democratic government until they could contrive a win by stifling opposition..
>
>Oh, wait... you're right, I'm getting today's Fascists and haters mixed up with Hitler's. But you get my drift. ;-)

Nothing in your document (that I saw) about "They attacked and beat opponents, they shut down opposing viewpoints by lighting fires and smashing Starbucks windows" Lots about fact checking attacking policies etc.

IMO the Hitler comparison is flawed in that I don't expect Donald to launch genocide or global war . But the results seem quite similar in terms of an outsider taking power and the establishment patronisingly thinking it can manage him. With Donald we are in completely unknown territory.