>>When Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, the Nazis controlled less than three percent of Germany's 4,700 papers.
>>I'm not going to fight with you on this anymore John -- if you don't grasp it by now, you never will - simply because you just don't want to, not because you can't.

So now you've changed "attack" to "suppress" to "control" and pretend that's what you meant all along?

Hitler is your example, so lets pursue it.

Hitler did not start out calling the media names like Trump, per your allegation. Instead, one of the first things the Nazis did was to accuse their main opponent of colluding with Russians and various other improprieties to justify endless investigations and smears. Thanks to a complicit media and their 95% hostile reporting, it ended up with the opponent's media support outlawed and the opponents disqualified for office.

If you perceive similar attempts in contemporary US, I can see why you'd say that- though not why you insist on pinning it on Trump.

Why was the media complicit with the Nazis? Not because Hitler called them mean names, but because of a combination of wealthy donors purchasing outlets outright, establishment of near-total group-think amongst media employees, cunning propaganda linkage of popular bogeymen to the opponent, and a few disappearances and trumped-up charges to suppress holdouts. There was a pervasive "we're enlightened and you're deplorables" group-think that punished deviation from the true path by a combination of career/reputation/business sabotage, heckler's veto and overt thuggery.

How did this behavior by such a small group succeed? Largely because of a disaffected populace feeling betrayed by the swamp and offshoring of wealth, jobs and national pride. But another element was disarmament of the citizenry. Starting in the 1920s, Germany progressively disarmed its citizens so that by 1934, Frick (Nazi Minister of the Interior) was able to decree that firearms- specifically including assault rifles- are not suitable for the general populace and must be turned in. Consequence? A Jewish shopkeeper with a rifle could have defended family and property from ten masked thugs, but instead there was Kristallnacht and handfuls of brownshirts exerting control.

While I would understand if you insist that some of this is also being attempted in the US- you cannot hope to call Trump the culprit.

To paraphrase: I can give a gazillion examples why it's absurd to insist that calling the media mean names is how dictators start out, which is your "proof" that Trump is a dictator. "If you don't grasp it by now, you never will - simply because you just don't want to, not because you can't."

BTW, you know how you say it was a crime when Trump jr was tricked that he was getting dirt on HRC from a Russian, as well as Manafort sharing information with his Ukrainian-linked client? Mueller now has a recording of an undeniable receipt of dirt on an opponent from the Ukrainian government or from Russians depending how you look at it . Looking forward to your calls for immediate impeachment: https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2018/02/06/2096362360821336851/1024x576_MP4_2096362360821336851.mp4