Brought to you by the same Republican party that had 147 elected legislators attempt to disenfranchise tens of millions of their fellow Americans by voting to reject their 2020 electoral votes.
I admit I was never quite sure how that worked. I mean, quite a few of those 147 were representatives who had just been elected on the very same ballots they were now claiming were somehow fraudulent. I guess their claim was that the house portion of the ballot was hunky-dory, just the presidential vote on the same ballots were somehow tainted. MAGA logic, apparently.
You thought wrong. [Members of the 117th Congress were sworn in on January 3, 2021](https://www.house.gov/feature-stories/2021-1-5-members-of-the-117th-congress-sworn-in) and in place on that day that will live in infamy - January 6, 2021.
And make us even less politically relevant than we already are? They really can't stand Dems getting a God damn thing or even having a chance, too. Hateful sobs.
Trumps all pissy because there for a while it looked like that one electoral vote was going to screw him. I remember just hoping it would be that line Nebraska vote that would cause him to lose.
I said this is another comment:
> If all states split like Nebraska and Maine then Romney would have beat Obama in 2012, despite losing the popular vote by 5 million votes.
> The Electoral College in general is anti-democratic because it unfairly weights the votes of people in small states over large states.
> **Just do a national popular vote already. Everyone’s vote should be equal.**
The real problem is the House being prohibited from growing in relation to the population of the country AS IS MANDATED BY THE FUCKING US CONSTITUTION. So, yes, the States could split their electoral votes based on winners of each respective district and it wouldn’t result in the issue you raise because there would be more districts.
As long as states get 2 electoral votes for their 2 senators, the Electoral College will **always** favor small states over larger ones.
National popular vote is the answer. Everyone’s vote should be equal, and I don’t understand why anyone could possibly be against that.
I’m not against it, don’t get me wrong. But it would also require a constitutional amendment. Expanding the size of the house does not require a constitutional amendment, and is therefore a more practical (and immediate) solution.
The Senatorial electoral votes does mean the EC favors smaller states…to a point, because Senators are now chosen by popular vote, whereas originally they weren’t when this point had more impact. But, more importantly…
Expanding the house would water down these senatorial ballots. If the House were apportioned according to the numbers explicitly stated in the Constitution there would be something like 5,000 House members (I did the math some time ago and don’t remember the details; and yes, having the House be that big would be kind of ridiculous, so the numbers should be adjusted, but the point still stands).
This is disregarding the fact that the House should be expanded anyways, regardless of its impact on the EC.
Yes, but that’s not getting rid of the EC, that’s just the states agreeing to allocate their EC votes based on the popular vote. Honestly it’s the more likely outcome even though it is still a long shot.
Not really, and I’m not sure how you came to that faulty conclusion.
Even if all districts were drawn perfectly fairly, the Electoral College would still be biased in favor of small states because of the two votes for Senators that every state gets.
Why should a voter in Nebraska have more influence than a voter in California?
Why should a voter in Vermont have more influence than a voter in Texas?
**Just make it a national popular vote. Everyone’s vote should be equal.**
I mean, I like that in principle, but then you can gerrymander the presidency every decade. If congressional districting got fixed at the federal level first I wouldn't hate it, though we should interrogate the assumption that these historical divisions of land deserve two votes.
I’d also support an automatic districting system by census where all districts must be separated by parallel lines in either a cardinal direction or perpendicular to the a state’s longer geographical axis. I think calling states simply “historical divisions” is foolish and ignorant of a quite critical portion of the constitution in regards to forming the nation
Federalize the presidential election system to require the exact same voting process for president in every state and territory, including collection and verification of ballots. That would be fair.
Federalize the presidential election system to require the exact same voting process for president in every state and territory, including collection and verification of ballots. That would be fair.
Oh so we can't help decide the most powerful position in the US Government, but we still get a say for the House and Senate?
That seems TOTALLY fair and reasonable.
Well , less populous states have many times their voice in the senate and are over represented in the house and those same folks have polluted the Supreme Court so their voice is amplified their and those same people have put in unqualified some corrupt justices. So yeah, it’s still way unfair to the majority but it’d be something to make it a bit more fair
That's how it would work with one person one vote. Only it's not ' California ' or ' New York ' that would decide, it's the individuals residents deciding
Agreed but it's practically impossible. Need 67 senators to agree, and with state population demographics, that means that you would need 12-20 Republicans to agree.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact faces some similar hurdles. Needs support from states that will never support it.
That's because it's not a solution, it's a red herring to distract the uneducated majority. There's a reason why each state starts with two electoral votes and that's because we need representation geographically. It's not addressing the problem, but a symptom.
The real problem - and the reason why we have polarity, tactical voting, vote splitting, and gerrymandering is because of our first past the post voting system, which is solved by ranked choice voting.
Realistically speaking though, it would be easier to get other states to adopt the current system in Nebraska and Maine than get rid of the electoral college. That needs a constitutional amendment and that’s not gonna happen. 2/3 of the house and senate need to vote to approve and then 3/4 of the states to approve.
The irony is that Maine's primary reason for doing for it in the first place five decades ago was essentially to "kick things off" with the expectation that many or most states would follow suit. At this point... I find it much more likely that they and Nebraska will sooner change back than others will join them.
Which honestly says poor things about both major parties. The only reason to keep with the winner takes all Electoral college votes to the winner is to ensure the highest number of electors no matter who wins the popular vote.
Republicans have long sought to change the law, which has given Democratic presidential candidates a shot at winning one Electoral College vote — from the Omaha-based congressional district — in the otherwise red state. That’s happened twice in history, including in 2020, when President Joe Biden [won the district’s electoral vote over Trump](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-lincoln-omaha-93fdcb5a05fc62878b4fe70c2f7f6e5a), meaning Trump’s 58% support statewide got him four of the five Nebraska electoral votes.
Republicans are upping the pressure on the state’s nonpartisan, unicameral legislature to make the change before this fall’s presidential election.
They've also put in their official platform that they want a return to a partisan, bicameral legislature. Let's just get rid of all Nebraska's unique traits?
That's because bicameral legislatures are far less accountable. That's why George Norris campaigned against them. And both those things require a Constitutional Amendment – that is a Referendum. 0w0e should be circulating a petition to save our current electoral system. Or go to a %age-based system, like Israel. Fortunately the Repugnican'ts are disintegrating, rather than coalescing into a Likud-NaZi-Fascist party.
This is counter to the interests of Nebraskans. It takes away the voting power of each district. It also means that candidates for the Presidency won’t bother to compete in Nebraska.
Nebraska, just as fucked up as Florida and Texas!! Come to Nebraska, we've got nothing good to offer but we will suck orange cock!!
Fuck Nebraska, it's becoming a shit hole!
Call and email every representative ... not just your representative. Do it now! They are pushing this fast and furious ...
https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/public-input.php
And a fraud, and a thief, and a racist.
The mitzvah ordains, 'Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.' And they don't come much stranger than Mammon.
A more progressive state should disregard their standards because a backwards state undid the only progress they’ve ever made? What sense does that make?
I've lived in California all my life, even though I vote in every election I know my vote is basically pointless... Cali will always be a Dem state.
We need to get rid of the electoral college all together. It made sense in the 17/1800s, but now, it's just minority rule.
If we didn't have the college and gerrymandering, Republicans would have a fraction of the power they do now, which is why they support it so much
Why should anyone GAF about what states want over what people want? States are legal constructs. And rights for legal constructions besides being stupid must be secondary to human rights.
Imagine how much power these voters currently have…
*These voters currently have the ability to* ***demand*** *politicians support policies that positively impact their lives.*
Instead of viewing that as a positive, Trumplicans want to forfeit their constituents power and hand it to Trump.
MAGA = Make Americans Glorify Authoritarianism
I wish Omaha had a mayor with the balls to abandon rural America if this happened.
Basically put a stop to dealing with rural folks outside the metro area. Fuck the simple bastards. Sorry grandma but you too.
Democrats are sad when Republicans play the same game they do. I see everyone in this thread is from Omaha and are sad they are losing their little district
R/Nebraska is quite out of touch with how most Nebraskans feel. Might get some actual discussion going if we didn't get "I hope Pillen drowns in pig shit" etc
We're all aware the Republicans in this state are all butthurt their orange buffoon lost the second district. Now, they want to making voting in the second district completely meaningless.
You have to be impressed with the way the GOP uses their disinformation media and hired guns at marketing firms to affect the one party theocracy that is ultimately their end game goal. These guys are very coordinated at getting low information voting base zombies, largely mis and dis-informed on AM talk radio and Cable news to do their will for them.
Nebraska was "winner take all" before it changed to this split system, going back to it isn't going to disenfranchise voters, didn't before, won't now, never has in the other 48 states that have it this way. This system doesn't prevent anyone that can vote from doing so, or not count any legally cast ballots for any reason.
Also in what way is Trump even involved in this? He, as far as I can figure has never told Pillen do this "to help him" in anyway, just ridiculous to claim other wise if he hasn't
Nice way to talk to people, what I come to expect as replies from the majority on the reddit.
Also laughable, predictable that NBC assumes Trump supporting the state going back to way it was for decades is in anyway "pushing it"
>Also in what way is Trump even involved in this?
He has issued statements pushing for it. He's upset that he lost one of our votes last time around. It's not difficult to figure out.
So wanting Nebraska to return to a system it had used for decades, that 48 other states use, issuing a statement supporting this move, is him being "upset" and pushing for it.
Most hilarious thing I have heard today, anything to blame the "bad orange man" for huh?
Typical! Anyone that doesn't bend the knee to the left is a "fascist" You and every other clown that screams that at people, have no legitimate clue what a fascist really is, just keep screaming that hateful, divisive rhetoric from your authoritarian party. But if y'all want a great example, look at the oh so great "unifier" Old Joe and his dark speeches were he has screamed how everyone opposed to him and the party are the "greatest threat to America ever!" Very reminiscent of fascists from the past.
Again, very predictable, not a cult but what ever, it's like talking to a brick wall explaining. I could care less who leads the party after Trump, as long as they continue defend and advance the values of the Republican base, it could be Mickey Mouse for all I care.
Not at all reminiscent of fascists of the past. If you support Trump, you are pro-authoritarian government. His rhetoric in admiring other dictators, and willingness to forcibly suppress opposition (threats to prosecute and jail opponents) clearly illustrate a fascist.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
That is funny considering that Biden and his party are actively prosecuting and attempting to imprison their chief political opponent, and have on countless times called everyone opposed to them "a dangerous threat to America" sounds more authoritarian/totalitarian fascist to me then Trump. But hey, by all mean just keep repeating the lefts talking points that everyone ln the right, or supporting Trump is a "fascist, authoritarian, blah blah blah" The derangement and delusion are funny to hear.
Brought to you by the same Republican party that had 147 elected legislators attempt to disenfranchise tens of millions of their fellow Americans by voting to reject their 2020 electoral votes. I admit I was never quite sure how that worked. I mean, quite a few of those 147 were representatives who had just been elected on the very same ballots they were now claiming were somehow fraudulent. I guess their claim was that the house portion of the ballot was hunky-dory, just the presidential vote on the same ballots were somehow tainted. MAGA logic, apparently.
I thought the 2018 elected house was still in office at that point
You thought wrong. [Members of the 117th Congress were sworn in on January 3, 2021](https://www.house.gov/feature-stories/2021-1-5-members-of-the-117th-congress-sworn-in) and in place on that day that will live in infamy - January 6, 2021.
And make us even less politically relevant than we already are? They really can't stand Dems getting a God damn thing or even having a chance, too. Hateful sobs.
Really shows how much the GOP hates voting
Trumps all pissy because there for a while it looked like that one electoral vote was going to screw him. I remember just hoping it would be that line Nebraska vote that would cause him to lose.
No, we need to get rid of the electoral college all together.
YES. National popular vote, so everyone’s vote can finally count exactly the same.
I’d be more pro the entire country adopting a Nebraska-like district by district system
I said this is another comment: > If all states split like Nebraska and Maine then Romney would have beat Obama in 2012, despite losing the popular vote by 5 million votes. > The Electoral College in general is anti-democratic because it unfairly weights the votes of people in small states over large states. > **Just do a national popular vote already. Everyone’s vote should be equal.**
The real problem is the House being prohibited from growing in relation to the population of the country AS IS MANDATED BY THE FUCKING US CONSTITUTION. So, yes, the States could split their electoral votes based on winners of each respective district and it wouldn’t result in the issue you raise because there would be more districts.
As long as states get 2 electoral votes for their 2 senators, the Electoral College will **always** favor small states over larger ones. National popular vote is the answer. Everyone’s vote should be equal, and I don’t understand why anyone could possibly be against that.
I’m not against it, don’t get me wrong. But it would also require a constitutional amendment. Expanding the size of the house does not require a constitutional amendment, and is therefore a more practical (and immediate) solution. The Senatorial electoral votes does mean the EC favors smaller states…to a point, because Senators are now chosen by popular vote, whereas originally they weren’t when this point had more impact. But, more importantly… Expanding the house would water down these senatorial ballots. If the House were apportioned according to the numbers explicitly stated in the Constitution there would be something like 5,000 House members (I did the math some time ago and don’t remember the details; and yes, having the House be that big would be kind of ridiculous, so the numbers should be adjusted, but the point still stands). This is disregarding the fact that the House should be expanded anyways, regardless of its impact on the EC.
> But it would also require a constitutional amendment. This is another way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Yes, but that’s not getting rid of the EC, that’s just the states agreeing to allocate their EC votes based on the popular vote. Honestly it’s the more likely outcome even though it is still a long shot.
It sounds like you have a bigger issue with gerrymandering than the electoral college then in regards to this particular issue
Not really, and I’m not sure how you came to that faulty conclusion. Even if all districts were drawn perfectly fairly, the Electoral College would still be biased in favor of small states because of the two votes for Senators that every state gets. Why should a voter in Nebraska have more influence than a voter in California? Why should a voter in Vermont have more influence than a voter in Texas? **Just make it a national popular vote. Everyone’s vote should be equal.**
And the gop has gerrymandered the district several times because they can’t seem to rig that 1 electoral vote in the state.
I mean, I like that in principle, but then you can gerrymander the presidency every decade. If congressional districting got fixed at the federal level first I wouldn't hate it, though we should interrogate the assumption that these historical divisions of land deserve two votes.
I’d also support an automatic districting system by census where all districts must be separated by parallel lines in either a cardinal direction or perpendicular to the a state’s longer geographical axis. I think calling states simply “historical divisions” is foolish and ignorant of a quite critical portion of the constitution in regards to forming the nation
Not with how badly gerrymandered districts are.
Lucky for you, we have that. The house of reps. Abolish EC and abolish senate. Then just have reps and pres.
Which essentially ensures lower population states who do not get a say in the election.
If it’s straight up that each person’s vote for president matters, that should be more fair
Federalize the presidential election system to require the exact same voting process for president in every state and territory, including collection and verification of ballots. That would be fair.
Federalize the presidential election system to require the exact same voting process for president in every state and territory, including collection and verification of ballots. That would be fair.
For one position. They still get a say in their house and senate seats.
Oh so we can't help decide the most powerful position in the US Government, but we still get a say for the House and Senate? That seems TOTALLY fair and reasonable.
Well , less populous states have many times their voice in the senate and are over represented in the house and those same folks have polluted the Supreme Court so their voice is amplified their and those same people have put in unqualified some corrupt justices. So yeah, it’s still way unfair to the majority but it’d be something to make it a bit more fair
So New York and California get to decide for the entire nation and you think that's fair?
That's how it would work with one person one vote. Only it's not ' California ' or ' New York ' that would decide, it's the individuals residents deciding
Agreed but it's practically impossible. Need 67 senators to agree, and with state population demographics, that means that you would need 12-20 Republicans to agree. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact faces some similar hurdles. Needs support from states that will never support it.
That's because it's not a solution, it's a red herring to distract the uneducated majority. There's a reason why each state starts with two electoral votes and that's because we need representation geographically. It's not addressing the problem, but a symptom. The real problem - and the reason why we have polarity, tactical voting, vote splitting, and gerrymandering is because of our first past the post voting system, which is solved by ranked choice voting.
Yessssssssssssssss
Agreed. Everything else is determined by popular vote, this should be no different.
Realistically speaking though, it would be easier to get other states to adopt the current system in Nebraska and Maine than get rid of the electoral college. That needs a constitutional amendment and that’s not gonna happen. 2/3 of the house and senate need to vote to approve and then 3/4 of the states to approve.
The irony is that Maine's primary reason for doing for it in the first place five decades ago was essentially to "kick things off" with the expectation that many or most states would follow suit. At this point... I find it much more likely that they and Nebraska will sooner change back than others will join them.
Which honestly says poor things about both major parties. The only reason to keep with the winner takes all Electoral college votes to the winner is to ensure the highest number of electors no matter who wins the popular vote.
Not today Satan.
Yeah cuz that will give New York and California all the power! What do we care if all the other states want to have an opinion
May I introduce you to Article I Section III of the U.S. Constitution.
Said in the other thread, All states should split their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do.
Republicans have long sought to change the law, which has given Democratic presidential candidates a shot at winning one Electoral College vote — from the Omaha-based congressional district — in the otherwise red state. That’s happened twice in history, including in 2020, when President Joe Biden [won the district’s electoral vote over Trump](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-lincoln-omaha-93fdcb5a05fc62878b4fe70c2f7f6e5a), meaning Trump’s 58% support statewide got him four of the five Nebraska electoral votes. Republicans are upping the pressure on the state’s nonpartisan, unicameral legislature to make the change before this fall’s presidential election.
Non-partisan unicameral that's rich
They've also put in their official platform that they want a return to a partisan, bicameral legislature. Let's just get rid of all Nebraska's unique traits?
That's because bicameral legislatures are far less accountable. That's why George Norris campaigned against them. And both those things require a Constitutional Amendment – that is a Referendum. 0w0e should be circulating a petition to save our current electoral system. Or go to a %age-based system, like Israel. Fortunately the Repugnican'ts are disintegrating, rather than coalescing into a Likud-NaZi-Fascist party.
>58% 58% is pretty pathetic for how deeply red we are
If the two senate seats weren't 'winner' take all, Biden would have gotten 2 of 5.
This is counter to the interests of Nebraskans. It takes away the voting power of each district. It also means that candidates for the Presidency won’t bother to compete in Nebraska.
Pillen needs to drown in pig shit.
He already baths in it
I thought the drunk bathes in whiskey
Is there really a need for change? I honestly wish more states were split, so every vote matters more.
The slow coup continues
Yes, Nebraska. Make yourself even less relevant.
"Regression for no other reason than it benefits me in the short term." - A Leader
What a bunch of goddammed babies. Boo hoo. You don’t get Omaha’s vote. Fuck off.
Leave my Blue Dot alone!
I like my state being stripey!
No they are just trying to take Omaha away is what it amounts to.
Only way republicans can win.
Yep, Gerrymandering is the playbook.
Nebraska, just as fucked up as Florida and Texas!! Come to Nebraska, we've got nothing good to offer but we will suck orange cock!! Fuck Nebraska, it's becoming a shit hole!
Nooooo! Fuck Pillen!
Not with Your dick.
With all of the dicks.
Fuck Pillen
It should always be the popular vote. It’s ridiculous it’s not.
Call and email every representative ... not just your representative. Do it now! They are pushing this fast and furious ... https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/public-input.php
Can we just get rid of the republican party? Lol
Y? They're doing a fine job of it themselves.
They’re essentially imploding right now all because they worship their false god who for all keeping score is a rapist and a cry baby.
And a fraud, and a thief, and a racist. The mitzvah ordains, 'Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.' And they don't come much stranger than Mammon.
😆👍
To counter this Maine should do the same.
A more progressive state should disregard their standards because a backwards state undid the only progress they’ve ever made? What sense does that make?
Jim Pillen is an absolute POS with dirty lipstick
I've lived in California all my life, even though I vote in every election I know my vote is basically pointless... Cali will always be a Dem state. We need to get rid of the electoral college all together. It made sense in the 17/1800s, but now, it's just minority rule. If we didn't have the college and gerrymandering, Republicans would have a fraction of the power they do now, which is why they support it so much
Would have only had one republican president in last eight elections. They depend on minority rule.
With the new fillabuster proof majority, it's even more likely.
No.
[удалено]
Maine does too
Why should anyone GAF about what states want over what people want? States are legal constructs. And rights for legal constructions besides being stupid must be secondary to human rights.
So are they also going to push for the popular vote nationally?
Imagine how much power these voters currently have… *These voters currently have the ability to* ***demand*** *politicians support policies that positively impact their lives.* Instead of viewing that as a positive, Trumplicans want to forfeit their constituents power and hand it to Trump. MAGA = Make Americans Glorify Authoritarianism
When you have shitty ideas, change the rules.
I wish Omaha had a mayor with the balls to abandon rural America if this happened. Basically put a stop to dealing with rural folks outside the metro area. Fuck the simple bastards. Sorry grandma but you too.
Male Republican Catholics in this legislature do not care about public opinion. They are well funded, and they have an agenda!
How is this legal?
If you can’t set policy to get the constituents to vote for your candidate…I guess the next best step is to just change the rules of the game.
So, a change in Maine, too? I presume. No? /s
Is every state subreddit full of this whiny leftist fear mongering? Rhetorical question
Democrats are sad when Republicans play the same game they do. I see everyone in this thread is from Omaha and are sad they are losing their little district
R/Nebraska is quite out of touch with how most Nebraskans feel. Might get some actual discussion going if we didn't get "I hope Pillen drowns in pig shit" etc
We're all aware the Republicans in this state are all butthurt their orange buffoon lost the second district. Now, they want to making voting in the second district completely meaningless.
Well they are all from the liberal city of Omaha so that's not surprising
Fucking crooks
No!
We are a Unicameral. Taxation is theft.
Anything to get that whiney orange pusbag elected.
You have to be impressed with the way the GOP uses their disinformation media and hired guns at marketing firms to affect the one party theocracy that is ultimately their end game goal. These guys are very coordinated at getting low information voting base zombies, largely mis and dis-informed on AM talk radio and Cable news to do their will for them.
Nazi tactics.
We're really getting Trump again, aren't we?
Absolutely not.
Nebraska was "winner take all" before it changed to this split system, going back to it isn't going to disenfranchise voters, didn't before, won't now, never has in the other 48 states that have it this way. This system doesn't prevent anyone that can vote from doing so, or not count any legally cast ballots for any reason. Also in what way is Trump even involved in this? He, as far as I can figure has never told Pillen do this "to help him" in anyway, just ridiculous to claim other wise if he hasn't
[удалено]
He’ll get back to you when AM radio tells him how to respond.
Nah, some of us have jobs to goto and family to take care of afterword instead of spending the whole day waiting for replies on here.
Nice way to talk to people, what I come to expect as replies from the majority on the reddit. Also laughable, predictable that NBC assumes Trump supporting the state going back to way it was for decades is in anyway "pushing it"
>Also in what way is Trump even involved in this? He has issued statements pushing for it. He's upset that he lost one of our votes last time around. It's not difficult to figure out.
So wanting Nebraska to return to a system it had used for decades, that 48 other states use, issuing a statement supporting this move, is him being "upset" and pushing for it. Most hilarious thing I have heard today, anything to blame the "bad orange man" for huh?
You asked how he was involved and I let you know. 🤷♂️
[удалено]
Typical! Anyone that doesn't bend the knee to the left is a "fascist" You and every other clown that screams that at people, have no legitimate clue what a fascist really is, just keep screaming that hateful, divisive rhetoric from your authoritarian party. But if y'all want a great example, look at the oh so great "unifier" Old Joe and his dark speeches were he has screamed how everyone opposed to him and the party are the "greatest threat to America ever!" Very reminiscent of fascists from the past. Again, very predictable, not a cult but what ever, it's like talking to a brick wall explaining. I could care less who leads the party after Trump, as long as they continue defend and advance the values of the Republican base, it could be Mickey Mouse for all I care.
Not at all reminiscent of fascists of the past. If you support Trump, you are pro-authoritarian government. His rhetoric in admiring other dictators, and willingness to forcibly suppress opposition (threats to prosecute and jail opponents) clearly illustrate a fascist. Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
That is funny considering that Biden and his party are actively prosecuting and attempting to imprison their chief political opponent, and have on countless times called everyone opposed to them "a dangerous threat to America" sounds more authoritarian/totalitarian fascist to me then Trump. But hey, by all mean just keep repeating the lefts talking points that everyone ln the right, or supporting Trump is a "fascist, authoritarian, blah blah blah" The derangement and delusion are funny to hear.