I understand the argument, but don’t find it overwhelmingly convincing. They even start the article mentioning how well respected historians believe he’s fascist, as well as former White House staff.
I’d argue that just because he’s not been totally supportive of violence doesn’t excuse the times he was promoting violence. And I think his actions show he would be more openly supportive of violence if he knew he could get away with it
Huh?
https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.trump-ein-faschist-faschist-und-faschismus-was-ist-das-ueberhaupt.47522169-06e8-46ae-8405-5f50d066894d.html
https://www.freitag.de/autoren/the-guardian/donald-trump-ist-kein-faschist-aber-das-macht-ihn-nicht-weniger-gefaehrlich
The first article doesn’t say he’s not fascist (unless I missed it somehow or it got lost in translation. I’m an English only pleb)
And I found the second article (in English 😅) since your link has it paywalled. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/29/trump-rally-fascism-politics
I understand the argument, but don’t find it overwhelmingly convincing. They even start the article mentioning how well respected historians believe he’s fascist, as well as former White House staff.
I’d argue that just because he’s not been totally supportive of violence doesn’t excuse the times he was promoting violence. And I think his actions show he would be more openly supportive of violence if he knew he could get away with it