how many of you think this is still about Mr Floyd?

[Rev. Rye]

• You dismissed the idea of fascist leaders being democratically elected when Khem talked about it, saying "A democratic fascist... LoL... Whatevz".
  
• I pointed out that it is, in fact possible, for a candidate to use democracy to come to power and then demolish any means by which he could lose his power once he has it. I should point out this has happened before, with people like Hitler (in 1932, he was popular enough that literally every party decided to stand behind one candidate just so Hitler wouldn't win and he still ended up coming to power), Robert Mugabe, and Ferdinand Marcos fitting the bill. Dictators who gain power through coups are more common, but authoritarians being democratically elected is not unheard of.
  
• You respond that "A fascist leader is authoritarian. He doesn't hold elections every four years." This is despite the fact that A) this does not, in fact, address the scenario I brought up, and B) that even then, many actually do so. They're not free and fair by any means (if they were, they wouldn't be dictatorships), but they do happen. Case in point: North Korea holds elections every few years. They are shams, but they are still technically elections. Does this mean the Kim dynasty aren't dictators?  
  

Where exactly did I misunderstand your arguments?

You know, maybe this is why you made your avatar an Australian King Parrot. You just parrot these tired arguments despite the fact that you don't even understand what you're saying.