Hitler's regime basically was the second he was appointed, so now your comparison is working against you haha. I guess you must think Trump is some amazing god if he's going to achieve what no one else has in 200+ years with 0 resistance. I'll just let time do the talking now lol.

He took total power like 2,5 years into his term.
So he didnt do it "the secound he was appointed".

Also he didnt want to do it, the fanataical backers of his, pushed him into it, he wanted to delay it.
Whos to say if he wasnt pushed into it, it wouldnt have been a few years lateron?

I honestly dont believe the outcome in the US, will allow for a facist dictator either.
However, alot of that comes down to the belief than when you see a candidate heading that direction, the avg americans wouldn't support him.

Theres alot of americans that still love trump.

I will say, the rigidity of the American political system makes a descent into a dictatorship fairly unlikely. The 22nd Amendment sets our term limits to two and in our highly polarized political environment, another Amendment simply isn't going to happen.

That said, the damage of fascism doesn't simply lie within a figure maintaining power for more than eight years. The damage is done through the ideology, not simply the power structure, and if we look at the traits of fascism, it is hard to not see it rising in today's America. Some examples:

1) A heavy focus on both nationalism and a mythic view of the past.

2) Propaganda, Anti-intellectualism and unreality

3) Heavy focus on law and order

4) Disregard for Human Rights

5) Identification of enemies as a unifying cause, often though the creation of out-groups/in-groups

It is through these traits, not simply through the dictatorship, that issues arise. It is through this creeping fascism that we have seen many horrible acts justified over the past four years and it is within these traits and this ideology, that the danger of four more years of Trump remains.

They are doing better than they did a dozen years ago. I believe that the 1-2 punch of Bernie Sanders being surprisingly (well, for them at least) popular and the new wave of young politicians who favor much more left-leaning policies is pulling the democrats as a whole more to the left then they were at any point between 1990 and 2016.

Best sign for this is probably the HEROES Act, which would have:

• Give $1.3T in financial aid to federal agencies as well as economic support for state and local government as well as to the tribal areas and US territories.
• $485B for the expansion of the safety net, including unemployment benefits and Food Stamps as well as funding utilites payments and training for low income households and a 25% raise in benefits for disabled veterans
• $435B in rebates, including another $1200 stimulus check for each individual.
• $382B for healthcare including covering for COBRA premiums and reimbursing healthcare providers, enhance testing, tracing and treatment for Covid-19 and increased funding to agencies
• $290B to support employee retention and modifying the paycheck protection program. This was also aimed at enabling and expanding paid leave.
• $290B to reduce income tax
• $191B Student loan relief and higher education funding
• $202B for housing-related costs, including the establishment of emergency rental and homeowner funds, extension of the moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures for up to one year and expanding them to cover all cases, not just specific ones like in the CARES Act.
• $190B as hazard pay for essential workers
• Finally some smaller things, like 32 billions for communications (like the US Postal Services), 48 billions pension and retirement relief or 31 billions of agricultural reliefs.

While progressives understandably where riling against the $1200 stimulus check being a one-time payment again, you wouldn't have been able to get anything close to this through the house in the 30 years prior to this one. Sadly, it died in the republican-controlled senate, because it would have been a big step forward.

You are from Luxembourg, why do you know details like this?

Also it's unlikely there will be a third relief bill, the Republicans controls the senate. The americans already have a huge budget deficit and Republican senators are fiscally responsible, many of those senators don't wish to pass another relief bill.

Fiscal responsibility tends to be something that the Republicans use to complain about liberal policies which goes right out the window as soon as they want to get something done.

That said, I believe the GOP has already agreed upon the next relief bill (Referred to as the HEALS Act) in the Senate which provides another $1,200 stimulus check nearly identical to the first. Unfortunately, it also includes some things which will likely create some issues between the House and the Senate. It reduces the weekly unemployment benefit bonus from $600/week to $200/week and this only lasts for two more months (I believe the House bill maintains it at $600 until the end of the year). It provides aid to schools however it conditions much of this aid on the schools physically reopening. It also provides liability protections for business to ensure that they are unable to get sued if their employees or customers get sick (the House bill instead favors employee rights).

Specifically in regards to housing, the HEALS Act does not extend the federal eviction moratorium and only provides $3.3billion for existing housing vouchers compared to the House bill which provides $100billion for rental assistance programs and extends the federal eviction moratorium for one year (and more).

It does seem likely that there will be another relief bill and it is likely to contain another round of stimulus checks similar to the first, however beyond that, we will see where the negotiations get us.

Many Luxembourgers are very invested into politics, and not just local ones. There's a reason why Luxembourg had had the most Presidents of the EU Commission (3, one more than France, Germany, or Italy), has so many EU institutions there, et cetera. We don't have a big army (there's a common joke here that if Germany wants to invade Luxembourg, they'd sent the firefighters from their closest city Trier), but we have great diplomats. The main reason is that because we're a small country, so our diplomats are our main line of defense and our way to get heard on the international stage.

It also shows in our education. For insttance, we didn't linger long on the civil war, WW1 or WW2 themselves, but spent quite some time on the political machinations and motivations behind those conflicts.

And yes, with the Republicans in the senate, I expect a deadlock until the election on that front.

Didn't you watch the Democratic primaries unfold, their main line of questioning on any progressive idea was a Republican talking point "How much does it cost?", "What about choice?"  Yes the Est Dems will do small positive things when pushed, and are better than Reps, being the lesser of two evils (Many are sick of supporting this philosophy as it's a dead end)

Yet they have argued against all the big social systemic changes required to actually help people long term, they do posture for the short term vote with a hand out here and there, but they still want the status quo kept and attack anyone wanting long term change like those advocating for limiting the military, Medicare for All, permanently bring down pharm costs inline with other countries, stopping subsidies and bailouts for the rich, pushing for the Green new deal, eradicating higher education fees with crippling loans and so on

This issue has been talked on forever through the primaries, if you still don't get it, there is no hope in convincing you, you have bought into the BS supporting your view with scraps of decent short term policies supported by Dems in congress as proof all is great, it's not           

Your vote shaming

Voting for the lesser of two evils only gets you bad policy

The Est Dems and Est Reps need to work for the vote not just expect it or they will never change, they are both very similar in that they want things to change very little as the current system benefits the rich nicely, leaving working people worse off forever (terrible/expensive healthcare, poor/expensive education, billions spent on the Military sending the poor to fight and die for the rich, pharmaceutical cost twice as high as other countries, compromised climate change policies that will lead to economic disaster particularly for the poor, over policing to point people don't feel safe anymore, a system that subsitises the Rich and wall street whilst telling the poor they must be rugged individualists)

There's a reason most Dems and Reps senators enrich themselves by the time they finish in office and beyond, they keep the status quo working nicely         

Denying them the vote sends a message, don't give it to them, make them earn it 

You think the US Dems track record hasn't got the US working people in this mess over decades of neglect, you think voting for the Est Dems will improve their performance, you think voting for the Est Dems will change their minds on M4A