The company didn't violate its own IP, for it sold and shared on free-will terms its own IP. The only laws infringed are related to what the state determined on its own terms about what IP can or can not be shared from a completely private company. What's unrealistic is to pretend to force that, since the product is intended for mass production and consumption. If the defence system of the state has specific technology it developed upon request and pays to own uniquely, then there would have been specific and very clear contracts in place and thus an undeniable violation of IP rights of the state. That's an actual thing and could and can and is treated that way even within the private sector. Why would it have to be any different upon arbitrary government terms on stuff it do not owns nor understands, when there are already perfectly defined protocols to deal with that exact situation within the private sector? Further, the unrealistic idealism is on thinking the government can deal with this better with absolutely no understanding nor skin on any aspect on the matter. This is outright arbitrary and pointless expropriation, a one-way path towards socialism if allowed to progress further. This is wrong everywhere.

He wakes people up with every one of these stunts, this will cause discussion about other executives at critical defense companies and how they got there. It'll also bring into question past removals, like the former Intel CEO got me-too'd (clandestine op).

Beyond those with daddy resentment issues, he drives mad people fighting to stay asleep (or keep the population asleep) as to how regime control works.

People hate him not for opening Pandora's box but showing them it's been open their the whole lives... Their TDS is denial.

I remember learning more about FDRs actions during the war and how he "nationalized" some many aspects. His youth groups seemed very similar to Hitler's (though noble to Americans?). He altered the economy with massive abuses of presidential power. But the people seem to have supported him as the Germans did of their leader. Fascism as an idea was pretty popular in the US prior to the war and honestly I think the US was probably a major influence on the rise of Fascism in Europe. I'm of the opinion that the US adopted many of the same approaches to public / private partnerships that were in place in Germany too. We just don't call it that nasty name. I used to wrestle with this and then I just realized that there isn't really clear and uniform agreement on what fascism even is. Its kind of a useless term.

Today it even seems to be losing its shock value as WW2 becomes a more distant memory. I think the weakest argument against it is the racial one. You can remove the racism and its still rotten. And we've seen many different systems use racism to justify terrible things.

As far as Trump? He may be a fascist but I kinda don't think that's a helpful way to think of him. I don't see him as ideological at all really. He is no where near Hitler in how he thinks/acts. To me he's more of a strongman figure. Tough guy. Business mindset without the ideology. He seems to have some good instincts but also very easy to influence by those around him.

The thing that concerns me is the culture that led to his rise to power. He has always been more of a symptom of rot than source to me. I think the US could have a much much worse President. We are entirely divided in ways I don't see changing and a really smart politician could use this to crazy things. Things MUCH worse than the stuff people are losing their minds about. And this guy could be from the extreme left or right.

I'm thinking of the Return of the Strong Gods again.

Is that a real book title? If not, someone should write it haha