If you wish to divert from the discussion of whether free and fair elections is still possible in the USA, and would rather enter the meta-discussion, I'll bite, and cite Wikipedia:
> Godwin's law can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, a diversion, or even censorship, when miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole even when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.
I wonder if Godwins law and such did more harm than good in the end? I mean: yes, Hitler was a terrible person and Holocaust was horrible, but, by putting so much effort into convincing everyone that Hitler and Holocaust were so unique things in the history of mankind you’re basically creating a blind spot, where the resurgence of fascism goes unnoticed because everyone thinks “it can’t as bad as Hitler and the Nazis, right?”
Ahh, so this is how you stifle the warnings and discontent with the fascist capture of the government? The evidence doesn't matter as long as it's possible to derail the discussion?
Let me guess, similarly you apply "conspiracy theory" to anything you want to kneecap, is that right?
