Maggie's Farm

Of course there's this. "Colorado Supreme Court declares Donald Trump is ineligible for the White House." State officials in Maine and California also raised the possibility of baring Trump from the ballot and suits have been filed in over ten states seeking such an outcome.
Then there's banning Kennedy from the democrat primary and not holing numerous primaries. Or the litigation that has become SOP by democrats to keep third party candidates off the general election ballots over multiple elections.
Now we have the fiasco of Biden being dumped and replaced with Harris, who would have never stood a chance of winning a democrat presidential primary.
Of course, there's your fondness of the administrative state in which government employees make law, adjudicate alleged violations of those "laws" then sentence the "violators"
You a habitual liar, full of shirt and only concerned about the abuse of authority or the preservation of democracy when it serves your objectives. Otherwise, your fine with the abuse of authority.

Your concern about authoritarianism is touching. Maybe you can address these headlines:

Washington Post, Nov. 2016: "The problem with our government is democracy" Hum. Maybe a one off. Oops, no.
The New Yorker, Oct. 2016: "The Case Against Democracy." Surely there aren't others. Oh, wait: LA Times: "The British Election is a Reminder of the Perils of too much Democracy. And for good measure, Vox: "Two eminent political scientists: The problem with democracy is voters." There's more, the time, the esteemed Gray Lady: "The Problem With Participatory Democracy Is the Participants"

Why, it's like all you progressives that keep bleating on about saving democracy are liars whose only concern is getting their way.

"What matters is that by saying he will act dictatorially means he is an affront to the Constitution and to the rule of law." No. What matters is whether he acts like a dictator and whether he ignores or violates the constitution. If you had a point here, you'd be talking about what he had done. He was president for four years.

You seem to want to be able to vacillate between him using hyperbole or literally meaning that. Pick one. If it's hyperbole, then your complaint is an absurd lie. If it is literal, then prove it is. Anything short of such clarity and consistency is a bald face lie.

That said, there is very little that one can say that is an affront to the constitution. But if you're looking for such affronts, you would do well to consider Obama and other progressives complaining that the constitution and constitutional jurisprudence is too restrictive of government power. Since that was transparently the point of the constitution.

I'll concede a tiny point. TRUMP and the country would be better off if he were more circumspect and precise with his language. Guss what The COUNTRY and Obama would be better off if he had not been/wasn't condescending, self-righteous, and passive-aggressive with his language. The COUNTRY and Hillary would be better off if she weren't condescending, self-righteous, and aggressive with her language. (The reason for the disparity is that the media attacks and exaggerates Trump's offenses while the defend and hide the left's offenses).

It isn't gish gallop. They're examples of progressive being very flexible about how important democracy is based on whether they like the outcome or not. Published by well know progressive news outlets, including the two foremost in the world. They're one argument for the only premise I'm really arguing. The progressives who go on about dictatorship and democracy are all lying, including specifically, you. You don't really believe what you're saying, or you would condemn the people who wrote those opinions.

Of course dictatorship is opposite of democracy. The rule of one versus the rule of the majority. There is literally nothing else that can be more antithetical to either one.

"One court's decision, based on a supportable reading of the Constitution." It was no such thing. The majority made it obvious that their "arguments" were pretextual rather than reasonable. As did the three disinters. They ignored that Section 3 doesn't mention the president. They ignored the fact that Trump had not been convicted of treason, or even charged with treason, nor had any of the many illegitimate prosecutions against Trump mention anything about insurrection or treason. It was four progressives undermining the democratic process. Which even Sotomayor and Brown voted to overturn.

If you were concerned about authoritarianship or democracy you wouldn't make such an argument and would be condemning the Colorado court.