Again. The specific hypothetical wasn’t the point.

It is what is called an“illustrative” or “hypothetical exemplar”. Ignore the specific example, focus on the point being made:

What limit is there to Trump taking things further? Because Trump has a track record of taking things further.

It is not a randomly improbable premature neurotic conjecture actually about Canada or “Beaverland”. Those are stand-ins for a larger point.

—

Also, a democracy is supposed to decentralize power. The more decentralized, the more each citizen has equal power.

But the US Constitution, with all its checks and balances, managed not to limit the power of political parties.

So the US system degenerates into only two viable national parties, with highly centralized power within each. Only two nationally viable candidates, neither chosen by an actual democratic process.

Just one more candidate, chosen by the powerful, than an autocracy.

We could call this “Minimal Viable Democracy”, as any less democratic would not be democratic at all.

Without experience with a better system, most US citizens are in a Stockholm situation. They talk about their “great” system because at one time it was a big improvement. But 250 years later it is just the flawed system they are stuck in. Better to keep calling it “great”, no matter how many re-centralizing-of-power dysfunctions accumulate without resolution, than get too depressed.

If you don’t like it, there are more options than sitting around for four years hoping another bought and paid for candidate in the two party state will be better.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.

If you don’t wish to commit violence, there are other effective methods to enact change, although in the US the chances appear small.

Personally I believe in direct democracy.