What if he does it on purpose.

@JimAusman In any context, I just realized the description and corrected it

@nulltoken Let us have a dagger between our teeth, a bomb in our hands, and an infinite scorn in our hearts.

WW2 Fascist leader . . . are we including FDR in this? Because FDR gets quoted a lot.

@AndrewHartman FDR quotes will resolve no, this was meant to refer to axis leaders.

@AndrewHartman In what sense was FDR a fascist?

@NicoDelon This is a pretty lengthy argument that nobody is ever satisfied by. Suffice to say that most efforts to construct a precise definition of fascism tend to (unintentionally, one assumes) include FDR.

@AndrewHartman Maybe nobody’s ever satisfied with it for a reason.

How do you delineate between "a commonly used idiom" and "actual recognizable known quote". For example Hitler has said "For what am I to say?" (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-address-at-the-opening-of-the-winter-relief-campaign-september-1942) Would Trump saying that resolve YES?

@MartinModrak Common expressions will resolve to no, the quote must be uniquely traced (i.e. poisoning the blood, comes close but lacks sufficient context to constitute a direct quote)

@nulltoken I don't understand why this hasn't already resolved yes with his repeated comments on poisoning blood.

@MagicBean I think that the phrase and nature of language does give trump some plausible deniability. It conceivably could be an unfortunate coincidence(though this seems unlikely.) To resolve the market to yes he’ll need to use a longer phrase or explicitly connect it to Hitler/Mussolini. The poisoning blood comments were actually what inspired this market.

@nulltoken So "uniquely traced" will resolve yes, even for quotes with otherwise banal content (e.g. "It is now a year since I was last able to speak to you and to the German people from this place." traces uniquely), right?