I think you overestimate the strength of the US's institutions. Barr (Attorney-General) is already showing that he can control federal law enforcement in ways nobody considered possible. Other Trump secretaries have put together a federal police force that they can now deploy at will. Congress can't hold anyone from the government accountable because they can simply not show up or invoke executive privilege and ignore questions. Trump is already significantly meddling with the elections. And if Trump gets his Supreme Court nominee through, the court will be conservative for a very long time, thus stacking the judiciary that way as well.
I agree it's not a dictatorship, and indeed nowhere near one right now, but Trump and his cronies are taking the US much further in that direction that anyone imagined possible. So in that sense, I think we are seeing a gradual descent towards a dictatorship, which will continue if Trump gets another term. I would agree that there would probably have to be a violent event to establish an actual dictatorship, but I don't think that's impossible either. After 9/11, you could see that the US could spring into ugly patriotism very quickly (radio stations were voluntarily banning songs!). If Trump gets another term, moves things along a bit more, and then gets the right occasion or pretext - I wouldn't exclude anything.
I think you have a very narrow definition of 'racist'. It sounds like you would only count instances where someone explicitly says 'I do this because I hate Black people'. That's not how it works. Everyone knows you can't be openly racist anymore, so they use coded language to say the same kind of thing. So when Trump abolishes a social housing law that aims to increase social diversity in neighbourhoods, and he promotes this move by saying that he is 'protecting people in the suburbs from an invasion by the poor', he is really saying 'I'm protecting Whites from having to live alongside Blacks'. That probably sounds exaggerated or simply wrong to you, but don't take it from me, take it from a GOP strategist explaining this exact mechanism:
(Lee Atwater was an important person in the GOP in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. See
here for a full discussion of this quote.)
I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. Norway does not at all stand alone in its social welfare system: you get pretty much the exact same stuff in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, all of which are in the EU, and none of which have huge natural resources. Finland also has the Euro. Similar systems (but somewhat less developed) are in place in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Austria, all of which are in the EU and have the Euro, and Canada (for a completely different context). Yes, Greece, Italy, and Spain would need some reforms to establish the full social welfare system, but what would be the argument why it simply 'would not work', as you claim? And same for the US, of course, to bring this back on topic.
@Marcosdeto - not to call you out, but I mentioned previously that I feel your views of the US Democratic party might come from your choice of news sources. If this here is where you get your news from, then I would again recommend adding something non-right-wing to the mix. This stuff is very blinkered. (Not saying other stuff isn't, but if all your sources have the exact same blinkers, then obviously you're world view is going to be pretty skewed.)
Trump has been talking about having 'good genes' since forever btw. I don't think he is necessarily an eugenicist, I think it's just his way of expressing stuff like 'coming from a good family'.
I‘d just ignore.