Why can't Trump supporters admit there is something wrong with him

[NuclearEnergy]

You have to commit genocide AND try to take over the world to be Hitler.

You don't have to do either to be like..and there was a time when hitler hadn't quite gotten to it yet, himself.......for the very last time..no one thinks that trump gassed any jews.  If that's what -you- thought people were saying..you were just flat out wrong. 

Look at poor Slobodan Milosovich.  He did his genocide, and I don't even care enough about him to see how to spell his name, let alone make asinine comparisons to score cheap political points with dumbos.

I had to deal with the aftermath.  Maybe that's why I take this shit just a smidge more seriously than you do?

I think the reason many of us identify Trump with Hitler is because he uses similar tactics, rhetoric and so on. After all, history does repeat itself, sadly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that's probably the reason..seeing as how everyone who makes the comparison points to those things specifically -in- comparison.

Kind of hard to find a way to get that across to Wally here, though, seeing as how it wasn't already obvious.

[henryp]

You don't have to do either to be like..and there was a time when hitler hadn't quite gotten to it yet, himself.......for the very last time..no one thinks that trump gassed any jews.  If that's what -you- thought people were saying..you were just flat out wrong. 

I had to deal with the aftermath.  Maybe that's why I take this shit just a smidge more seriously than you do?

I think the reason many of us identify Trump with Hitler is because he uses similar tactics, rhetoric and so on. After all, history does repeat itself, sadly.

It's the association fallacy.  I looked it up, because I know you guys really like naming fallacies.  

A = Hitler
B = Evil
C = Tactics/Rhetoric
D = Trump

The Argument: 
A is B 
A is C
D is C
What people are mistakenly implying is that
D is B.

For that to be true, all C need to be B, but nobody is even trying to demonstrate All C are B.  People just keep saying A is C.  D is C.  And A is B.  But that says nothing about whether or not D is B.  And D is B is what's really relevant.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it's not the association fallacy.  You were just wrong about the comparisons people were making.  That's it, that's all.

When someone comes along and accuses Trump of gassing a jew..get back to us with how ridiculous that is. Assuming he didn't gas a jew...so..maybe wait a few weeks after the news comes out just to make sure he didn't......because if past performance is any indicator of future success he'll manage to accidentally kill an accountant with rented limo exhaust or something - just to fully tighten the noose.

Just to be clear..all this waffling around with trying to find a way to rationalize your mistake strongly implies that you wouldn't have reservations about c and b...so long as no jews are gassed. Is that actually the case? How many of the things hitler did, how many accurate comparisons..sans dead rabbis, are you willing to stomach from our president? Let's say, arbitrarily, there were ten shitty things hitler did. Eight and nine being the holocaust and a good run at europe. Trump could stop at seven..and all of the comparisons would be absurd..?

[henryp]

No, it's not the association fallacy.  You were just wrong about the comparisons people were making.  That's it, that's all. 

Oh man, you have no idea what I've been talking about this whole time.  That's pretty funny.

---

You're argument is:

Hitler is evil on a super serious level.
Hitler took a set of X actions.
Trump took a subset of X actions (we'll call these Y)
Therefore Trump is evil.

To which I said, NAY NAY! You can only conclude Trump is evil, if Y contains some action (or subset of actions) Z that for all people taking action Z makes you evil.

So what I did, was created a subset of X we can call Q, for all X where it's true that if you took action Q it would make you evil. So Q is genocide/starting a war, etc... If you're implying you can logically conclude Trump is Evil with your argument, you're essentially (even if you don't realize it) stating that Q and Y share some common action.

So I was going through Q, and pointing out that they aren't present in Y. Meaning you can't conclude Trump is evil.
----

A simpler example that hones in on the crux of what happened.

You said Larry must be good at basketball because he's tall.

And I said so you're saying Jimbo who's very tall, but only has one leg is good at basketball.

And then you said "I Never said Jimbo was good at basketball!" You're a weirdo.

But your claim that Larry must be good at basketball because he's tall would logically assert that ole One legged Jimbo, who wasn't even good at basketball before he lost his leg to the coyotes, must also be good at basketball. You're inadvertently claiming it without ever saying it.

But it's not true, because of the good ole association fallacy.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

You're argument is:

No, that's some nonsense you concocted in order to knock down, par for the course at this point.

Trump took a subset of X actions (we'll call these Y)

-Therefore Trump took a subset of hitlers actions.  Fixed that for you.  That's bad enough, for me.  Y is a dealbreaker @ Potus. I don't have to wait for him to get to Z and gas a jew.

[Whateverist]

No, it's not the association fallacy.  You were just wrong about the comparisons people were making.  That's it, that's all. 

Oh man, you have no idea what I've been talking about this whole time.  That's pretty funny.

---

You're argument is:

Hitler is evil on a super serious level.  
Hitler took a set of X actions.  
Trump took a subset of X actions (we'll call these Y)
Therefore Trump is evil.

The only one here saying these kinds of vague generalities (my bolded) is you. I'm not saying Trump is evil. I don't go around looking to find evil in the world. That is such a useless abstraction and holdover from religion.

But undermining the press, seeking to substitute propaganda instead, that is concrete and specific.

I'll bet even Nixon, in the throes of Watergate, if asked about the function of a free press would have intelligible things to say in favor. Not Trump. He doesn't think about things like that, probably wouldn't understand it. He is just looking to get his way at any cost - a perfectly good parallel to draw with Hitler.

Of course Hitler isn't the only historical figure to share Trump's low regard for a free press. Indeed the press was not free under Stalin. But Stalin's approach didn't depend on warping public opinion the way Hitler did and Trump would like to do. Stalin was more brutal. He didn't need to win hearts and minds. Thus Hitler makes for the closer parallel.

Probably not possible to break through your cognitive dissonance anyway but please do try to note that I have not said Trump = Hitler, nor have I said Trump = Evil and Hitler = Evil. No one here but you has made such a global statement.

[henryp]

---

You're argument is:

No, that's some nonsense you concocted in order to knock down, par for the course at this point.

Trump took a subset of X actions (we'll call these Y)

-Therefore Trump took a subset of hitlers actions.  Fixed that for you.  That's bad enough, for me.  Y is a dealbreaker @ Potus.  I don't have to wait for him to get to Z and gas a jew.

In the definitions I said "Hitler took a set of X actions"  And then said Trump took a subset of X actions, we'll call Y.  I'm curious what exactly you think you fixed?

---

Oh man, you have no idea what I've been talking about this whole time.  That's pretty funny.

---

You're argument is:

Hitler is evil on a super serious level.  
Hitler took a set of X actions.  
Trump took a subset of X actions (we'll call these Y)
Therefore Trump is evil.

The only one here saying these kinds of vague generalities (my bolded) is you.  I'm not saying Trump is evil.  I don't go around looking to find evil in the world.  That is such a useless  abstraction and holdover from religion.    

But undermining the press, seeking to substitute propaganda instead, that is concrete and specific.

I'll bet even Nixon, in the throes of Watergate, if asked about the function of a free press would have intelligible things to say in favor.  Not Trump.  He doesn't think about things like that, probably wouldn't understand it.  He is just looking to get his way at any cost - a perfectly good parallel to draw with Hitler.  

Of course Hitler isn't the only historical figure to share Trump's low regard for a free press.  Indeed the press was not free under Stalin.  But Stalin's approach didn't depend on warping public opinion the way Hitler did and Trump would like to do.  Stalin was more brutal.  He didn't need to win hearts and minds.  Thus Hitler makes for the closer parallel.  

Probably not possible to break through your cognitive dissonance anyway but please do try to note that I have not said Trump = Hitler, nor have I said Trump = Evil and Hitler = Evil.  No one here but you has made such a global statement.

So here's the riddle.  Ignoring that Trump calling members of the press names on Twitter and Hitler abolishing the press, and I assume murdering anyone who writes anything negative aren't really 'parallel'....what is the relevance?

For example:
I like Pickles.
and you say
Hitler also liked pickles.

I assume that'd be a non-sequitur.  You are not saying anything about me, or liking pickles.  Just sharing random knowledge for no real reason.

Trump doesn't like the press.
and you say
Hitler also didn't like the press.

Is this also just a non-sequitur?  Or are you implying something?  If you're not implying anything, then the 'parallels' to Hitler are irrelevant random knowledge.  But I assume there are implications.  Would you like to share what they are?

[Whateverist]

Did you miss the part about trying to discredit the press as "fake"? Granted most of his supporters already believe that the press in this country is owned by 'liberal elites' or a 'jewish conspiracy', but do we really need the president of the US fanning the flames of their distrust? But he does, and that is despicable to anyone who recognizes the important function a free press plays in a democracy - unless OC you share the same paranoid tendencies.

So let's review. No, Trump hasn't taken over the press and locked up or murdered reporters. But yes, he has done much worse than merely disliking it in a passive way.

[Mister Agenda]

The association fallacy is only a fallacy if the association is irrelevant. An example of an association fallacy would be:

Blaire has red hair. Blaire is a Pisces. Therefore, people with red hair are Pisces.

Surely the subset of behaviors Trump has in common with Hitler are relevant to the comparison being made. If the argument was Trump is as bad as Hitler because he likes puppies and so did Hitler, that would be a good example of an association fallacy. Trump is hostile to a free press much like Hitler was is definitely a relevant association, especially if the list of similar political behaviors goes on.