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

[henryp]

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?

Your nonsense attribution of "my" argument, ofc.  

But you literally just restated the same thing I had said.  

I said Hitler took a set of X actions.
Trump took a subset of X actions we'll call Y.

And you said "Therefore Trump took a subset of hitlers actions.  Fixed that for you."  First off, it's weird you wrote therefore.  You replaced the variable with the thing it represented as if you were concluding something.  

Secondly, Trump took a subset of Hitler's actions, and Trump took a subset of X actions, with X being the set of actions Hitler took are the exact same thing.

So when you say "Fixed that for you" without changing anything, you think you were changing something?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it boils down to a simplification of hitler to narrative from history.  To most people, what makes hitler bad was the holocaust, and that's who he was.  They either don't remember from class, or were never taught....the seemingly populist corporal had more mundane origins.  That he spent a good amount of time with boilerplate shit meant to whip up his base trying to manouver in an establishment that privately hated him but publicly fellated him for having won a good portion of their constituent demographic even though that demographic wasn't enough to secure a strict popular vote victory.

Oops, I did it again.  Or was it hitler that did that..or trump.  Gee, it all gets difficult to separate.

---

But you literally just restated the same thing I had said.  

I took your pile of rotten straw, Wally..and informed you of the only sentence within it which applied to -my- argument......or to the comparisons which you are calling absurd, and trying to discredit by reference to non-applicable mechanical structures.

And you said "Therefore Trump took a subset of hitlers actions.  Fixed that for you."  First off, it's weird you wrote therefore.  You replaced the variable with the thing it represented as if you were concluding something.  

Because I'm concluding, in comparison of that subset...only that there is a valid fucking comparison you nitwit.  If you want to argue, with me...and not yourself, you'll have to argue with that, not your pile of straw.  If you want to discredit the comparisons made, and not yourself for having pitched straw..you'll need to dispute -that-.

[henryp]

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.

I don't think Trump is evil because he's like Hitler. I think they're both evil because of their behavior. Granted that Hitler's was extreme and Trump's isn't. You're acting as if I think Trump is evil because he uses Hitlerian tactics. I don't. I think Trump is evil because he's a racist who wants to ensconce his racism in national policy. I think he's evil because he's a sexual predator by his own admission.

I don't need Hitler to think Trump is evil. That doesn't, however, blind me to the parallels.

Did you vote for Trump? Are you trying to justify ex post facto a serious mistake?

Excactly!  

So if the argument is D is B because of C.  (Trump is Evil because of his Behavior/Rhetoric.)  What does any of this have to do with Hitler?  You've pointed out Hitler is irrelevant to your conclusion.  Which leaves the question of motivation.  Why would someone bring Hitler into this?  I think it's common knowledge it's done because they want people to make illogical inferences that are favorable to their cause.  Or in some people's case, they just don't realize that's not how logic works.  They're hoping people mistakenly associate the level of Hitler's evilness with Trump.  

---

Part 2, what are the conclusions you are drawing based on the existence of these 'parallels.'

---

Part 3, I don't know what ex post facto means.  Googled it, still not sure.  I begrudgingly voted for Trump.  There was a lot of finger crossing that went along with it.  I don't think it's a serious mistake yet.  Politics is tricky business, because they need to get votes to win.  And they need to say a lot of crazy shit to get votes.  I'm sure in 2008 when Obama said he believed marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, the LGBTQ community was crossing their fingers he was just saying it so the southern black communities didn't get spooked, and not because he actually believed it, for example.

I find there to be a reasonableness to a toned down version of the stuff Trump said during the campaign.

---

I think it boils down to a simplification of hitler to narrative from history.  To most people, what makes hitler bad was the holocaust, and that's who he was.  They either don't remember from class, or were never taught....the seemingly populist corporal had more mundane origins.  That he spent a good amount of time with boilerplate shit meant to whip up his base trying to manouver in an establishment that privately hated him but publicly fellated him for having won a good portion of their constituent demographic even though that demographic wasn't enough to secure a strict popular vote victory.

Oops, I did it again.  Or was it hitler that did that..or trump.  Gee, it all gets difficult to separate.

---

But you literally just restated the same thing I had said.  

I took your pile of rotten straw, Wally..and informed you of the only sentence within it which applied to -my- argument......or to the comparisons which you are calling absurd, and trying to discredit by reference to non-applicable mechanical structures.

And you said "Therefore Trump took a subset of hitlers actions.  Fixed that for you."  First off, it's weird you wrote therefore.  You replaced the variable with the thing it represented as if you were concluding something.  

Because I'm concluding, in comparison of that subset...only that there is a valid fucking comparison you nitwit.  If you want to argue, with me...and not yourself, you'll have to argue with that, not your pile of straw.  If you want to discredit the comparisons made, and not yourself for having pitched straw..you'll need to dispute -that-.

Do you find logic to be one of your strengths?  Is this something you believe you excel at?  Just curious.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think Trump is evil because he's like Hitler. I think they're both evil because of their behavior. Granted that Hitler's was extreme and Trump's isn't. You're acting as if I think Trump is evil because he uses Hitlerian tactics. I don't. I think Trump is evil because he's a racist who wants to ensconce his racism in national policy. I think he's evil because he's a sexual predator by his own admission.

I don't need Hitler to think Trump is evil. That doesn't, however, blind me to the parallels.

Did you vote for Trump? Are you trying to justify ex post facto a serious mistake?

Excactly!  

So if the argument is D is B because of C.

You just keep schlepping this, don;t you?  That's no ones argument but your own.  

(Trump is Evil because of his Behavior/Rhetoric.) 

I don;t actually have to use any hitler comparisons to support my theory of the inane evil that trump is, either. Trump has his own baggage that would have had Hitler looking down on him like a common criminal jew. Parse that.

What does any of this have to do with Hitler?

Gee, IDK, what could comparisons of a person, a persons supporters, and a persons policies with hitler possibly have to do with hitler? You really stumped everyone with that one. We may never know......

You've pointed out Hitler is irrelevant to your conclusion.

 Hitler is -very- important to any conclusion of whether or not trump does hitler shit..what with hitler being the model to which trump is being compared.  Others arguments just don't have anything to do with evil (that would be your retarded argument).  Nor would the comparisons btween trump and hitler be any less accurate than they are even if he somehow managed to be (or more likely was seen to be by alt right fucking sleazeballs-as) a godamned saint.  Most of the time, designations of evil are taken to be axiomatically true. If you don't think there's evil in the potus pulling a hitler........then no ones going to be able to argue you into thinking so, I'd expect.

Which leaves the question of motivation.  Why would someone bring Hitler into this?

On to limp wristed character assassination..as though the character of the person advocating -against- any valid comparisons be made actual by a president of the united states is the person who's character  you'd be assassinating in any of it?  Put down the knife, you're going to end up cutting yourself.

I think it's common knowledge it's done because they want people to make illogical inferences that are favorable to their cause.  Or in some people's case, they just don't realize that's not how logic works.  They're hoping people mistakenly associate the level of Hitler's evilness with Trump.  

Or, they're pointing out valid and accurate comparisons of trump, the man..trumpsters..his followers, and the trumps policies....to hitler and his.  

Part 2, what are the conclusions you are drawing based on the existence of these 'parallels.'

That they exist. That our country is in the sad position of playing with facism, with ethnic nationalism.  How many times do you need to be told this, and by how many people?

Just as many people might consider the actions of hitler axiomatically evil, I take it to be axiomatically true that:
"like hitler, but less competent, charismatic, or intelligent"
-is a statement that can never be allowed to accurately describe the the president of these united states. I;m not even remotely interested in arguing that with you, in drawing it down to a conclusion. There isn't a process, an argument to which I refer in establishing my firmly held opinion of that "evil" in that regard..that's the foundation. Your strong denial that it -is- accurate suggests that you likely agree with me. So how did you end up being a common collaborater - how did you, personally, manage to provide yet another accurate point of comparison?

If you knew the answer to that, the rest would probably resolve itself. Hell, if the answer to that was common knowledge, then maybe we'd stop collectively falling for these shitstains every few years as a species. Now, in all likelihood, you're going to keep carrying on with your #alternative arguments, but I do think you should seriously consider all of that time asd wasted time that you could have spent answering the question above..perhaps a little more introspection and a lot less projection?

[henryp]

This is all so much less interesting than your certainty in your own ability to reach the correct conclusion. Where does it come from? It's intuitiveness right? Things seem obvious, so it must be true? Do you ever worry that some things that seem obvious aren't actually obvious? How would you figure it out if you can't do the logical legwork? Does it make you worried that you are susceptible to trickery at all? That if someone can present something that appears intuitive, that you will believe it, because that's the level you do your thinking on?

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said, if you don't take hitlers actions to be examples of things you consider axiomatically evil then no one can argue you into thinking hitler is evil.  Which seems to be what you're trying to avoid..but, ofc, just replace trump /w hitler.  

If you -are- willing to allow some hitlerishness from the potus..if that's not axiomatically wrong - then again....there's nothing that establishing he did those things is going to do to dissuade you from your seal of approval or acceptance.

Still, you seem so invested in denial and straw that I doubt that either is true of you. You've just bound yourself into a little knot and stand before us arguing something that only a sympathizer could bring themselves to say.  As I opined before, in thread...there were many people who did exactly the same thing you and other trumpsters are doing now back in the 30's.  They insisted that hitler didn't mean all the mexicans were bad, his dragnet only applied to the international bad guy types that were shittifying their™ country.  I'm sorry, I meant jews, jews, not mexicans.  That was trumps. See, he's not so bad, it's just that all these seditious types keep misrepresenting him! Especially that lying godamned global media. Probably under the control of the enemy. Oops, sorry, trump again. Fuck!

[henryp]

Trump didn't say all mexicans were bad. He said mexican illegals were rapists and murderers, and some were good people.

He didn't say anything about legally immigrated mexican-americans, or mexicans that were still in mexico, that I'm aware of. And the qualifier that some were good people, means he didn't even say all illegal mexicans were bad.

I wonder why you think he said all mexicans are bad. (spoiler, I don't really wonder)

[downbeatplumb]

OHHHH...I see, so he's just like Hitler, but because of the circumstances of our times, he can't commit genocide or conquer neighboring countries even though that's what he'd like to do, just like Hitler wanted to do, but was able to because of the times.

Curious how you know he wants to commit genocide and conquer Canada and Mexico.  Who was it he wants to commit genocide against, again, that you've surmised?

Give him time. Hitler didn't do all the horrible things in the first couple of months.

Trump wants to have a final solutions for muslims. It starts by demonizing then moves on to legislation against and then crystal night and the gloves are off.

[The Grand Nudger]

Trump didn't say all mexicans were bad.  He said mexican illegals were rapists and murderers, and some were good people.

He didn't say anything about legally immigrated mexican-americans, or mexicans that were still in mexico, that I'm aware of.  And the qualifier that some were good people, means he didn't even say all illegal mexicans were bad.

I wonder why you think he said all mexicans are bad. (spoiler, I don't really wonder)

..........case in point. Did you really just do that? How, how is it that you were compelled to blithely walk right into yet another trump hitler comparison, directly in response to having it spelled out explicitly for you? The answer to that question is likely to be the same in the case of yourself -and- nazis...who weren't moustache twirling villains then any more than you are now. In fact, it would be the answer to the greatest open question of the holocaust. How is a nation of (allegedly) good people manouvered into supporting or committing atrocity - into voting for or sympathizing with the trumps and the hitlers of the world?

I suppose the simplistic answer would be that a combination of claiming that ones leaders had sold them out and that this other™ was taking advantage of them is appealing. LOL, read up on the myth of german invincibility and how that happened, how the german notion that they had not, technically "lost" ww1 but had been ratfucked by their own government, helped to form their expectations for ww2 (..and at the end say "they're laughing at us, because we don't win anymore"). That, and the steady drumbeat of recriminations levied at a groups supposedly taking advantage of them, yet another thing trump and hitler have in common...as if there needed to be more, but that still doesn;t answer -why- it worked. OFC, the whole thing depended on flak from useful idiots like yourself, trying to discredit anyone who might have called the reich out on it's bullshit long before they could jail or kill them.

Still, why. Why then, why now. Why them, why you? Will this always work? Will we never learn? Is it something intrinsic about us?
/ shrugs

[henryp]

This goes back to the logic thing. You are inferring something that can't be logically inferred, and you have no idea that that's the case. And how could you. It seems intuitive to you. That someone wouldn't agree has you flabbergasted. I don't know what tools folks like you have at their disposal to do anything about it, though.

It's an interesting problem. I suppose you could teach it more in school, but it's similar to math, in that some people are going to get to basic algebra, and their brains are going to check out.