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

[Thumpalumpacus]

What does any of this have to do with Hitler?  You've pointed out Hitler is irrelevant to your conclusion.

No, I haven't. You see, I'm not using these parallels to draw conclusions; I'm taking note of them, and in this thread arguing that there is validity to many of the comparisons based on what both men have actually done that others don't make a habit of doing. Not every, or even most, politician(s) race-baits or uses xenophobic demagoguery. Not every politician, or even most, stereotypes entire selected groups in order to whip up support for himself. Not every politician, or even most, utilizes the Big Lie or the Rant. Those parallels are well-founded between the two under discussion, though. It's as if you're unable to see gradations of thought, and instead ascribe your own Manichaeism to those of us here disagreeing with you, when in fact there's an understanding that there is a matter of nuance and gradation.

Yet you insist on ascribing to others positions they don't hold, and then swatting at those positions. I won't bother you with calling the fallacy by its name, because then you'll just stereotype me as another typical atheist ... because you don't understand nuance.

 

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.  

That may be the case with some folks. Me, I take note of the parallels because "to be forewarned is to be forearmed."

If you've burnt yourself on a stove before, and you notice a stove is on in the kitchen, surely you let the parallels from the past inform your behavior, no? Me, I never have cared for whistling in the dark.

Your mileage obviously varies.

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

"Be particularly aware of what's going on today." We all learn from experience. Most of us are able to learn from the experiences of others as well as ourselves.

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.

Just as I thought ... downplaying his bullshit in order to defend a stupid vote.

I'm surprised such a master of Google-fu finds such a common Latin phrase (it's in our Constitution, fer cryin' out loud) inscrutable. It means, essentially, "after the fact", and in this context, your "arguments" here (and I'm being generous with that characterization) are ex post facto defenses of a misspent vote, I think.