RE: Why can't Trump supporters admit there is something wrong with him
June 20, 2017 at 2:57 pm
(June 20, 2017 at 2:39 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: 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 craw conclusions; I'm taking note of them.
(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: 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.
(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: 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.
(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: 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.
There is certainly a debate to be had in the way you relate Trump to Hitler. I'd argue against it being relevant in this case, but the general idea seems reasonable enough to me. I think the confusion is you popped up in the middle of a lot of people arguing a different thing. Took me a couple posts to catch on that you were doing your own thing.
I don't care much for words. I just google'd the stuff, because I get a kick out of everyone shouting out names of fallacies on here. And I don't think my vote was stupid. It was definitely a gamble, though. We'll see if it was a mistake in hindsight in a few years.
