Republican National Convention(s)

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to try hard to respond to this without making it personal.  What you tend to do is a take a simple discussion and obfuscate behind a long winded explanation, introducing a lot of principles and facts that really aren't relevant and then acting like you proved something when someone doesn't engage in the ponderous effort to actually address every irrelevancy you introduced. 

It's a simple concept, comparing your political opponents to the Nazis or anything related to the Nazis is a charged, and over the top, allegation.  It is done to be intentionally inflammatory and no amount of pontificating on your part will change this.  This is, of course, my opinion.

What I tend to do is contest the reduction complicated political issues to sound bites. The "long-winded explanations" you detest result from defining terms, articulating principles independent of the issue at hand--the things people normally do when they want political discussion to move beyond exchange of baseless accusations and "opinion."  "Obfuscation" is the effort to prevent or undermine such efforts, often by adopting positions ad hoc--e.g.,"inflammatory" is ok when talking about Muslims, but not Trump.

From what perspective could the following principle be judged "irrelevant":

It is not "unacceptable" for Americans to note, discuss and make a case for [Trump/Hitler] correspondences if they are really there.          
It should be unacceptable to acknowledge they are there but deny their discussion.

So far on this thread, you have not really disputed the fact of parallels between Trump's and Hitler's (and other dictators') anti-democratic behavior, just argued that they should not be publicly confirmed and discussed because they are "charged." 

Such an argument for suppressing political discussion appears to separate that discussion from any kind of factual grounding, as if such "charged allegations" were only that, not factual claims subject in principle to confirmation. 

It also appears to dismiss the idea that past political precedents can guide present behavior, perhaps most especially when they are "charged."