Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[Dill]

(10-12-2020, 04:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, but my main reason for ignoring your response is that I believe your lengthy post is intentionally verbose so as to obfuscate the argument. 

I don't think you disagree with my "opinion" here. If you did you'd agree that someone who just wants to hold a conclusion as "true" should avoid/dismiss arguments that may refute that conclusion.

In any case, I don't see any special reason to suppose a post "intentionally verbose" to obfuscate the argument because it is longer than usual.  Why shouldn't that indicate the poster is taking more care NOT to be misunderstood--the opposite of obfuscate?  We see plenty of "intentional obfuscation in short posts, right? 

You could think of my long post as two different ones that just happened to get collected together into an extended argument.

The first one, supported by explanation, argues that your defense of Trump is based upon a faulty linguistic analysis, separating words from the larger context--in this case a speech.

The second (starts with "best way") offers an extended example by unpacking the Mein Kampf analogy. But if you don't like the word "Hitler," you could substitute the Declaration of independence.