no need to get all defensive.

Ironically Cap was against just that type of person.

Your arguments rely on constant deflection and inconsistent standards. You accuse others of "goalpost shifting" while moving the conversation to unrelated topics like Democrats, DEI programs, or antisemitism on the left to avoid addressing Trump’s leadership failures. You cherry-pick Trump’s condemnations while ignoring his delayed or ambiguous responses that emboldened extremists, like “stand back and stand by” or “very fine people on both sides.”

You claim changing positions shows "critical thinking" for Trump but call it "flip-flopping" for Democrats, proving your double standard. And labeling critiques of your reasoning as "ad hominem" is just another way to dodge accountability. If your arguments were solid, you wouldn’t need this much mental gymnastics to defend them. Address Trump’s actions directly for once.

"You claim changing positions shows "critical thinking" for Trump" Never said that, explained what I meant more than once. You're lying to me about what I said. But nice of you to say hate and prejudge Trump addressed is unrelated to Trump's behavior.

"So you shifted the goalposts again."

Interesting that you’re accusing me of shifting goalposts. Let’s unpack that. My argument has been consistent: leaders are responsible for how they respond to bad actors and extremists within their orbit. I’ve used examples like Trump’s delayed disavowals, reckless associations, and equivocations to show a pattern of weak leadership. Are you suggesting these examples are unrelated to my core point about leadership?

It’s also worth noting that this discussion is about Trump and his record as a leader. Introducing Democrats into the conversation is a red herring—a way to deflect from or minimize Trump’s failures by pointing to unrelated issues. Whether or not the Democratic Party has flaws isn’t relevant to evaluating Trump’s leadership. Bringing them up doesn’t change the fact that Trump has repeatedly failed to meet basic standards of accountability and decisiveness as a leader.

Now, let’s look at your pivot. You’ve moved the conversation to DEI programs and alleged Democratic racism. If I’m shifting goalposts, aren’t you doing the same by redirecting the focus to completely unrelated topics? I’m happy to discuss those, but let’s clarify how they connect to Trump’s failure to lead effectively.

Finally, you mentioned you didn’t support Trump initially because of his temperament, but you now support him because he 'did a better job.' How do you reconcile this with your earlier critique of Democratic leadership being 'reckless' and 'irresponsible'? If temperament and accountability matter for one side, shouldn’t they matter for both?

Sounds like you employ a lot of double standards and red herrings to justify those double standards.

You where not discussing leadership, goal post shifting confirmed. And you being concerned about a media generated appearance pf racism over actual racism is a red herring, rather it shows you not using proper standards to judge.

Democrats have shown abject corruption and extremis political stances, you dropped this and went "leadership" to falsely accuse me of double standards. The good democrats where shut out by democratic leadership and Trump's stances where once in line with the democratic party.

You also judge leadership a persons by overall performance several metrics, rather than just a few. And the parties leaders' behavior is a separate issue from personal leadership you are conflating. The republican leadership as a whole are weak and spinless and I wouldn't support most of the leaders.

It’s becoming painfully clear that your emotions have hijacked your reasoning. You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend Trump, not out of logic, but sheer stubborn pride. In doing so, you’ve abandoned all intellectual integrity and traded critical thinking for blind loyalty. I'll demonstrate in the following paragraphs:

"You where not discussing leadership, goal post shifting confirmed."
Actually, the discussion has always been about leadership and accountability. When examples were raised about Trump’s failure to strongly and consistently disavow extremists, you shifted the conversation to the Democratic Party’s history and DEI programs, which are unrelated to Trump’s record as a leader.

Ironically, your accusation of "goalpost shifting" perfectly describes your own rhetorical tactics.

"And you being concerned about a media generated appearance pf racism over actual racism is a red herring, rather it shows you not using proper standards to judge."
Calling this a "media-generated appearance" minimizes Trump’s actions, like dining with Nick Fuentes and his history of equivocal statements about white supremacists (e.g., "very fine people on both sides"). Media coverage didn’t create those actions; they highlighted them. If you claim this isn’t “actual racism,” then define what standards make Fuentes, a self-proclaimed white supremacist, ineligible for your judgment.

Ignoring these events doesn’t reflect higher standards—it reflects willful blindness.

"Democrats have shown abject corruption and extremis political stances, you dropped this and went 'leadership' to falsely accuse me of double standards."
You’re conflating systemic issues in the Democratic Party with Trump’s specific leadership failures. Pointing out one party’s flaws doesn’t absolve another’s. This isn’t about absolving Democrats; it’s about holding Trump accountable.

Bringing up unrelated Democratic issues is a deflection, not a rebuttal.

"The good democrats where shut out by democratic leadership and Trump's stances where once in line with the democratic party."
Your argument inadvertently supports the critique of Trump’s leadership. If Trump “was in line with the Democratic Party” but abandoned those values when politically convenient, doesn’t that reinforce the idea that his leadership lacks consistency and principle?

Changing positions for political gain is the opposite of strong leadership.

Come back when you’ve done some actual thinking.

hetorical tactics: You started with a racism charge and asked for denouncement, then quicker denouncement, then stronger, and then actions. Then shifted to leadership. Each shift happened after I showed he meet those standards at one point. You also set it up where changing from racist to non-racist would fail at leadership as well. You're back to the start as if previous refutations didn't happen.

Ignoring these events: I addressed each of the events. And we're discussing Trump's views on race, you now have shifted the goal post to Fuentes. Your still harping on the very fine people hoax as well, he made it clear he didn't men the racists in the same statement. The media cut that out and your using the media created lie to attack Trump for something he never said.

deflection: It's actually showing your own reasoning is flawed showing your argument doesn't hold up aka refutation . The rebuttal is the step where you try to prove an argument wrong usually done after that step, which you ignore several of which.

Changing positions: Trump's positions didn't change, the democrats did. Also if someone doesn't change position, that is a symptom of dogmatic thinking, not leadership. If someone never or rarely changes positions, they don't think critically.

actual thinking: Ad Hominem

Your attempt to frame this as "meeting standards" doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Addressing racism and demonstrating strong leadership are intertwined—leadership is judged by actions taken in the face of moral challenges, not by ticking off arbitrary boxes you set to declare victory. Simply meeting the minimum standard isn’t a defense; it’s the bare minimum expected of any leader. Trump's pattern of vague or delayed disavowals, coupled with his choice of associations, paints a clear picture: a failure of leadership by any reasonable metric.

As for Fuentes, he’s not a shift in goalposts—he’s a glaring example of Trump’s reckless judgment. Leaders don’t accidentally find themselves at the dinner table with a Holocaust denier without consequences. It’s not just about who Trump meant to associate with; it’s about the signals his decisions send. A competent leader understands this.

Your claim about the "very fine people hoax" ignores context. Trump’s follow-up statement clarified little; it was muddled at best, and his prior equivocation diluted the impact. If you’re relying on the media to blame for how people perceive Trump’s words, then you’re admitting he’s incapable of clear communication—another leadership failure.

Deflection isn’t refutation. Rebutting criticism by pointing to unrelated issues like Democratic shifts doesn’t strengthen your argument; it exposes a lack of substantive defense. Leadership isn’t about refusing to adapt—it’s about having principles that guide you through change. Trump’s shifts are less about critical thinking and more about political expediency.

Finally, labeling criticism of your reasoning as "ad hominem" is a dodge. If anything, it’s a plea for you to stop leaning on fallacies and start engaging with substance. This conversation deserves better than hollow defenses of indefensible behavior. Consider that before responding.

Meeting standards: However you try to justify your changing the standard you want each time it is meet, and then pretending the previous standard wasn't meet, it is your points at each turn are either thin or produced from thin air.

Fuentes: Guilt by association, and a thin association at that. Trump meet and had dinner with Kanye West. Ye was the one that invited Fuentes without informing Trump.

Very fine people hoax: Fallacy of division at best. Even with that fallacy need for an attempt for your view to hold water, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally." does way more than clarify little or is muddied at all. And isn't vague.

Deflection: No, it's part of the Socratic method to get you to engage in critical thinking. You choosing not to critically think about your standards and how they apply is no deflection, but strikes at the heart of your arguments and beliefs.

Ad Hominem: This type of argument is where to attack the arguer in place of attacking the argument. That is no dodge to point out, but shows a gaping hole in your debating technique.

Meeting standards:
Let’s be clear—you’re not rebutting changing standards; you’re dodging accountability. Meeting a standard once isn’t enough if the pattern of failure continues afterward. Leadership is about consistent adherence to principles, not cherry-picking moments that barely scrape by. When Trump repeatedly finds himself in situations requiring disavowals or clarifications, the question isn’t whether he occasionally meets the mark—it’s why he keeps needing to.

Very fine people hoax:
The "condemnation" you point to was buried in equivocation, diminishing its impact. Leaders don’t hedge their words when rejecting white supremacy—they leave no room for doubt. Trump’s muddled messaging isn’t a "fallacy of division;" it’s a failure to provide clarity in a moment where moral leadership was required. That failure speaks volumes about his inability to rise to the occasion.

Deflection:
Calling deflection "Socratic" is a weak cover. The Socratic method seeks clarity, but your tactic muddies the discussion by dragging in unrelated tangents about Democrats or shifting goalposts. If you’re genuinely interested in critical thinking, start by addressing the specific critiques of Trump’s actions without relying on whataboutism.

Ad Hominem:
Pointing out flaws in your reasoning or behavior isn’t an ad hominem; it’s holding you accountable. Highlighting your inconsistency or emotional reasoning isn’t a personal attack—it’s part of dismantling the shaky foundation of your arguments. If you want to avoid "holes in debating technique," focus on defending Trump’s actions without retreating to excuses or evasions.

Meeting standards: You failed to show a pattern and changed standards each time instead.

Very fine people hoax: Your argument is the fallacy of division, it's needed to avoid your direct and clear condemnation as you shift the standard. Notice you ignored the quote and changed the goal post to leadership rather than Trump's beliefs. Then ignored the clear statement you asked for.

Deflection: I've directly addressed each of Trump's actions. Each of your points requires a fallacy to complete the argument. Pointing out your incontinency shows one of the two positions wrong. You're harping on it over and over is the only reason we're still talking about it, meaning you're deflecting and blaming me for it.

Ad Hominem: You insulting me personally isn't an argument, nor is calling me emotional. You used that instead of pointing out flaws in my reasoning.

Meeting Standards:
You’ve yet to prove the standards changed. The pattern remains: Trump consistently fails to lead decisively when addressing extremism. Meeting the bare minimum once doesn’t erase a history of weak leadership.

Very Fine People Hoax:
Trump’s equivocation created ambiguity, and his follow-up didn’t undo the damage. Leadership demands clarity in rejecting hate, which he failed to provide.

Deflection:
Your "responses" are full of tangents and whataboutism, avoiding the actual critique of Trump’s repeated failures. Calling that out isn’t deflection—it’s accountability.

Ad Hominem:
Critiquing your reasoning isn’t a personal attack. If you rely on emotion and baseless accusations, expect your logic to be called into question.

Until you address Trump’s clear failures with evidence instead of excuses, you’re just proving my point about his defenders twisting themselves in knots.

On second though lying is too strong, you're clearly wrong about Trump's comment being muddled.

TRUMP: "The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil." (February 21, 2017)

TRUMP: "Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries as well as last week's shooting in Kansas City remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms." (April 11, 2017)

TRUMP: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America." (August 14, 2017)

TRUMP: "The riots in Charlottesville a year ago resulted in senseless death and division… I condemn all types of racism and acts of violence." (August 11, 2018)

TRUMP: "We forcefully condemn the evil of anti-Semitism and hate. It must be defeated." (April 27, 2019)

eeting Standards: I already detailed the changing standards. In this very statement, you changed the standard again to his made up history then you go back to pretending he didn't meet the standard at all in your next comment and the example I showed you of him acting against antisemitism.

Very Fine People Hoax: He clearly rejected the hate. Here's a good example of you standards changing you stated he didn't do something and I should he did. Afterward to move the goal post to act as if didn't count.

Deflection: Again with the hyperbole to rest your point on instead of what I actually said, again presenting clear and convincing evidence of bias.

Ad Hominem: Personally attacking me in the place critiquing my argument is not valid. And in the part below you switch to a "prove me wrong" standard with pretending to know what I think and getting it wrong to justify your personal attacks and offer more clear and convincing evidence of bias.

See the full context of his "very fine people" statement and the utter lack of equitation becomes clear you are more or less strait up lying to support your opinion.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/

Also, another double standard of MAGARs (MAGA Republicans):
It’s curious that you’re defending Trump’s shifting positions as "critical thinking" when the MAGARs base—and MAGARs in general—have been quick to vilify Democratic leaders for so-called "flip-flopping." Remember the relentless attacks on candidates like John Kerry or even Biden for evolving their stances? If you’re now framing Trump’s changes as leadership and adaptability, you’re contradicting a core MAGAR talking point. Either shifting positions is a sign of leadership, or it’s not—but you can’t have it both ways without exposing the double standard - which, as I've said, double standards are the MAGAR bread and butter.

Flip-flopping is where you go back and forth based on convenance. People that where against Trump up to the point he won the election and now suddenly support Trump are flip-floppers. And my point wasn't a defense of Trump's statement, but rather attack on your standard that invalidates changing views based on logic and fact as if it was something bad.

Changing position can be good even done properly in this way. If you instead go bad and forth based on what gets you votes or the audience wants to hear that is bad. Furthermore, someone that refuses to change their position shows a reckless disregard for truth in favor of dogma.

But nice that you to try to apply a argument to another subject to try to shows flaws when you kept saying deflection earlier. next time try applying my actual argument, rather than using an either or fallacy.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ten-rules-critical-thinking-apply-them-atem-a-tangap

Flip-Flopping:
Your argument contradicts itself. You attack those who changed their views to support Trump after his election as "flip-floppers," yet defend changing positions when convenient for Trump, framing it as logical and fact-based. By your logic, aren’t those who shifted to support Trump post-election also following "logic and facts" based on his perceived performance? You can’t call one group flip-floppers while excusing the same behavior when it benefits your argument. That’s not critical thinking—it’s selective reasoning.

Changing Positions:
You’re right that changing a position based on new evidence is a strength—when it’s rooted in principles, not expediency. The issue with Trump’s shifts isn’t that he evolves; it’s that his changes often stem from political necessity or pandering rather than leadership or consistent principles. If you want to champion logical reasoning, you must hold him to the same standard instead of granting a free pass because you agree with the outcome.

Deflection vs. Fallacies:
It’s amusing that you call out "either-or fallacies" while blatantly engaging in whataboutism and moving the goalposts. You claim to uphold critical thinking, yet rely on deflection whenever Trump’s leadership is challenged, switching to tangents about Democrats or the definition of "flip-flopping." If you want to critique my logic, start by demonstrating consistency in your own.

Contradiction: No you're failing to make the distinction of changing your mind for sound reasons and unsound reasons. By your reasoning no one should change their mind even when clearly wrong or be a flip-flopper.

Changing Positions: You're pretending to know what someone is thinking over a shift that didn't actually happen. This is a clear and convincing example of bias.

Deflection vs. Fallacies: You just gave me a tu quoque or "you too" fallacy. You even relied on hyperbole to support it, showing bias in a clear and convincing fashion once again.

You keep claiming to rely on logic and critical thinking, yet your defenses hinge on assumptions, evasion, and inconsistent standards. If you want this to be a serious debate, start addressing the actual points raised instead of relying on rhetorical gymnastics to sidestep the conversation.

I addressed every one.

Your Trump examples, while solid, miss a few elements that you conveniently omitted. This isn’t demanding new criteria; it’s about fully evaluating whether Trump’s record on condemning hate matches the leadership standard expected of someone in his position. The critique stays grounded in leadership and consistency, where his record falls short.

Selective Examples:
While these quotes show condemnation, they omit instances where Trump hesitated or muddled his message, such as his “very fine people on both sides” comment after Charlottesville. Context matters, and cherry-picking statements ignores the broader pattern of equivocation and mixed messaging.

Lack of Follow-Through:
Leadership isn’t just about words—it’s about actions. While Trump made these statements, his failure to disassociate from or decisively reject figures like Nick Fuentes or his infamous "stand back and stand by" comment regarding the Proud Boys undermines their impact. These quotes feel performative without consistent follow-through.

Ignoring Timing:
Some of these statements came after significant public backlash or delay, which raises questions about whether they were genuine or driven by political pressure. A leader shouldn’t need backlash to make a clear condemnation.

False Equivalency:
Listing these quotes as evidence of Trump’s leadership ignores the critique that his repeated need for such statements reflects a deeper problem: a pattern of tolerating or failing to address the extremist elements that feel emboldened under his leadership.

Your pattern is one example. When I showed he did something you said he didn't, you changed the standard multiple times. “very fine people on both sides" refers to the peaceful protesters that where on the left and right, but you drop the context to lie about it with your fallacy of division.

There are four things you just don't get:

Ambiguity and Mixed Messaging:
While Trump explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists, his "very fine people" comment muddied the waters by implying there were honorable individuals at a rally orchestrated by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Critics argue that attending such a rally, regardless of intent, associates one with its hateful ideology, making the "fine people" distinction irrelevant or harmful.

Failure to Understand Context:
The rally was organized by known white supremacists like Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler, and its agenda was clear—opposition to removing a Confederate statue rooted in a celebration of a racist legacy. By not firmly acknowledging the broader context and who was behind the event, Trump’s comments appeared to downplay the severity of the rally’s ideology and its implications.

Tone and Timing Issues:
Trump's initial response on August 12, which condemned violence "on many sides," was perceived as vague and insufficient in directly addressing the presence of Nazis and white supremacists. His later condemnation, while explicit, came after backlash, making it feel reactive rather than principled. This delay undermined his message for many and reinforced perceptions of equivocation.

Perception by Extremist Groups:
Far-right leaders and white supremacist groups publicly celebrated Trump’s comments, interpreting them as support or at least tolerance for their movement. David Duke’s praise of Trump’s "honesty and courage" demonstrates how the ambiguity in Trump's remarks emboldened extremists, whether or not that was his intent.

"While Trump explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists, his "very fine people" comment muddied the waters by implying there were honorable individuals at a rally orchestrated by white supremacists and neo-Nazis." Fallacy of division. What's more you just sweeped up the whole of the counter protesters against hate in your overly broad statement.

https://6abc.com/charlottesville-virginia-violence-timeline/2305769/

Lol your approach of categorizing arguments as fallacies instead of genuinely engaging with them is a clear evasion. Claiming 'goalpost shifting' is unfounded when the standards you're alleging have changed remain consistent: effective leadership requires transparency, responsibility, and prompt action. Repeatedly failing to meet these criteria—either through ambiguity on racism or through ties with extremists—is not about evolving standards, but rather a leader consistently underperforming.

Likewise, your frequent use of 'ad hominem' claims seems empty when opponents are disputing your reasoning, not your identity. Labeling these critiques as personal attacks serves to evade responsibility, rather than showcasing critical thinking.

Ultimately, your chosen examples and dependence on unrelated justifications reveal an inconsistency in your method. If you want to participate in a meaningful discussion, begin by tackling the real issues presented instead of evading them with rhetorical strategies. Misclassifying each critique as a fallacy won't bolster your argument—it merely undermines your credibility.

let’s not act like I haven’t intentionally created a strawman here—your continual application of the same evasive strategies almost invites it." Regard it as less an assault on your viewpoint and more an unfortunate indication of the dialogue you've offered.

You've shouted 'fallacy' like a town crier proclaiming a disaster, but you've never taken the time to consider the essence of the arguments. You’ve moved the goalposts so frequently that they could easily have wheels, and you’ve mentioned Democrats and the media far more than you’ve discussed Trump’s leadership. Consistently, you’ve sidestepped, distorted, and disregarded instead of participating in authentic dialogue.

This isn’t a guess; it’s a trend you’ve meticulously shown. My 'strawman' doesn’t misrepresent your methods—it reflects them back to you with harsh clarity. If this seems unjust, it may be highlighting the empty center of your strategy: evading responsibility by any means necessary.

Here’s additional rope for you. You are welcome to reject the pattern, assert that the criteria have shifted yet again, or blame me for prejudice. We’ve witnessed it previously, and I’m sure we’ll witness it again. The crucial issue is whether you'll break free from this rhetorical cycle and engage in the real conversation—or if this perpetual loop is everything you have.

Pointing out flaws in our reasoning isn't an evasion. That's what a fallacy is, as such is engaging in your arguments. You speak of motives and feeling you made up for my in place of my arguments. You claim that I'm

You talk about what you falsely claim think and believe over what is said, refusing to actually answering my points, such as showing Trump taking action against antisemitism, and resort to the "prove me wrong" standard by wanting me to show evidence you're wrong instead of offering evidence that shows your right. You also keep ring up something I said long ago and then claim I keep talking about it when I respond to what you just said.

And asserting the claim biased off of one point as if saying it enough is somehow an argument detailing a pattern of behavior. And that one point is quite a stretch in and of itself.

It seems you cannot except someone have an honest different opinion than yourself and thus I must be someone how dishonest because I see things differently.

And to top this all off, you got super defensive to such a point I've had you in here for two weeks and you're still defending it... You are who my meme is about.

Must've struck a nerve.

Let my demonstrate your fake mind reading, by your own argument, I must have struck one of your nerves by your week long defense of your point. I'll reject that because I know I cannot truly know what is in another's heart and there are other explanations for long engagement rather than that.

"The left is extreme." well yeah, when you're a right wing extremist, centrists seem extreme to you. So imagine what an average left winger must be to you - crazy extreme. Last comment, promise. I'm not really interested in debating you anymore unless you can grow a pair big boy legs and actually formulate a decent argument - which you haven't.

I'm not right wing. But thanks for making up things for me to believe and feel and attacking me for it.

Predictable. A textbook example of rhetorical acrobatics. Let’s address your points—or rather, your evasions masquerading as points. Your habit of declaring 'fallacy' as a trump card is a perfect example. Identifying a perceived fallacy doesn’t engage with the argument itself—it’s like calling a fire ‘arson’ while refusing to grab a bucket of water. Repeating 'that’s a fallacy' is not a substitute for discussion; it’s a well-practiced evasion, and you’ve leaned on it consistently.

Your accusation that I’ve fabricated your beliefs is ironic, considering your repeated projections about my supposed inability to accept differing opinions. I haven’t 'read your mind,' Calron—I’ve read your words, tangled as they often are. Your dismissal of critiques as 'fake mind reading' while accusing me of projecting motives onto you is both amusing and self-defeating. If you feel misunderstood, perhaps it’s worth considering how clearly—or unclearly—you articulate your arguments.

Your repeated use of Trump’s actions as definitive proof, while ignoring his broader pattern of ambiguity and inaction, is another example of missing the forest for the trees. Yes, isolated instances of Trump condemning hate exist, but leadership isn’t about checking a box once—it’s about consistent, principled action. Clinging to singular events as though they absolve his failures proves selective reasoning, not a strong case.

Finally, framing my extended engagement as evidence of 'nerves struck' is a clever attempt, but it falls flat. Patience isn’t frustration, and critique isn’t concession. If this exchange has lasted a week, it’s because unraveling your tangents takes time. The irony, of course, is that you accuse others of being unwilling to engage while consistently refusing to concede even minor points. It’s a clear reflection of a debate strategy focused on avoidance rather than genuine discourse. If you’re capable of engaging substantively, now is the time—but somehow, I suspect we’ll circle back to the same evasive patterns as you've already proven yourself to do.

Case in point, I've conceded many things and acknowledged the points you bring up. And you fail to acknowledge any of mine. Yours is a demonstration of your rhetorical impotence. I had hoped to help you find your way out of it, but you seem to think that logic is the end of wisdom. Rather, it's the beginning of wisdom. I had hoped that in your last reply you'd crawl out your circular reasoning, projection and gas lighting.

Last post huh? Your pattern is one point, called the fallacy of the lonely fact. And as a fallacy is an error in reasoning, it addresses flaws n an argument. You have yet to even try to show a pattern.

You fail to address this, and argued against your own "nerve" comment disregarding why I said it should be rejected. And yes, you pretended to know what I'm thinking with that comment and assigning unknowable motives based on that, or fake mind reading, and rejected your own arguments as shallow rhetoric.

Now that you're accidently called your own arguments rhetorical acrobatics (circular reasoning, projection and gas lighting are fallacies) maybe you'll self-reflect.

That's the tragedy - is that they embrace patriotism so blindly that they honestly think they represent who and what Captain America is/was and who he represents.

Steve Rogers consistently opposes discrimination and fights for the rights of all people, regardless of race, gender, or nationality, aligning with progressive social values. Captain America was known for resisting authoritarian control, as seen in Civil War when he opposes the Sokovia Accords, valuing personal liberty and agency over state-imposed oversight. And even moreso bold against the MAGA ideology, his actions often emphasize empathy and understanding, such as his efforts to de-escalate conflict and build bridges between people.

While Captain America's values align with the bottom-left quadrant of the compass, advocating for personal freedom and equal opportunity over strict traditionalism or centralized control, he also had conservative values, too. Which, in spite of them being right wing values, it's true-right. Not, True North as they advocate today with their Leader Trump who can do no wrong. I believe that these conservatives are quiet for whatever reason, or are simply squelched out by MAGA calling anyone who disagrees with them a "radical leftist" But for me, those conservatives were reflected by Cpt. America as well.

For instance, Captain America's unwavering loyalty to his country and his belief in the foundational values of America - freedom, justice, and democracy - reflect traditional, patriotic ideals. His origin story during World War II highlights a "traditional hero" who embraces the moral clarity of fighting for his nation against clear enemies like Nazi Germany. As opposed to "perceived domestic threats."

Steve Rogers starts as a soldier who deeply respects military hierarchy, structure, and discipline -
the values often associated with conservatism that MAGA conservatives pride themselves over. However, this respect wanes when he sees authority abused, showing he is more pragmatic than blindly loyal.

Steve’s emphasis on personal accountability and the belief that individuals can rise above their circumstances through determination is a trait often associated with conservative ideologies as well.

None of these traits belong to the KKK, and yet they think that they *are* Captain America, or at least so it seems with groups like "Patriot Prayer" and people who were quick to call others Un-American for telling them that they were wrong.

I've never actually met a MAGA sycophant. It seems more likely your against an manufactured charature than actual maga ideology.

Face to face? Probably not. I (thankfully) live in a place where they don't really exist. However, their existence is noted, and their views are public. Many users in this stream replicate that same behavior, I've been noticing.

I really haven't. You get some common leftist trolls that lie/hate a lot and get reactions based on their continuing behavior. Basically people put on an aggerated air to piss them off and make jokes of aggerated behavior. Outside that, you'll not et a lot.

Byrd’s renunciation is a key difference you’re downplaying. He not only left the KKK in 1946 but spent decades actively opposing racism and trying to right his wrongs. Contrast that with Fuentes who actively promotes white supremacist, antisemitic, and misogynistic views today. Byrd’s journey demonstrates growth and remorse; Fuentes is actively doubling down on hate. False equivalence much?

As for Trump’s dinner, your defense is weak. Even if we generously assume Trump didn’t know Fuentes’ resume, it’s reckless and wildly irresponsible for someone in his position to not vet who he’s sitting down with. When you’re a former president with global influence, you don’t just wing it with dinner guests. The fact he didn’t bother to check strains credulity - it’s hard to believe someone in his circle couldn’t Google “Nick Fuentes” before the breadsticks hit the table.

And let’s not forget, even after this came to light, Trump didn’t strongly condemn Fuentes. This isn’t just ignorance; it’s part of a pattern. Time and again - Charlottesville, “stand back and stand by,” now this. Trump avoids clear disavowals of white supremacists. It’s not a coincidence; it’s calculated tolerance. Hosting a dinner with Fuentes, intentional or not, still sends a message of validation.

Finally, throwing in the "Democrats had KKK ties" argument is a deflection at best. Yes, the party’s history isn’t spotless - but modern Democrats have overwhelmingly renounced and opposed those elements. Meanwhile, modern Republicans are literally dining with neo-Nazis. Context matters, and this attempt to flatten history to score points just doesn’t hold up. You should know better than that.

Superman might’ve been cool, but even he would demand accountability here. Let’s not let dinner-table negligence slide as an excuse.

"You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Charlottesville

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Jan 20th

Nick Fuentes “We saw everybody in the dining room get up and start applauding, and then the president entered,” Fuentes told NBC News. “He greeted us, and he invited Ye into dinner and Ye said that he wanted to bring us with him to the table. So we walked in and Ye took some pictures with some of the guests in the dining room and then we sat down at the table.”
Not Trump's guest and not announce before hand. It is unreasonable to background check everyone that happens to beat an event with him.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/16/exclusive-trump-denounces-fuentes-nobody-that-embraces-antisemitism-has-a-place-america-first-movement-gop/
Strong enough condemnation is an option, if someone isn't liked he bar is set higher every time they meet it.

Your pattern falls part with even the simplest fact checking.

And I never said anything about these thing being equivalent,

That's a clever edit.... Too bad this one isn't...

Any signifyingly large group has bad actors.
imgflip.com/memetemplate/193697091/Joe-Biden-with-KKK-leader-Robert-Byrd

As for the phase, it originates in a democrat policy, before the KKK used it and isn't itself racist.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-etymology-of-america-first_b_5889767de4b0628ad613de3f
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)

You're joking, right? Byrd announced his departure from the KKK in 1946. He expressed his regrets joining in it and even wrote a book on it. But, let's just go with that we're going to say "Yeah, this is bad, in spite of him asking forgiveness because we can't know if he is or not."

It's one thing to have a guy who's been apologetic of it for the last 60 years of his life (What more do you want?) and another to have the *leader* of the MAGA party have dinner Nick Fuentes. Just incase you aren't sure who he is, I'll tell you.

Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political pundit and live streamer who promotes white supremacist, misogynistic, and antisemitic views. His YouTube page was permanently terminated in February 2020 for violating YouTube's hate speech policy. Fuentes has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories against Jews and called for a "holy war" against them, and has denied the Holocaust. He has been described as a neo-Nazi by various sources. Fuentes identifies as a member of the incel movement, a supporter of authoritarianism, and as an integralist and a Christian nationalist.

Now that I think about it, how are these two even remotely comparable?

No, it isn't a joke. You forgive but don't forget or pretend it didn't happen in the first place. The democrat party has strong historical ties to the KKK and you'll still find some support the democrats. It isn't representative of nor do I judge democrats by their fringe supporters.

Republicans has historically fight against the KKK including passing laws authorizing military force to break them up. This doesn't give republicans a pass today, or mean they don't have fringe support by KKK members.

In the case you mentioned, Trump was the diningwithf Kanye West whom is the one that invited Nick Fuentes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/story-trumps-explosive-dinner-ye-nick-fuentes-rcna59010
Blaming him for a invite of someone he didn't know the background of is a justification for hate, rather than a reasonable standard.

Oddly the biggest foe of the KKK was superman. The radio show version raised awareness of he organization and gave a huge bow to the protectionism they enjoyed.

https://www.supermanhomepage.com/radio/radio.php?topic=radio-reviews/070146-fierycross

But again, no need to come in here and say the quiet part out loud. No one was accusing you of anything.

What do you mean?

Oh, just noticed your meme was pretty on-brand for the conversation.