And here's the thing though, you can support the same policy for different reasons. From what I understand, one of the main reasons the alt-right supports Trump is border security. The alt-right wants an ethnostate, they don't want more brown people coming to America, and to the actual endgame of the alt-right they'd need a lot more than just border control and decreased immigration in order to create an ethnostate.
That doesn't change the fact that border security or lower immigration rates can also be supported by people who don't want an ethnostate or gas chambers or slavery or whatever. Some people might be concerned about national security, others out of concern for job security, and others by the concern that too high a rate of immigration doesn't lend itself over to effective assimilation. Or conversely some might take that as a better alternative to "decriminalize illegal immigration, do jack shit to enforce border security, have healthcare for all paid for by the government, and extend that to illegal immigrants."
Also his administration seems to oppose affirmative action, which the alt-right (white identitarians) would absolutely favor since white supremacists obviously wouldn't like white people being discriminated against. That being said it isn't a uniquely white supremacist position to suggest white people shouldn't be discriminated against. There is actually a liberal and anti-racist case to be made against affirmative action.
And another reason is that culturally Trump is a figure of opposition to the left... which the alt-right would also support because they are in cultural opposition to the left. Again though the problem is that they aren't the only ones, and a lot of people who oppose the cultural left do so for different reasons than the alt-right. You have individualists who aren't fans of left-wing identity politics who would of course oppose the left culturally, and yet by the very same token also oppose the identity politics of the alt-right. You also have people who aren't really fans of what they would view as a repressive culture of censorship and intimidation, such as cancel culture.
The problem is Adam that the moral accusation implicit in your defense of Robtard's assertion makes two faulty assumptions.
The first of your false assumptions is that voting for one candidate over another is evidence that you agree with them on everything or all of their policies, which is patently absurd. It merely means you don't see a preferable alternative on the table. Now that I vote republican does that mean that I want weed to remain illegal? Back when I voted democrat did that mean I wanted abortion as a form of birth control to remain legal? Of course not.
The second and perhaps more egregious of your faulty assumptions, which I find even more perverse, is the idea that if somebody supports a candidate, that candidate inherently agrees with everything someone who supports them believes and that candidate is the full embodiment of the wet dreams of whoever supports them.
So let's hypothetically grant the first premise and use the example of a person who literally agrees with all of Trump's policy. It would still be ****ing absurd to suggest that person is morally equivalent to Richard Spencer whose ideal of a white ethnostate and slavery is so much more radical than the Trump administration's policy.
So here's a hypothetical left-wing variant of your logic. Elizabeth Warren wins the primary and it's down to her vs Trump. There's a hypothetical full on soviet style communist who fantasizes about murdering all the rich people and establishing a repressive state where all political dissenters are thrown into the Gulag and all business is state owned. Of course they're going to support Warren over Trump, they'd want the state to take over health insurance and impose a wealth tax, it's not the absolute orgasmic fulfillment of their most extreme ideals but it's closer to what they want than Trump. Now take my mother who is more moderate than Warren, but would absolutely vote for her over Trump even though she has serious concerns about the state eliminating private health insurance and taxpayer money funding abortion. By your logic, Elizabeth Warren is the moral equivalent of her most radical supporter, despite the fact that she's clearly a lot less extreme and less immoral in her views than this hypothetical soviet style communist. And also by your logic, my mom is the moral equivalent of Elizabeth Warren because she voted for her in a binary election cycle. Therefore by your logic my moderate left mother is the moral equivalent of this hypothetical communist lunatic who wants to slaughter all rich people and throw dissenters in the Gulag... which is absolutely ****ing ridiculous.
As is usual, you use dishonest reasoning and smear techniques to paint those who disagree with you in the most uncharitable light you can grasp for in order to smear their character.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Actions speak louder than words."I do not support an ethnostate," says the person who votes for the candidate who promises to implement an ethnostate.
He must just have "economic anxiety."
This is why I vote for people whose policies do not reflect that. I'd rather vote for lackluster policies from a candidate with a mix of good ones than one who is a moron.
No compromise.
This is why I didn't vote for Obama. Or Bush Jr. Or Hillary. Or Trump. No drug war, foreign-warmongering, police-state, corporatists.
Pretty much any Democrat or Republican is out.