This sort of emotional nibbling around the edges of something to cause resonance is one of my least favorite forms of persuasion. It's so hamhanded.

How is it "nibbling around the edges"? We're talking about a man for whom the use of immigration policy to expel or deny entry to people he deemed undesirable was literally the founding of his campaign. It was the issue with which he chose to introduce himself to the electorate. Is it somehow unfair to conclude he felt it was an important thing, and unfair to judge him based on it?

I'm not taking issue with the substance of your argument. The form bothers me. You've worked your way through every possible guilt-by-association tactic there is. It's bush league argumentation.

So it's guilt by association to associate Donald Trump with positions and policies Donald Trump has espoused? This is the "stop making him look bad by reporting exactly what he said" debacle from the campaign all over again.

Yes, if you imply that Donald trump is guilty of actions those associated with him have taken, you are using guilt by association. It's definitional!

I understand that you feel strongly about this, but it's not illegal to hate someone. If there are people being threatened or harmed, we do have police and the general rule of law to handle those things. It's not like trump runs the government now!

Despite emotional currents we are mostly peaceful domestically. Our institutions are still democratic in nature. Trump has to share power with the other pillars of government.

We are very, very far from anything resembling naziism. No amount of hatred expressed in speech is equivalent. Action is required.

I'm not doing any gymnastics. I suspect you believe me to be a trump supporter, but I'm more like a grief counselor helping people like you work through the stages by keeping you grounded in reality.

So, repeating my question: is it "guilt by association" to say that when someone openly and loudly makes the favored policies of racist xenophobes into a centerpiece of his campaign, he's going to end up getting the support and votes of racist xenophobes? Is it unfair to question why he chose to openly and loudly make those policies a centerpiece of his campaign? Is it unfair to ask whether he was courting the votes of the racist xenophobes?

If someone loudly campaigned on a promise of, say, amnesty for immigrants who have no criminal record or who were brought here as children, would you call it unfair to conclude that the person was either courting the vote of immigrants and their sympathizers, or was an immigrant or sympathizer? Would you call that "bush league" and "guilt by association"?

Or does this standard magically only apply when it's Donald Trump?

I'm not sure I understand you clearly. Are you saying that Donald Trump is guilty because of who supported him, and that's not invoking guilt by association?

I'm saying that given the direct, plain and obvious connection between the policies he advocated for, and the groups who supported him, it is reasonable to ask whether it was his intent to court the support of those groups.

I notice you also haven't answered my question: does your sudden intense desire to pick apart any argument I make apply to all arguments, or only -- by complete coincidence -- to arguments made with respect to Donald Trump?

I have no intense desire. I'm simply bored on the internet and long ago accepted that trump had the election in hand.

I also have no obligation to detail to you which arguments I challenge. Sorry.