Care to elaborate?

Those views of mine were developed over years of observation and represent my true opinion of the Republican party. If you feel I'm misrepresenting anything feel free to get specific about your beliefs.

The choice to attack/blame 100% of the countries problems on 50% of the voting population doesn't feel justified.

Fair enough. However why did the republican administration pick a specialist in tax evasion for the position of IRS commissioner?

That in itself doesn't necessarily mean ill intent. Someone who knows what to go after can be very useful, if they chose to utilize that knowledge.

Also, the IRS is big, the commissioner does not decide cases, however it issues policy memos, which have a large influence on enforcement. And these are usually public and or can be FOIA-ed.

So all in all, their pick is very much a political ally, and that he/she happens to be a tax specialist is just a convenient factor. (So that the man is fit to deal with IRS stuff.)

Let me roll a dice through history were one side of the political spectrum has harmed the other.

Republicans are not even close to 50% of the voting population.

Honestly, I'm not sure what this means.

You're the one that brought up "50% of the voting population".

Trump only got 46% of the popular vote.

The Republican Senate majority represents 18% of the population.

They really stand for deregulating business, reducing taxes (particularly for corporations and the wealthy) and stripping down the Federal government to the point of inefficacy. Zelon88 didn't call the Republican party evil, but did correctly describe their political and ideological incentives.

Can you name a Democrat who proudly proclaimed that not paying taxes made them "smart?" Or a Democratic equivalent to Grover Norquist saying he wanted to reduce the size of government enough to be able to "drown it in a bathtub?"

What ever else the Republican party might stand for, they obviously also stand for plutocracy, albeit with a veneer of libertarian and populist rhetoric that leads the rank and file to believe they're doing it for the sake of the common people.

Do you agreed with 100% of everything that the extremist of the Democratic (>insert proper political affiliation here<) side believe in? I suspect you would agree with most of the core philosophy but may disagree on some of messaging and actions by extreme groups.

Grover Norquist's influence is overwhelmingly mainstream [1] among Republican politicians, not extremist.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Taxpayer_Prote...

Fair. But to say something as bold as understanding someone's political motivations, and ideology based on how politicians behave doesn't seem like good faith effort to understand the other side.

Legitimate question, would it be viewed as "not extremist" if it came from another group such Libertarians, or SJWs?

What does "SJWs" mean in this context?

NB: you're not answering the questions asked, but are instead moving goalposts. Repeatedly.

Whataboutism isn't attractive. The extreme groups in the Republican party steered Congress (2010-2018, via the Freedom Caucus) and steer the Executive through Trump. That has not happened with the modern Democratic Party.

So it's Whataboutism when trying to point out others' hate? Maybe it was a bad attempt, but it was a question to show that both sides are capable of doing horrible things to each other. And that the extremists of any group probably aren't the best at accurately representing the majority's philosophical thinking. Both sides deserve the hate. I'm okay with talking about the hate, but can we be intellectually honest and say both sides have made mistakes.

So I agree Whataboutism isn't attractive.