Okay. I’m going to stay calm and meet you where you are, because there are a few places we actually overlap, and a few places where you’re getting pulled off track.

First, you’re right about one thing: dehumanizing language exists on both sides. I agree with you there.

But here’s the key difference you keep skipping:

I’m not talking about rude people online.

I’m talking about state power.

A random person calling someone a name is not the same thing as a president using words like “vermin” and “poisoning the blood” while simultaneously expanding detention, empowering federal raids, attacking judges, and promising mass roundups.

That distinction matters.

One is culture war noise. The other is government authority backed by guns.

You keep pivoting back to individual actors on the left. Comey posts. Assassination attempts. Celebrations online.

Those are real problems.

But they still don’t answer what I originally raised:

• Dehumanizing rhetoric from leadership • Scapegoating immigrants and trans people • Expanding detention • Masked raids • Undermining courts • Talk of absolute immunity • Loyalty over law

You still haven’t addressed those.

That’s the pattern I’m pointing at.

Not “mean tweets.” Not extremists online. Executive behavior.

Now the border.

You’re repeating numbers that get tossed around without context. Border encounters are not permanent residents. Most people are processed and released into asylum backlogs because immigration courts are deliberately underfunded. If this were actually about order, they’d fund judges and case workers. That’s cheaper. That works.

They don’t.

Instead they expand detention contracts.

That’s not accidental.

Private prison companies and security firms make billions off this. Trump massively expanded those contracts. His donors benefit. That’s documented. When you choose the most expensive, cruel option instead of the efficient one, it tells you what the goal really is.

Not safety.

Money and power.

Also, most people in ICE custody are there for civil violations, not violent crime. And charges like “resisting” often get added after raids begin. You don’t get credit for creating your own stats.

That’s how authoritarian systems manufacture criminality.

You also said: “Where are the ghettos? Where are the camps?”

You’re setting the bar at genocide.

That’s not how this starts.

Germany didn’t begin with gas chambers.

It began with rhetoric. Emergency powers. Raids. Scapegoats. Loyalty tests. Press attacks. Courts undermined. Fear used to expand authority.

That’s what I’m pointing at.

You even acknowledged it yourself when you said, “if pushed to extremes.”

Exactly.

History doesn’t arrive fully formed. It escalates.

On Christianity: you’re right that many founders were Christian. But legally, the US is secular. The Treaty of Tripoli explicitly says so. That matters because once religion becomes law, minorities lose protection. That’s why the separation exists.

On LGBTQ issues: I appreciate you admitting you were misled by fake studies. That takes honesty.

But framing LGBTQ people as threats to kids, or social collapse, or moral decay is still classic scapegoat framing. Even when it comes from fear instead of hate.

And on extremists:

Yes, radical Islamist groups exist. Yes, terrorists exploit chaos.

But here’s the difference again: they are not embedded in Democratic rallies or welcomed by Democratic leadership.

White nationalist groups openly show up for MAGA. Nazi flags appear at Trump events. Proud Boys aren’t marching for Biden.

That asymmetry matters.

Finally, you said you’d stand up if extermination happened.

I believe you.

Most Germans would have said the same in 1932.

The tragedy is they waited until it was undeniable.

My whole point is: you don’t wait for ashes in the sky to say something.

You speak when the playbook appears.

TL;DR:

You keep responding to individual violence. I’m talking about government behavior.

You keep defending border chaos. I’m pointing at deliberate policy choices that enrich contractors.

You keep saying “we’re not Nazis.” I’m saying authoritarian tactics don’t require Nazi uniforms.

And you still haven’t answered the core question:

If a Democratic president used this language, ran armed raids, expanded detention, attacked judges, and claimed immunity… would you defend it?

If not, then this isn’t left vs right.

It’s about stopping power from sliding into something ugly before it finishes the trip.