I’d say it’s another form of the Desmond Tutu quote: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Sitting at the table with Nazis and not killing or reeducating (forcibly if necessary) them implies tolerance of their intolerable views, which is thus functionally acceptance of their views.

That seems apt. Democrat complicity in the Gaza genocide was the last straw for a lot of people, and arguably why Kamala lost. Importantly as well, I suspect Dems will not be trusted again by a large group of the population unless significant changes are made or the party is “Theseus-ed” into a completely new format, if they survive as a party at all. And that segment of the population grows every day as awareness of the genocide spreads and is discussed.

Always a good practice

I think anyone who engages in, advocates, or aids a genocide, particularly based on a perceived sense of racial superiority over the victimized group, qualifies sufficiently as a Nazi.

Based on a brief tour through their (corsicanguppy) comment history I’m guessing BlueMAGA at least, which translates to “I’m a Nazi but I don’t like being called a Nazi”. Here’s an excerpt from one of their recent comments:

Voting isn’t some bargain between a thousand voting groups and one candidate. Let’s break it down.

THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES

YOU PICK THE BEST CANDIDATE

[…]

The unmentioned third option is “If you vote third party or don’t vote at all, you accept the consequences of a worst-case scenario”.

“China’s stealing organs!”

“Oh shit, someone will take my gock for free?”