There is a reason that doesn't make any sense: He did it in public, but then denies that's what it was.

If he was trying to be open about it then there would be no reason to deny it. If he wasn't trying to be open about it there would be no reason to purposely do it to begin with.

> There is a reason that doesn't make any sense: He did it in public, but then denies that's what it was.

Doing it then pretending that he doesn't do it carries two messages. For actual fascists, it's an indication that he's will support them, and that they should support him.

For people apologizing for fascists, the denial provides them the chance to spill gallons on ink on speculating about his state of mind and other plausible deniability for their insistence that he's not really courting fascists.

When someone does one thing, but says another, believe what they do, not what they say. Doubly so in politics.

There's no ambiguity in this symbol, or what it represents. Believe your eyes.

> For actual fascists, it's an indication that he's will support them, and that they should support him.

What actual fascists? That is not a large population segment in modern day. And support for what? He's not running for anything.

> the denial provides them the chance to spill gallons on ink on speculating about his state of mind

The theory is then that he made that hand gesture on purpose, intending to deny it.

Opponents would (as you do) disbelieve any denial and then try to use it against him, which is a significant cost. In exchange for this he would be trying to shore up support among the a) far smaller group of actual fascists who b) were previously on the fence and c) would not remain on the fence even though denying the gesture would be sending mixed signals.

There is no gain from doing that. It's why opponents are the ones talking about it. If doing that was actually to his benefit then opponents would want to be silent about it because publicizing it would be helping him to court the hypothetical large group of fascists who would look favorably on it.

> When someone does one thing, but says another, believe what they do, not what they say.

That's kind of the point. Hand gestures are in the category of saying something rather than doing something.

> There's no ambiguity in this symbol, or what it represents.

The obvious problem here is that the Nazis used "raising your hand" as a symbol.

The most plausible argument that he did it on purpose would be as a troll. Which isn't completely out of character for him, but it still has all of the same negative consequences above with the unambiguous implication of "not worth it".

What I have yet to see whatsoever is any evidence that he supports genocide, internment camps, incarceration without due process or the like. These are the things that make the bad guys the bad guys, not some kind of 5-D chess dog whistle rubbish.

Give it a rest.

has he actually denied it? or did he deflect with more Nazi "jokes"?

his neo Nazi supporters have enthusiastically welcomed the success of getting a fellow Nazi in the white house and he has continued to work with Nazi organisations across Europe.

> has he actually denied it?

Calling the accusation a dirty trick is a denial of the accusation.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881536518206218445

> his neo Nazi supporters have enthusiastically welcomed the success of getting a fellow Nazi in the white house and he has continued to work with Nazi organisations across Europe.

Asking questions to neo Nazis is like asking questions to asylum inmates. Their brains are known to be broken so anything they say is presumed nonsense, and they're also very easy to manipulate into saying whatever you want to put into a story.

Aren't Nazi organizations banned in Europe?

Your arguments are ridiculous.

Your "logic" is bizarre and fallacious. It was both a dog whistle and gaslighting.