Funny to accuse the other of strawmanning in a comment section under the most ridiculous caricature of what a liberal would like the leftist critique of their favorite color of genociders to be.

I know reading comprehension is abysmal in the US and online, but Jesus christ. If youre going to use fallacies as a rhetorical shield, then at least use them correctly. They're not arguing against a strawman, they are making a conclusion on your beliefs, based on what you have written.

I think you need to read up on what a "conclusion" is, and how you draw one. Its pretty reasonable to assume, from what you wrote, that you think the United States, as a political entity, can be saved. The adjectives are clearly the author indicating their own personal opinion about the United States.
If you wanted to accuse the other of some sort of rhetorical fuckery, then the obvious one is changing the subject.

But if we're doing fallacies then this whole argument is built on the back of a false dilemma.

And to Americans they're just evil too, they just dont notice because they're more competent.

Whats more dangerous, a nuclear bomb or a nuclear bomb that's kind of rude about doing the same stuff as the other one?

Its like youre bending over backwards to avoid discussing the fact that the two parties are the same, because this gross caricature where there is a measurable difference is easier for you to engage with morally and intellectually.