Logical Fallacy

[Scipio]

[Dear Moderators: I am nearly one-hundred percent sure this post doesn't belong here, but I don't know where I would move it. Could you please relocate it for me?] [Sure, seems like fair game for off-topic --mods]

So, here's the deal: I have a relative who has this annoying tendency to try to win/end arguments by making a sweeping exaggeration designed to show the unfairness of an interlocutor's position, often claiming victimhood in the process. To give you an (actual, non made-up) example:

(You would need to understand that he is - of course - a Trump supporter) On a comment being made about the latest "Trump as Thanos meme that the Trump campaign put out: "Well, I think he’s just bragging and being out in the open about him being evil. I think the red gauntlet is a subtle wink at his masters in Russia ... Pretty inexcusable to not vet the memes first considering how much it will be scrutinized. The FBI is probably already opening up a new secret investigation seeing if he is working for Thanos"


Or, on the release of the articles of impeachment: "I wonder if they are going to go after the death penalty for Trump ... Treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Y’all know when Pence’s trial starts yet?"

Or, during a debate on Facebook in which one of Trump's policies was being criticised: "I like his policy. But I guess I'm just Hitler."

Clearly there's a lot of dickishness there, but I was wondering if there is a specific fallacy for that; I mean, obviously there are elements of ignoratio elinchi and straw man, but is there a specific term for this?

Thanks;

[Joshua Rutsky]

This is pretty clearly a straw man argument, in that it attempts to create a caricature of the opposing position in order to then attack the caricature by way of sarcasm or irony.

[Ithaca Cricket Ump]

If these arguments are occurring online, the way to deal with them is simply to post a picture of Ray Bolger in response.