Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[Dante Alighieri]

I voted for Trump because it would piss people off. He became president and pissed a ton of people off, and continues to do so.

I am happy and will vote for him again.

 

[Gehenna]

I voted for Trump because it would piss people off. He became president and pissed a ton of people off, and continues to do so.

I am happy and will vote for him again.

I voted for Trump because he was the least terrible of a set of terrible options presented to me. He has since met with my continued approval on policy and actions. There are, of course, instances I disagree with him, but that is the nature of our representative republic. He represents everyone who voted for him and must acknowledge and extend a hand to those who did not.
Do I like him as a person? Fuck. No. He is a lecherous, adulterous, boastful, arrogant, frankly degenerate asshat. BUT, he is also cunning, intelligent, principled, and wise enough to know he does not know everything and thus surrounds himself with people who know what he does not.
I do not like him as a person, but I can acknowledge and respect his capabilities and also acknowledge his personal failings have no effect on his ability to do his job.

 

[Ghostse]

I guess. I just didn't want to see the thread cluttered with some of the back and forth crap with certain users. I also think you're coming a little too hard on the guy compared to other people that really like flinging muck around. I say just let it go.

I have a list of at least 20 solid points, with supporting graphs, that prove not only are you completely wrong, but also that all your posts are objectively appalling, and that your waifu is garbage. I have these outlined points color coded and typed up in a MLA-format, but I won't post them here as there is a difference between shooting the shit and starting a proverbial shit-storm. But its fine if people want to DM me to discus Verissimus' utterly appalling posting career & the evidence I have of his mime fetish, so my points won't be subject to public scrutiny.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Did Stormy ever release her super top secret dvd of her getting boned by Mr Prez during shark week, or did Avenatti “forget” the combination to his safe after the checks started to bounce?

No. She lost her case, mostly due to Avenatti being a shithead.

 

[verissimus]

I have a list of at least 20 solid points, with supporting graphs, that prove not only are you completely wrong, but also that all your posts are objectively appalling, and that your waifu is garbage. I have these outlined points color coded and typed up in a MLA-format, but I won't post them here as there is a difference between shooting the shit and starting a proverbial shit-storm. But its fine if people want to DM me to discus Verissimus' utterly appalling posting career & the evidence I have of his mime fetish, so my points won't be subject to public scrutiny.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

I can't believe that even for a split second I thought you were being serious, and then I read past the first clause. Good way to start the morning.

 

[SBG]

Mattis and a few others tried lecturing Trump in the past on why globalism is great and NATO countries didn’t have to pay for their own defense. Trump’s response:

http://archive.is/mqDzY

 

[Malodorous Merkin]

Mattis and a few others tried lecturing Trump in the past on why globalism is great and NATO countries didn’t have to pay for their own defense. Trump’s response:View attachment 1102294

http://archive.li/mqDzY

There's the spin I knew would be there.

What happened inside the Tank that day crystallized the commander in chief’s berating, derisive and dismissive manner, foreshadowing decisions such as the one earlier this month that brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran.

We were at the brink of Whirled Whore ThREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Were we? Were we really?



Yeah, and then Trump kicked over a shit buck, and gold coins spilled out.

So it looks like Trump knows dopes when he sees them.

 

[Bass]

I was gonna ask why Pelosi's never run for president but then a look at Wikipedia tells me she's third in line for the job behind Trump and Pence and it all made sense. Then again, would not be shocked if she was parachuted in as the Democrat nominee and this whole impeachment lark is just a way to make her a hero figure to Democrat voters or she's laying the groundwork for a 2024 run cause she knows Trump has got 2020 in the bag.

She probably never ran because Presidents are usually ex governors or senators, with the occasional general thrown into the mix back in the day. The last house member towin the presidency was I think Hayes in the 1880s. Before him waas Polk, in the 1840s and I think thats it. Unless you count Ford but he was never elected- he just kind of ascended upwards.

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Mattis and a few others tried lecturing Trump in the past on why globalism is great and NATO countries didn’t have to pay for their own defense. Trump’s response:View attachment 1102294

http://archive.li/mqDzY

They are a bunch of dopes and babies though

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

Mattis and a few others tried lecturing Trump in the past on why globalism is great and NATO countries didn’t have to pay for their own defense. Trump’s response:View attachment 1102294

http://archive.li/mqDzY

See this, this is why I voted for the guy. If you want some assholes fucked, you gotta get a dick for the job.

 

[heyitsmike]

Stir that pot Mr. President. Stir. That. Pot.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

Like any public figure who's in a position of power, I separate the man from the office as much as possible.

Do I think he's a blowhard who's used his gutter instincts to go toe to toe with the NYC mob and come out ahead on the real estate market? Yeah. Those gutter instincts are just fine for a politician to have and take into political dogfights. Do I think his haircut is stupid. Yes. But that doesn't matter. Does he say some embarassing shit on the world stage? Yeah, but that's fine, at least it's off teleprompter and you don't wonder if that's how he feels, so I'm fine with it even though it makes me cringe. Do I think he's a racist? Nope. I think he's reacted to things that other people tar him with the racism brush over, but what do I give a fuck? His political policies have been decidedly good for Black America in a way that no other leader has done before.

Not even the banging a porn star and other chicks while his wife was 8+ months pregnant and then recovering from giving birth bothers me. Why? Because that's between him and his wife, and to be honest, I'm pretty sure how that went. He came home with big dick gorilla energy after power-bombing some other real estate developer and dragging his swollen nuts across his defeated rivals face, looked at his wife and went "I'M FUCKING HORNY! RAWR!" and she crossed her legs and went "Bang that fucking porn star, my fucking pussy hurts from squeezing out a cantelope" and everyone was happy, including the porn star when the check cleared.

Do I think it matters? No. JFK bent Marilyn Monroe over the desk in the Oval Office and fucked her raw in her asshole and the Dems didn't care then.

There's plenty of shit about him I don't like. But looking at his political records, he's over the 50% line of agree/disagree and I'm willing to support him on that.

The fact he makes all the creatures from the soy lagoon reeeeee and shit themselves is icing on the cake.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect in the way the left zeitgeist sees the world and everyone else sees it, and this little autism with @Trimmed Archer sort of exemplifies it. It all comes down to the old saying:

"Separate the art from the artist"

and I don't think the left-leaning brain can do that, it is needed to maintain ideological consistency for some reason.

Granted, in the last few years, you see the right using a lot of the same tactics, but generally the right has been "hate the artist for his degenerate art", while the left has been "hate the art because the artist is degenerate".

Maybe it's just that the left ideology has become so severely black and white, who knows, but "hate the art because of the artist" filters into every assessment.

"House of Cards is shit because Kevin Spacey was in it"
"Trump's policy X is shit because Trump implemented it"
"Bombing Syria is bad because Trump did it"

and the opposite side:
"Governor Northam's behaviour in the past can be ignored since he is a Democrat [i.e. a good person]"
"Schiff holding star chamber, soviet-style trials is all well and good since Schiff is a Democrat"
"Mother who slits the throats of her babies is innocent since she is a victim [i.e. one of my people]"
"Bombing Syria is good because Obama did it"

It all comes down to: If the person is in my ideological cohort (even in principle) then they are good and their actions are either good, or at worst excusable. If the person is not in my ideological cohort, then they are bad and their actions are either evil or only tangentially, accidentally productive".

At a personal level, I don't like Trump at all, and also thought he would be utterly incompetent as a president. Turns out, I'm pleasantly surprised at all the good he's been doing, and am also really enjoying how he makes everyone else chimp right the fuck out. It will be very sad when politics returns to the normalcy of utter corruption of the most inanely vanilla and boring kind.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

Stir that pot Mr. President. Stir. That. Pot.
View attachment 1102393

Bernie Bros are gonna be like "He's right but I don't want him to be the one to say it."

 

[verissimus]

Stir that pot Mr. President. Stir. That. Pot.
View attachment 1102393

Trump's audacity and brazeness never ceases to impress me.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Thankfully, I had previously taken the initiative to ask @Trimmed Archer in PMs what problems he has with Trump. To be frank, you guys are not missing much. It's just standard anti-Trump mainstream media article regurgitating. I really don't understand why he thinks any of that will cause a shitstorm here; maybe he's just an intellectual coward. Maybe he senses his arguments are weak so he doesn't want to expose them to open criticism and ridicule.

I begin the correspondence with:

Why do you think [Trump's] presidency is "appalling"?

He answers:

Thank you for taking this away from the thread. Sorry but I'm hard-pressed to respond in time because of a busy schedule.

My reasons for Trump's presidency being appalling are many and very variegated but I'll start by giving a few examples below:

• His presidential style. It is uncompromising and results in many political gridlocks; namely the 115th United States Congress, where was scant few legislative accomplishments, despite the Republicans controlling both houses of congress.
•His domestic policies. They had bad ramifications for social rights such as abortion, as well as the economy (e.g. hurting agriculture due to the disputes with China.)
•His Interaction with media. I don't mind him being abrasive towards the mainstream media or his preferences for vocalizing his concerns on the new media (Twitter), but he does that with many lies that salts my confidence in his presidency.

There are much more but that's like writing entire dissertation.

You had mentioned that you saw nothing but good things from his presidency. I am happy to hear those out so that we can pick up the pace from there on out.

I respond:

Trump has gotten us out of terrible trading systems that fucked over the US, shown the terrorist state of Iran as the paper tiger that is truly was, has shown the true colors of the left, caused unemployment to go down to historic lows, somehow reigned in the Federal Reserve Bank so that the economy could improve, etc.

• His presidential style. It is uncompromising and results in many political gridlocks; namely the 115th United States Congress, where was scant few legislative accomplishments, despite the Republicans controlling both houses of congress.

Why compromise with people willing to fuck you over and obstruct you at every term, like the Democrats and the neoconservative Republicans (who are really one and the same at this point)?

•His domestic policies. They had bad ramifications for social rights such as abortion, as well as the economy (e.g. hurting agriculture due to the disputes with China.)

I frankly don't care much about the "social right" of abortion, and the immoderately exaggerated pain that the agriculture industry and "muh farmers" is feeling due to the US-China trade war is honestly an acceptable short-term loss for a long-term win, if not a manufactured media narrative altogether.

The farmers look to stick by Trump regardless anyway.

•His Interaction with media. I don't mind him being abrasive towards the mainstream media or his preferences for vocalizing his concerns on the new media (Twitter), but he does that with many lies that salts my confidence in his presidency.

What lies? If he tells a joke, that's fine. If he exaggerates and bloviates, I don't care. A meme? I could care less. I wouldn't care that much regardless because action speaks louder than talk, and Trump has done a lot of actions that make it clear that, unlike most career politicians, he really does care for America.

He responds back with:

Trump has gotten us out of terrible trading systems that fucked over the US, shown the terrorist state of Iran as the paper tiger that is truly was, has shown the true colors of the left, caused unemployment to go down to historic lows, somehow reigned in the Federal Reserve Bank so that the economy could improve, etc.

I can concede on Iran, but that tiger already ran on toilet paper even before the assassination of Qassim Soleimani. As for the Left, I can vouch for the fact that they'd show their deranged attitude with or without Trump assuming presidency. But let's get into the getting-out-of bad trading systems, the unemployment rate and reigning in the Federal Reserve.

I'll assume that the idea of Trump pulling the US out of bad trade deals concerns itself with the tariffs on China. I don't see how pulling out of the existing structures bore any boons for the US economy. You have countless, studies demonstrating that Trump's trade war harmed the U.S. economy, with U.S. consumers bearing the brunt of the cost.

The unemployment record lows are mostly a carry-over from the Obama administration. You can check the unemployment rate here and see that the unemployment decline is a carry-over from what already was.

Why compromise with people willing to fuck you over and obstruct you at every term, like the Democrats and the neoconservative Republicans (who are really one and the same at this point)?

So what, you want him to be a dictator without checks and unlimited powers to boot? My example explored here shows that the failing to consider the interests of other people results of fighting with and between the two parties resulted in few gains despite how much power Trump wielded at that point. Surely you cannot see that as a positive?

I frankly don't care much about the "social right" of abortion, and the immoderately exaggerated pain that the agriculture industry and "muh farmers" is feeling due to the US-China trade war is honestly an acceptable short-term loss for a long-term win, if not a manufactured media narrative altogether.

The farmers look to stick by Trump regardless anyway.

Okay, fine. You don't care about what affects half of the US population and put the very rights of those under question. That's a topic in of itself. Regardless the example of the farmers has many "ifs". Them sticking by Trump is fine, but this does not by itself suggest that there will be long-term gains for this industry. At the same time the administrations response to research highlighting the negative effects of tariffs has been less than amicable. Which is part of my larger concern of Trump steering the wheel for a more authoritarian form of government in the US.

What lies? If he tells a joke, that's fine. If he exaggerates and bloviates, I don't care. A meme? I could care less. I wouldn't care that much regardless because action speaks louder than talk, and Trump has done a lot of actions that make it clear that, unlike most career politicians, he really does care for America.

I hate to be that guy, but Trump's track record of lying has a bloating Wikipedia entry. I know you'll dismiss some of the sources out from the start, but the fact remains that he has a track record of stating misleading, false or half-true statements that exceed the amounts exercised by any typical politician. I would agree that actions speak louder than words, but I see his utilization of lies as an action of itself that legitimizes lying at every turn. The long-term ramifications of this kind of attitude. And I do not see how a lot of actions showcase his care for America. It'd seem indifferent at best.

Would you like to explore other issues, dig into these, or do both at once?

I will reply here, since I will no longer indulge Trimmed Archer's cowardice by responding in PMs:

I see why you didn't want to bring this stuff into the open, since your entire series of points are just regurgitated anti-Trump talking points.

I can concede on Iran, but that tiger already ran on toilet paper even before the assassination of Qassim Soleimani.

Yeah maybe, but it wasn't as clearly shown yet as it is now. Many people clearly showed genuine belief that Iran was some serious threat to the US.

Also, Qassem Soleimani wasn't "assassinated". He was killed in response to an Iran-backed Iraqi militia attack on a US embassy in Iraq.

I'll assume that the idea of Trump pulling the US out of bad trade deals concerns itself with the tariffs on China. I don't see how pulling out of the existing structures bore any boons for the US economy. You have countless, studies demonstrating that Trump's trade war harmed the U.S. economy, with U.S. consumers bearing the brunt of the cost.

Well you assumed wrong. I was thinking more getting us out of NAFTA and replacing it with the USMCA.

Regardless, you talk of all these "countless studies" that show that US consumers are suffering under the US-China trade war. Yet China is already hunkering down to sign a trade deal with Trump over it, which it wouldn't do if it wasn't taking the brunt of the trade war, and therefore had the leverage to just walk away.

I think those "studies" are misrepresenting quite a few things. I do find it noticeable that so many are denying basic economic realities, and are essentially arguing that trade tariffs don't work, because Drumpf.

The unemployment record lows are mostly a carry-over from the Obama administration. You can check the unemployment rate here and see that the unemployment decline is a carry-over from what already was.

The same administration that said this:

Is somehow responsible for the lessening of unemployment.

I don't think so.

I'm going to take a guess and say that any shrinkage of unemployment pre-2017 happened in spite of Obama, not because of him, and that the unemployment rate would have become stagnant while remaining relatively high, or even increased, if not for Trump.

So what, you want him to be a dictator without checks and unlimited powers to boot? My example explored here shows that the failing to consider the interests of other people results of fighting with and between the two parties resulted in few gains despite how much power Trump wielded at that point. Surely you cannot see that as a positive?

>Trump shouldn't comprise with people completely unwilling to comprise with him
>lmao do you want Trump to be a dictator

What the fuck is this straw-man bullshit?

Okay, fine. You don't care about what affects half of the US population and put the very rights of those under question. That's a topic in of itself.

I just don't think abortion is nearly an important an issue as everything else right now, like the effects multinational corporations have on online discourse.

Regardless the example of the farmers has many "ifs". Them sticking by Trump is fine, but this does not by itself suggest that there will be long-term gains for this industry. At the same time the administrations response to research highlighting the negative effects of tariffs has been less than amicable. Which is part of my larger concern of Trump steering the wheel for a more authoritarian form of government in the US.

>Trump is being mean to the intellectual prostitutes that are economists
>this is another part of Trump directing the US towards authoritarianism

Literally what the fuck is this hysterical bullshit?

I hate to be that guy, but Trump's track record of lying has a bloating Wikipedia entry.

Well you are now that guy, because Wikipedia is a garbage source for modern politics. It's basically a far left blog in terms of accuracy in that field, just with a pretense of neutrality.

I know you'll dismiss some of the sources out from the start, but the fact remains that he has a track record of stating misleading, false or half-true statements that exceed the amounts exercised by any typical politician.

This turgid nonsense can only really be mouthed because nobody has yet gone down to collect the all of the lies (real or perceived) of any other politician. Yet because political "fact-checkers" obsess themselves over Trump, and sites like PolitiFact and Snopes wheedle and twist with their interpretations of Trump's statements to make them sound false, it becomes "obvious" that Trump is somehow a worse liar than any average politician.

I would agree that actions speak louder than words, but I see his utilization of lies as an action of itself that legitimizes lying at every turn. The long-term ramifications of this kind of attitude.

>the long-term ramifications of politicians lying


Even if we assumed that Trump lies as much as Wikipedia says he does, you have to be a complete mongoloid to not notice that lying is standard in politics. Trump lying, even if he does it as much Wikipedia claims he does, isn't new or unprecedented, and you acting like it is, is either disingenuous or plain retarded.

And I do not see how a lot of actions showcase his care for America. It'd seem indifferent at best.

That's because you conflate "deep, multidimendional understanding of politics domestic, foreign, and global" with "ability to regurgitate mainstream news media headlines".

Would you like to explore other issues, dig into these, or do both at once?

I'm not sure how fruitful that will prove when your understanding of politics is barely above Twitter level.

 

[Jarolleon]

Mattis and a few others tried lecturing Trump in the past on why globalism is great and NATO countries didn’t have to pay for their own defense. Trump’s response:View attachment 1102294

http://archive.li/mqDzY

"You know who else berated his generals like that? Hitler!"-The MSM, probably.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect in the way the left zeitgeist sees the world and everyone else sees it, and this little autism with @Trimmed Archer sort of exemplifies it. It all comes down to the old saying:

"Separate the art from the artist"

and I don't think the left-leaning brain can do that, it is needed to maintain ideological consistency for some reason.

Granted, in the last few years, you see the right using a lot of the same tactics, but generally the right has been "hate the artist for his degenerate art", while the left has been "hate the art because the artist is degenerate".

Maybe it's just that the left ideology has become so severely black and white, who knows, but "hate the art because of the artist" filters into every assessment.

"House of Cards is shit because Kevin Spacey was in it"
"Trump's policy X is shit because Trump implemented it"
"Bombing Syria is bad because Trump did it"

and the opposite side:
"Governor Northam's behaviour in the past can be ignored since he is a Democrat [i.e. a good person]"
"Schiff holding star chamber, soviet-style trials is all well and good since Schiff is a Democrat"
"Mother who slits the throats of her babies is innocent since she is a victim [i.e. one of my people]"
"Bombing Syria is good because Obama did it"

It all comes down to: If the person is in my ideological cohort (even in principle) then they are good and their actions are either good, or at worst excusable. If the person is not in my ideological cohort, then they are bad and their actions are either evil or only tangentially, accidentally productive".

At a personal level, I don't like Trump at all, and also thought he would be utterly incompetent as a president. Turns out, I'm pleasantly surprised at all the good he's been doing, and am also really enjoying how he makes everyone else chimp right the fuck out. It will be very sad when politics returns to the normalcy of utter corruption of the most inanely vanilla and boring kind.

It's because everything issues from one's character in this worldview. So if you align yourself with the wrong side of history it's because of some deep character flaw, which colors every other action of yours and makes even the most apparently benevolent of these suspect.

Look at how quick they are to call people "incels" and "pissbabies" and "shitty people", they clearly believe that non-woke opinions maintained despite their best efforts are only the result of selfishness and perversity; the desire to see others run down for your own profit because you're scared that they'd surpass you in a just world. There's a mediocre YA series I came across in the late 2000s that illustrates this mentality called the Power of the Five. Essentially demons who feed off negative emotions called the Old Ones manipulate rich people and other assholes to multiply the suffering in the world, and they back the Republicans (yes, really). They tried to take over the world directly 10,000 years ago (because fuck you and your archaeology) and were thwarted, and now our thinly veiled Planeteer ripoffs (who are reincarnations of the original thwarters) have to stop their next attempt.

By the way, was Shitlord actually used unironically at one point as an insult? Because that might be an insight into their "large scale cycle of abuse" view of history.

 

[Baby Jane Hudson]

Alan Deshowitz and and Ken Starr are going to be representing Trump in the impeachment farce....I mean trial. All he needs now is to have Trey Gowdy join the team and he'd have a better legal team than OJ had.

 

[Chaptersevenbankruptcy]

Vox accuses NPR of sanitizing their coverage of a Trump rally:

https://archive.is/ekUUg

On Twitter, Georgetown University public affairs professor Don Moynihan noted that NPR’s report about the rally “mentioned specific topics like Iran and impeachment but carefully omit the insane stuff. This is one way the media strives to present Trump as a normal president.”

TLDR, trying to maintain normal standards of journalistic integrity and objectivity help Trump. The only sane thing to do is to screech autistically at him. Anything else is a betrayal of ideals.

I continue, as always, to be heartened by the way that Trump spreads disunity and madness through his opponents. They will turn on each other in their anguish, and by the time the election rolls around will be reduced to a mob of naked, blood-stained mindless beasts, trapped forever in a cannibal orgy of their own making. The streets will be slicked red with blood and other unspeakable substances. All hail Trump, Ia, Ia, Ma'r a Lago Ph'nglui Ma'ga Kag Trump Fhtagn!

 

[Shield Breaker]

Alan Deshowitz and and Ken Starr are going to be representing Trump in the impeachment farce....I mean trial. All he needs now is to have Trey Gowdy join the team and he'd have a better legal team than OJ had.

The Epstein guy?

 

[Marissa Moira]

We need Ginsberg to croak before the Senate throws impeachment out for maximum REEEEEEs.