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

[Ghostse]

That's generally why I stopped ever bothering to try and rationalize with almost anyone who's critical of Trump. They're overwhelmingly low-information and prone to making excessively-emotional arguments with no or very little basis in reality. I don't say that to be mean, I say it because it's true. They read a headline, fly completely off the handle, and base the entirety of their arguments on what 2-3 sentences in the CNN chyron told them. If you prove that the headline's wrong or misleading, they just yell at you anyways.

It's pointless, it's irritating, and absolutely no amount of arguing will ever break them out of it. Trying to convince them to see any other side of any other story is a complete waste of time because they will never back away from their prejudices. You can completely back these people into an intellectual corner and deflate every single argument they throw at you with first-hand sources and they will still double-down and go, "Well I still think you're wrong because [CNN Article]."

There's no reaching the unreachable, so just let them preach hate because apparently hate is all that they want.

Agreed.
OTOH we've got posters in this thread who calmly and rationally discus their dislike or distaste for Trump/parts of Trump's policies or platforms, and I think they've got good points. Their post don't get much engagement outside of upvotes because there's nothing really to argue.

They actually make their points and put more thought into them than "CNN told me that Trump was putting kids in cages in 2013!".

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:



He answers:



I respond:



He responds back with:



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.

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.

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 same administration that said this:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CKpso3vhZtw
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.

>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?

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.


>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?

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.

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.

>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 exceptional.

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

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

TY for taking one for the team, and confirming @Trimmed Archer is autistic and low-energy as he seemed he'd be.

So I mention creating shit-storms and get a waffling malaprop goatse (@Ghostse) whose SS were famous for partaking in lightning strikes. Then, an un-ironically blood-sucking boomer (@Dracula's Spirit Animal) blasts in berating a straw-man for not separating “the art from the artist" when my posts had explicitly concerned Trump’s presidency and not the man himself. And now, the person I was to talk to in DMs (@Iwasamwillbe) randomly shares our private discourse without my prior notice (whilst accusing me of cowardice.) Countering the scant few academic studies I had given as examples with a scoffing “lel they don’t get economic realities”, and a Youtube video... Are you ladies partaking in an autistic Monty Python skit, or were you all just trying to make me look like this?

"My points are so solid and unassailable, I am making ad hominem attacks against my detractors instead of actually posting & defending my points. Because ad hominem attacks are the sign of someone with a great logical argument and definitely not the sign of me acting like a spaz and lashing out as I slowly transform into a corncob. "
-A KF poster with a tiny penis & a shitty waifu

 

[DrunkenDozing]

I had a revelation today when I was thinking about Jordan Peterson. I have an idea about why Trump in particular is driving people to full frontal insanity.

It's because somehow, he isnt showing any cracks.

Looking at his demeanor, it hasn't changed at all in the years hes been president. The way he moves, speaks and conducts presidential duties was the exact same in 2019 as it was in 2016. Yeah, he spouts off on people but usually in the exact same way and intensity. He hasn't been sweating profusely on stage, stammering or crying. No screaming at the Secret Service or having reporters dragged out of conference rooms. He is bombastic and insulting but he always was.

It just seems like any shit you try to shovel at him either slides off or motivates him. Any negativity expressed his way only fuels him. It must be a nightmare for those that truly hate him. SJWs have been waiting, waiting, waiting for the moment cracks start to show. The moment his attitude cracks and assures his haters that "phew, our tactics are working. We're getting to him." It hasn't come. Not even impeachment seems to be breaking his stride. It must be like having blue balls for four years without end. To watch someone you truly despise come out STRONGER after you've slipped negativity on them at every angle would drive almost anyone a little nuts.

I dont know exactly why or how Donald manages to do this but somehow he does. Even if behind closed doors hes throwing knives at a dartboard with Pelosi's face on it he doesn't seem to show it. It really must be maddening to the Dems.

That's my two cents anyway.

 

[Some Random Soul]

They're just nakedly coming out with "Vote how we want or we'll discount your vote and punish you for wrong-think" aren't they?

I mean, they're not even TRYING to hide it now. They claim to be able to read your mind and discern your motives through some kind of magic, then they want laws to be made to back up their magic.

They basically came right out and said that voting Republican should be made illegal and people who vote Republican should be subject to legal action.

It's like 1970's and early 2000's ramped up on steroids.

All we need now is fat bitches with greasy hair and poor personal hygiene threatening to line everyone up against the wall as soon as the Revolution comes.

Oh... wait...

Funny thing is, they already tried that as early as the 1800s when they still 'owned' the blacks as slaves. Then Abraham Lincoln came into office as the first Republican president ever (who ran on an anti-slavery platform) and all the Democratic-controlled southern states threw a tantrum and tried to secede.

It was only because of Republicans fighting over many years that blacks even got any rights at all, let alone voting rights (the only reason it's even relevant is because they mainly voted Republican at the time). Democrats, of course, fought against literally every single attempt at giving them, as well as women, the right to vote. Whether it be lynching, poll taxes, you name it, they tried it, and ultimately Republicans eventually prevailed over all of it.

It's definitely safe to say Democrats are still upset to this day at Republicans for taking away their power to try to suppress the Republican vote, and they want it back BADLY.

 

[WinchesterPremium]

Funny thing is, they already tried that as early as the 1800s when they still 'owned' the blacks as slaves. Then Abraham Lincoln came into office as the first Republican president ever (who ran on an anti-slavery platform) and all the Democratic-controlled southern states threw a tantrum and tried to secede.

It was only because of Republicans fighting over many years that blacks even got any rights at all, let alone voting rights (the only reason it's even relevant is because they mainly voted Republican at the time). Democrats, of course, fought against literally every single attempt at giving them, as well as women, the right to vote. Whether it be lynching, poll taxes, you name it, they tried it, and ultimately Republicans eventually prevailed over all of it.

It's definitely safe to say Democrats are still upset to this day at Republicans for taking away their power to try to suppress the Republican vote, and they want it back BADLY.

Ha! Don't you know the parties switched conveniently making everything good Republicans did actually from the democrats? Everyone knows they switched during Nixon because of the Southern Strategy, except FDR who we still get (but FDR temporarily switched the parties again when he did the internment camps, of course). Oh, and also Kennedy. We get Kennedy too.

Bet you didn't think of that.

 

[Some Random Soul]

Ha! Don't you know the parties switched conveniently making everything good Republicans did actually from the democrats? Everyone knows they switched during Nixon because of the Southern Strategy, except FDR who we still get (but FDR temporarily switched the parties again when he did the internment camps, of course). Oh, and also Kennedy. We get Kennedy too.

Bet you didn't think of that.

The 'party switch' is a long-debunked farce used by Democrats to distance themselves from their criminal past. Unless you were making fun of people who actually believe in that BS, but still.

Edit: Figured I should also mention that apparently Trump is rolling back Michelle Obummer's lunch program - on 'her' birthday of all days.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-obamas-school-lunch-program-on-her-birthday/

(would be a separate post except I didn't want to end up double-posting)

 

[Chaptersevenbankruptcy]

The 'party switch' is a long-debunked farce used by Democrats to distance themselves from their criminal past. Unless you were making fun of people who actually believe in that BS, but still.

Edit: Figured I should also mention that apparently Trump is rolling back Michelle Obummer's lunch program - on 'her' birthday of all days.

Trump Admin Cancels Michelle Obama's School Lunch Program on Her Birthday

The Trump administration said it will roll back school lunch standards championed by Michelle Obama — on the former first lady's birthday.

www.breitbart.com

(would be a separate post except I didn't want to end up double-posting)

The "party switch" is invoked when people point out that several long-serving Dixiecrats were literally KKK members Robert Byrd I am looking at your sorry pork-loving ass, but then the party switch theory is just as quickly dismissed when it comes to internecine fighting. That's how come woke-r Democrats can look down their noses at less woke-r Democrats and criticize Joe Biden for being buddy-buddy with pro-segregationists. If they actually believed in the party switch theory, this somehow wouldn't count for exactly the same reason that all the pro-segregationist rhetoric coming out of the Democrat's mouths in the mid sixties somehow doesn't count today. Leftists pretend to believe one thing when lecturing peasants, and they remember a completely different set of facts when it comes time to establish the dominance hierarchy with other leftists.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Ha! Don't you know the parties switched conveniently making everything good Republicans did actually from the democrats? Everyone knows they switched during Nixon because of the Southern Strategy, except FDR who we still get (but FDR temporarily switched the parties again when he did the internment camps, of course). Oh, and also Kennedy. We get Kennedy too.

Bet you didn't think of that.

You mean the Southern Strategy that both Nixon and his advisors explicitly said they didn't pursue?

Historian Joan Hoff noted that in interviews with historians years later, Nixon denied that he ever practiced a Southern Strategy. Harry Dent, one of Nixon's senior advisers on Southern politics, told Nixon privately in 1969 that the administration "has no Southern Strategy, but rather a national strategy which, for the first time in modern times, includes the South".

It's awfully inconvenient that this magical party switchover, purging the totally righteous Democrats of 100% of their racists so that they could claim innocence, missed former KKK leaders Robert Byrd and David Duke, black student-blocking governor George Wallace, noted racists Bull Connor and Lester Maddox, etc. In fact, only 1 Senator and only 2 Representatives switched (D)->(R) within that time frame... but then 2 more politicians also switched the other way around. Not exactly a blue wave of change.

And it's rather odd while that so-called Southern Strategy was allegedly in place, George Wallace, running as a 3rd party candidate, claimed Nixon was the one in favor of desegregation. In fact, Nixon was the one who started the first federal affirmative action program. And those racist deep South states the Strategy was supposed to deliver went to Wallace, not Nixon. (After blocking those black kids from school, he went on to run as a Democrat in subsequent Presidential elections. Naturally.)

It's reeeeeeeeeeally suspicious that the race-baiting Southern Strategy actually involved targeting Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such as Al Gore Sr., who Nixon targeted because Gore criticized Nixon over his handling of inflation.

Isn't it just so gosh darned head-scratchingly weird that when places like The History Channel talk about this well known super effective total conversion strategy, they never seem to mention any details from an actually executed plan? They just assert that it existed because... well, because something had to be the mysterious evil force behind people not wanting to vote for those saintly Democrats.

In fact, the above paragraph is starting to sound an awful lot like the accusations of racism and racist policies that have been breathlessly thrown around for the last 4 years, doesn't it?

Spoiler: bonus: a political poster from 1869

 

[A Proud Black Woman]

Ha! Don't you know the parties switched conveniently making everything good Republicans did actually from the democrats? Everyone knows they switched during Nixon because of the Southern Strategy, except FDR who we still get (but FDR temporarily switched the parties again when he did the internment camps, of course). Oh, and also Kennedy. We get Kennedy too.

Bet you didn't think of that.

Lol scarboiled again

 

[HumanHive]

You mean the Southern Strategy that both Nixon and his advisors explicitly said they didn't pursue?

​

It's awfully inconvenient that this magical party switchover, purging the totally righteous Democrats of 100% of their racists so that they could claim innocence, missed former KKK leaders Robert Byrd and David Duke, black student-blocking governor George Wallace, noted racists Bull Connor and Lester Maddox, etc. In fact, only 1 Senator and only 2 Representatives switched (D)->(R) within that time frame... but then 2 more politicians also switched the other way around. Not exactly a blue wave of change.

And it's rather odd while that so-called Southern Strategy was allegedly in place, George Wallace, running as a 3rd party candidate, claimed Nixon was the one in favor of desegregation. In fact, Nixon was the one who started the first federal affirmative action program. And those racist deep South states the Strategy was supposed to deliver went to Wallace, not Nixon. (After blocking those black kids from school, he went on to run as a Democrat in subsequent Presidential elections. Naturally.)

It's reeeeeeeeeeally suspicious that the race-baiting Southern Strategy actually involved targeting Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such as Al Gore Sr., who Nixon targeted because Gore criticized Nixon over his handling of inflation.

Isn't it just so gosh darned head-scratchingly weird that when places like The History Channel talk about this well known super effective total conversion strategy, they never seem to mention any details from an actually executed plan? They just assert that it existed because... well, because something had to be the mysterious evil force behind people not wanting to vote for those saintly Democrats.

In fact, the above paragraph is starting to sound an awful lot like the accusations of racism and racist policies that have been breathlessly thrown around for the last 4 years, doesn't it?

Spoiler: bonus: a political poster from 1869

View attachment 1103236

One day, similar things will be said abour Trump. How there were "good republicans" before him like Jeb; but when Trump ran in 2016, racists came out of the woodwork and transformed the misguided but well meaning neoliberal conservatives into a bunch of facists! And don't forget how it all happened because of a free and open Internet allowed Russians and the 4chan to cast evil curses too!

 

[ditto]

At one point a couple decades back I recall it being in wider use among anyone. Wasn't a very high-usage term when there were much more fun things to call people that were still socially acceptable at the time.

IIRC being called a shitlord was turned around as a positive thing almost immediately. Much like being called deplorable.

They started using "pissbaby" but I haven't seen it much lately. Insulting to diaper-furs, perhaps.

 

[General Disarray]

View attachment 1102923
Oy vey, those Aryans are firing up the ovens in the voting booths again!

Did you see their "poll" in the "article?"

 

[Memento Malum]

Moving past cultivating our own indigent TDS-sufferers, we have some more establishment TDS:

Article | Archive

Having cancelled JK Rowling, it appears that the new motif is Star Wars. Highlights:

Lets just attach the association of sexual misconduct to this lady for no reason at all. The party of feminism!

Yes, bring up Lewinsky. That won't stir any memories of the last serial sexual offender in the White House.

In case you wanted some more "quality" journalism, here are the last few articles by the same author:

 

[Keystone]

Someone mentioned those cringy and poorly aged candles some people made a while back. By chance I was cleaning out my "Recently viewed" tab on Amazon and happened to notice one of those candles was at the very end of the list; I remember clicking on it and gawking at it when it first got mentioned here. As you might expect they're not available anymore. However I decided to archive it since nobody did until now, plus these candles just deserve to be remembered. Like it's one of those things you bring up years from now and say, "No that isn't a joke, this shit actually existed and was a thing you could buy. Fuckin' bonkers, right?"

Spoiler: i know i already said it but god almighty did this age badly

Amazon.com: Saint Michael Avenatti Prayer Candle - Father's Day Gift …

archived 18 Jan 2020 16:14:44 UTC

archive.vn

 

[Dante Alighieri]

I would've bought a few as gag gifts...

 

[The Last Stand]

Then Abraham Lincoln came into office as the first Republican president ever (who ran on an anti-slavery platform) and all the Democratic-controlled southern states threw a tantrum and tried to secede.

It was only because of Republicans fighting over many years that blacks even got any rights at all, let alone voting rights (the only reason it's even relevant is because they mainly voted Republican at the time).

Need I remind you that Lincoln could've ended the Civil War without freeing one slave if he wanted? And that he didn't believe that the black man should have voting rights? Or that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery full stop? A few Union states still had slaves?

What Abraham Lincoln Thought About Slavery

The 16th U.S. president was firm in believing slavery was morally wrong, but his views on racial equality were sometimes more complicated.

www.history.com

 

[Gehenna]

Need I remind you that Lincoln could've ended the Civil War without freeing one slave if he wanted? And that he didn't believe that the black man should have voting rights? Or that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery full stop? A few Union states still had slaves?

What Abraham Lincoln Thought About Slavery

The 16th U.S. president was firm in believing slavery was morally wrong, but his views on racial equality were sometimes more complicated.

www.history.com

It's almost like the most turbulent time of the United States extent history was more complicated than "one side good, one side bad". Your post is a good example. I'd also add that both Republicans and Democrats were responsible for the continuing treatment of African people. Anyone who thinks either party was better than the other needs to tell the rest of us what a cranial rectal inversion is like.

 

[The Last Stand]

It's almost like the most turbulent time of the United States extent history was more complicated than "one side good, one side bad". Your post is a good example. I'd also add that both Republicans and Democrats were responsible for the continuing treatment of African people. Anyone who thinks either party was better than the other needs to tell the rest of us what a cranial rectal inversion is like.

It disgusts me seeing revisionist history come into play as a valid argument for their causes. However you feel about this president or the last, and vice versa. Realise they were all MEN pertaining to different time periods and societal changes in American history.

You can disagree with what they did or how they followed through on it, but don't skew their words just to form a counter argument based on party affliction.

 

[Gehenna]

It disgusts me seeing revisionist history come into play as a valid argument for their causes. However you feel about this president or the last, and vice versa. Realise they were all MEN pertaining to different time periods and societal changes in American history.

You can disagree with what they did or how they followed through on it, but don't skew their words just to form a counter argument based on party affliction.

If I might add, the whole "Southern Strategy" thing is a lot more complicated than either the idiots who claim the parties swapped say, or anyone saying it did nothing said. The Southern Strategy wasn't about flipping seats, it was about retaining power. A section of irate senators, congressmen, and a WHOLE LOT of unelected but partisan people took issue with their lack of power. They came up with a strategy to focus on the racist south and to pander to them to garner a hardened voting base. This was actually largely... well, odly bipartisan in terms of Democrat vs Republican. The main people in power were republican, so they saw a few democrats switch over. The thing is, the people who made up this strategy were from both parties, the goal wasn't to flip from democrat to republican but to create that hardened voting bloc.

 

[Marissa Moira]

But guys, Trump hurt our allies in europe's feelings.

Just look at my social media timeline everyone loved obama and only posted good things that made me think good thoughts.

 

[Private Pyle]

Having cancelled JK Rowling, it appears that the new motif is Star Wars.

I kind of want to see what happens if George Lucas expressed transphobic views.
What will they flip to next?