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

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Truthboi said:
It's disgusting how Twitter acts like everyone is too gullible to not think for themselves when reading a damn tweet of all things.
Click to expand...

It's more that they don't want people thinking a certain way, and tweets that might lead towards that thought process are a sin against wokeism.
 
Ghostse said:
lol.
"[the daily show is successful becasuse it was] funny enough that the house knew when to laugh."

Setting the bar real high there.

"But the president gave no indication that the photo was a joke; he simply tweeted “AMERICAN HERO!” and the picture. A close acquaintance of mine, who is not an idiot, saw the photo on Facebook and assumed Trump had in fact given the medal to a dog."

I have some bad news about your friend....
Click to expand...
In October 2019, for example, he tweeted a photograph of himself giving the Medal of Honor to a dog. This event did not happen.
Click to expand...
Is he serious? lol. These people are all wacked way the fuck out.

Organizations like The Times and CNN have to take the president seriously. When he says something that isn’t true, they must soberly point out that it isn’t, even when the intent of the untruth is not to deceive but to achieve some rhetorical effect. As a result, news organizations unequipped to cover an ironic president get lumped in with partisans who misconstrue his irony in bad faith. Both groups are cast as humorless scolds, solidifying the loyalty of MAGA types who think of themselves as in on a joke the media does not understand.
Click to expand...
Is he serious? lol. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

like his televised claim that injecting bleach might stop the coronavirus.
Click to expand...
Ah, he's not serious, he's just a subversive piece of shit.

Yeah, why doesn't Trump denounce white supremacists....it's a real mystery
Click to expand...
That is the head writer of The Daily Show. Gee, I wonder why it hasn't been funny in several years.

Here lies the problem facing “The Daily Show” and its offspring: Consumers of this brand of comedy are so horrified by Trump that irreverence can feel like betrayal.
Click to expand...
They've turned comedy into a safe space for the hyperfragile deranged. Gee, I wonder why it hasn't been funny in several years.

This miasma of ill-defined but ever-present irony makes Trump virtually impossible to mock, because that job is taken.
Click to expand...
Trump is incredibly easy to mock, to skewer. People have been doing it routinely for 35 years. The amount of golden material his presence delivers to comedians is unparelled in the history of the world. The question isn't how Trump has ruined comedy, its how comedians have become ruins under Trump.

“The Daily Show” lost about a third of its viewers when Stewart left in 2015. In the intervening five years, it has recaptured that audience and then some, thanks to the charisma of its new host.
Click to expand...
There's no way that is true. I don't know anyone who watches The Daily Show, and everyone I know watched it religiously for most of its run. No one I know likes Noah, they all split, like me, after Stewart left.

Perhaps because of Noah’s likability, the post-2015 “Daily Show” has steered away from acerbic jokes and toward observational humor coupled with declarations of broader progressive values.
Click to expand...
This article has to be a paid advertisement. The hubris of the author is a lot funnier than any of these late night hosts have been in 5 years.
 
Last edited:
Inventor of the Telephone said:
There's no way that is true. I don't know anyone who watches The Daily Show, and everyone I know watched it religiously for most of its run. No one I know likes Noah, they all split, like me, after Stewart left.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did a bit of a fact check on that and that's a load of shit.

Going back to 2015 at the and of the shows run in a non election year Daily Show was probably averaging well over a million an episode and a 4-5 in the demo. Nowadays in the heat of an election season it's doing 600-700k and less than half in the demo.

So fake news.
 
Last edited:
EkEWFV4VgAAs8D-.jpg
Check out the cover of this week's New Yorker. White People as Dogs... Fed by orange man
Click to expand...
 
GuntPunt said:
Trump called out 538. Nate Copium didn't take it too well.
View attachment 1655899
Click to expand...
2008 Nate Silver: Watch me predict the most obvious election ever!
USA: witchcraft!
2016 Nate Silver: Watch me fall flat on my face because I'm actually politically motivated with my predictions
USA: oh never mind
2019 Nate Silver: I know I thoroughly humiliated myself last time but THIS time I'm definitely right!
USA: nah
2020 Nate Silver: Here's why I wasn't actually wrong in 2016!
USA:
 
Silver's been playing that card for four years.

"I was slightly less Pro-Hillary than all these other speds, so I was actually the most right!"

Oh, Good for you, then? lol
 
RockPaper said:
Silver's been playing that card for four years.

"I was slightly less Pro-Hillary than all these other speds, so I was actually the most right!"

Oh, Good for you, then? lol
Click to expand...
Didn't he still predict a fairly massive Clinton Win? he just wasn't FULL nuts and saying things like "99% chance"?
 
Gehenna said:
Didn't he still predict a fairly massive Clinton Win? he just wasn't FULL nuts and saying things like "99% chance"?
Click to expand...

Of course he did. That's why the never ending attempt weasel out of being wrong. He said something like "I gave Trump a 20% chance to win, and the one-in-five chance happened. 20% is a plausible outcome."

He's always hedging like that when he feels cornered. "I'm not really wrong because I said the big underdog had an underdog's chance to win". BFD, Nate.
 
RockPaper said:
Of course he did. That's why the never ending attempt weasel out of being wrong. He said something like "I gave Trump a 20% chance to win, and the one-in-five chance happened. 20% is a plausible outcome."

He's always hedging like that when he feels cornered. "I'm not really wrong because I said the big underdog had an underdog's chance to win". BFD, Nate.
Click to expand...
While probability does work like that, I am tired of them pretending they mean it like that.

Addendum: Political science time. It annoys me that they treat it like its a probability. its not. Figuring out the election would be about looking at hard numbers, considering likely voting patterns, and making as prediction with a degree of certainty. It works better as a nominal measurement, more or less likely, rather than interval, hard numbers. "I am mostly sure that X, Y, and Z states will go to Candidate A. Where as I believe that U, V, W, states will go to candidate B."

That they frame it as a percentage is pure sensationalism, giving the feel of betting odds rather than hard scientific breakdowns of trends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom