Trump Derangement Syndrome
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a term that seems to be gaining traction lately, especially since Trump himself is starting to use it. The narrative is simple enough, that liberals hate Trump to the point of irrationality.
Talk about hyperbole. Anyway, in the following interview with Dave Rubin, Scott Adams (Creator of Dilbert) claims that TDS is caused by cognitive dissonance.
Adams says that liberals can't believe that someone like Trump could be elected "just by having policies people like" and so they're forced to contrive a narrative that includes things like rampant racism, Russian election interference, etc. Oddly, I doubt Adams himself would claim that Trump was elected "[i]just by having policies people like.[/I]"
Also, there's no personal contradiction that would cause cognitive dissonance. It was against the expectation of many that Trump was elected but they didn't do anything to make it happen.
Donald Trump:Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!
Talk about hyperbole. Anyway, in the following interview with Dave Rubin, Scott Adams (Creator of Dilbert) claims that TDS is caused by cognitive dissonance.
Adams says that liberals can't believe that someone like Trump could be elected "just by having policies people like" and so they're forced to contrive a narrative that includes things like rampant racism, Russian election interference, etc. Oddly, I doubt Adams himself would claim that Trump was elected "[i]just by having policies people like.[/I]"
Also, there's no personal contradiction that would cause cognitive dissonance. It was against the expectation of many that Trump was elected but they didn't do anything to make it happen.
Comments (136)
That someone so incredibly un-PC could waltz into the White House blew our minds. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface is years of political polarization that had made Washington seem close to completely dysfunctional. IOW, as a nation, we had started getting used to not talking to each other, but only seeing one another as the enemy: Bill Maher's comment that if we had the Civil War to do over, he thinks the US should "let the South go" comes to mind.
My opinion is that we have problems we really don't know how to solve. All the lunacy is just symptomatic.
I am old enough to remember when Republicans were the elite.
What kind of truths are you talking about? What are some examples?
That line "You can't handle the truth!!" is from a movie about the US military. Nicholson's character is enraged that he's being held account for actions that he thinks are in line with what one has to do to survive.
Conservatives are more likely to think that it's a mistake for the government to help people in inner cities. They say any aid should be private. If no private help actually appears, conservatives will remain steadfastly apathetic, adhering to whatever principle they're embracing: fiscal responsibility, limitation of centralized authority, etc.
Liberals are more likely to value ethics over practicality.
There's no doubt some hyperbole on both sides, but you can also apply this "syndrome" to both sides: Obama derangement syndrome (Birtherism etc.), Hillary derangement syndrome (Lock her up/emails etc). In fact, Trump's own deranged efforts to throw dirt at others seem less well-founded and have attracted much less bipartisanship than the criticisms of him. So, it seems like nothing more than a snappy one liner to feed to his base. I don't see it as having any legs beyond that.
On the policy issue, it's much more about branding and personality than policy in the US. There is plenty of evidence out there (and plenty of depressing videos) to show that Americans in general know little or nothing about the policy differences between candidates of their own party in the primaries and have only a very basic idea about policy differences among the candidates of different parties in the general (it's not just America either, policy ignorance and focus on personality is a global problem). The fact that Trump had great name recognition and had been on TV, was a businessman, and came across as much more relatable and non-political than most politicians was why he was voted in. His policy platfrom (apart from immigration where he was a bit more specific "Ban Muslims/Build a wall") was always a mess and contradictory. I mean, his policy on healthcare was "we'll get everyone great healthcare" and on the military was "we'll have a great military" and wasn't any clearer than that, and didn't need to be.
Always. There was always a stereotypical republican elite. Think Bill Buckley, J Press, 1970 Wall Street investment banker, Yacht club guy. The were the ruling elite easily slipping from leadership positions in politics to the military to business. Educated, wealthy, well spoken. George Will doing his best to keep the image alive.
Quoting frank
I think you are assigning character traits to a party. I believe character, or the lack of it, is bipartisan.
We just don't seem to be that interested in character in our leaders anymore - more interested in personality.
There is nothing deranged about having the moral clarity to see that these are morally abhorrent and having mettle to call out or fight these injustices. The idea of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome" is nothing more than a sick, vapid attempt to normalize Trump's immorality. This is simply gaslighting.
For a while in the USA, it seems like the the Democrats and the Republicans are staging the largest production ever of that old Broadway favorite “Good Kop, Bad Kop: Keystone Tragi-Komedy” :groan: :blush:
(psychosis= a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.)
Just try to talk to a Trump supporter and they will start to bable about evil Hillary Clinton, the deep state, the economic miracle Trump has given them...
There is a kind of extreme loyalty among his base that makes rational conversation impossible. You might as well be talking to a North Korean about Kim Jong Un. It's impossible for them to say anything negative about him even when the negatives are obvious.
Think about what TV did for Kennedy. The internet is TV squared.
As long as were being entertained, that's all that matters. :yum:
Yes... distracted, fooled, hypnotized, drugged, abused... not unlike a victim of date rape. Not to sound too cynical. Kind of a worst case scenario through skeptical eyes.
- Hillary Clinton
- That it was a fair election win in 2016 and EVERYTHING now is just a DNC plot
- The Washington elite (the swamp) is out to get Trump
- The Fake News leftist media
- The Deep State that opposes Trump
- the missing DNC Server
- Seth Rich
- Pizzagate (etc.)
- other loonie stuff
Or whatever is the latest talking points from Trump supporters to be reurgitated.
If they are just happy that they have a job and the economy is OK, then they don't have the psychosis.
Even Putin says he's not a friend of the United States. I think his exact words were, and I quote, "We are not your friend." Apparently, that's not clear enough.
Absolutely, Trump has managed to turn many of his supporters into mindless parrots for his talking points, and they are, with regard to him, incapable of any form of critical thought or even basic reasoning. As in, for example, when he tells hundreds of apparent lies, they'll deny any of them are actually lies. Or when he says words that mean things that are obvious in context, they'll deny that's what he actually meant because it makes him look bad. And so on.
It's enough to turn a person to Taoism. I read Being There. It's good.
Unless you're claiming that "it's a mistake for the government to help people in inner cities" is telling the truth, you haven't mentioned what these truths are. I assumed that you meant uncomfortable truths such as all the dirty deeds that are done around the world by the USA (by both parties). If that is the case, then maybe you can point out a case where a Republican confesses to one of these dirty deeds.
Weird thing is that most of this is pretty much covered in the Rubin's interview, and yet Adams tries to substantiate TDS with cognitive dissonance theory.
Haven't got round to watching the video yet. Adams might be worth listening to. I find Dave Rubin to be lazy and clueless though so it puts me off a bit.
1. I was attempting to touch on the Democrat-educated vs Republican-blue-collar divide and how that bears on the OP. I perceive a harshness to the Republican party that repels the liberal-minded, but is actually sought out by part of the population. "Trump was the school bully, and now he is the figure-head the of the USA? Crap!!!"
2. I think it's true that fundamentally, liberals place ethics above practicality. Conservatives do the opposite.
3. If I'm understanding you, you navigated straight for an analysis of the Republican platform to see what aspect of it true, but denied by Democrats. It wasn't my intention to discuss that, and I'd have to think about it.
Which of the above do you want to discuss? Or any of it?
I wouldn't say Adams is worth listening to. He's a lot like Rubin in, for whatever reason, wanting to appear rational and centrist. I guess they think that's more persuasive.
So you didn't mean truth, you meant non-PC.
I meant truths.
Phase Two: Get people talking about it.
Phase Three: Call legitimated concerns Trump derangement syndrome.
Mass straw-man is deployed and hyperbolic stereotype is engaged.
Okay, what truths?
To try giving some semblance of credibility to the narrative, I suppose.
This was my statement:
Quoting frank
So obviously I was talking about perception. Do you want to venture from this topic to the question of what truths liberals have historically been blind to?
I asked you for a context for your question. I won't ask again.
Yes, if you don't mind.
So what is playing out here. Isn't it americans wanting the US to assert its power rather than its intellect at this point in history? Less negotiating, more telling.
The US has led an era of economic globalisation that made it rich. It was a rational self-interested move. But it also hollowed out its own middle and working class by exposing them to open global competition. And it also allowed the future rivals to US hegemony to emerge, particularly China.
So it has become clear that intellectualism results in losses as well as wins. And the US still has all this actual brute power it can simply capitalise on. In the voter's eye, it just needed a leader willing to exert that power. The US might have written the rules of the globalised era, but it could now rip those up and who could resist?
Waving good-by to globalisation seems sane as energy and resource constraints are coming on. The world economic system is on the brink of collapse anyway. The US could retreat within its own borders to create a new localism in terms of energy and economics, bunker down for climate change.
So a lot of actually rational thinking could be in the backs of voter's minds. Bunkering down would hit China and other rivals harder. And globalisation has in fact created its own stateless intellectual elite, not beholden to any particular national base. Who would care if they got cut adrift?
Trump may reflect that accurate assessment of changing times. His bull in a china shop mentality may be what is needed to shatter the globalism paradigm - exit that market ahead of the game.
The problem with Trump is that he is a crude bully. A fake strong man. A cartoon version of power. It seems crazy that voters would put him in charge and be sticking with him still.
But maybe there is also a clear-eyed view that the US needs him as a wrecking ball to usher in the change in the world order that many people think they want because they fear the sudden collapse of the globalised economic system, the start of the naked resource wars.
Trump derangement syndrome would be the aghast horror of the prevailing globalised elite who have benefited from the way the world is, and who are out of touch with what it might quickly become.
It would be no surprise at all if the next GFC hits and Trump has prepared the ground for whatever is this century's incarnation of a fascist authoritarian state. His administration already has the makings of a junta with all its generals.
The intelligence services and other aspects of fascist control would be a problem. They still seem pretty much wedded to the paradigm of the globalised elite. And it would take cleverness and time to take over that. But the playbook on that is well understood. Manufacture an existential crisis - like a war on terror, immigrants, or whatever. Create the conditions where the population demands repressive powers be used. After all, the US has built up that internal security apparatus too.
The good thing about Trump is it doesn't seem possible he could organise anything as coherent as that next step. But at the moment, he serves rationally to undermine intellectual globalism, turn the world towards brute power politics and a bunkering down.
The interesting question is now what kind of figure and regime will follow him. Does anyone expect business as usual will resume in terms of the US again returning to the intellectualising, globalising, mindset it has had for the last 30 years or so?
Actually IIRC he's been fairly consistent about that.
The animus against Trump really is quite insane.
Populists don't rely on mere policy positions to get elected.
I think the last few days have shown what a fake strong man he is.
:up: Thanks for that, well said. I’ll just add the obvious fact that for someone to be elected POTUS they of course must get hundreds of millions in donations. So doesn’t that make them the employee of the largest donors? Or any other trillionaire who wants a favor? Who’s really calling the shots? Sorry to stray into Alex Jones conspiracy territory, but who does the POTUS (whether Republican or Democrat) answer to? The American people? Yea, the same way I answer to my cats... “it’s ok snookums!”
In the 1970s, during a wave of liberalism, Western Electric was prevailed upon by the federal government to hire incarcerated felons to work in their Columbus OH factory. The expectation was that with a clear path of entry into society and assured income, these felons would surely turn their lives around and become good citizens.
The felons subsequently wouldn't work, frightened the labor already in place, and except for one individual, declined to return. Neither the government nor the criminals were harmed by the experiment, but the labor was later found to have developed a sense of alienation from the company. They felt they had been treated like guinea pigs.
This experiment displays the tendency of liberals to want to do social engineering. Their blindness is manifest in a lack of respect for what evolves naturally. This is typical of liberals.
Sure, that aligns with liberal progressive values.
Is privatize the "natural" evolution of the prison system?
Anyway, where are the truths in this that liberals are blind to?
One should have respect for what evolves naturally.
People who can't manage to see the faults in their own tendencies are more likely to develop the syndrome you mentioned.
He's a bit of a limp biscuit but at least he has interesting guests from time to time (though he would never dare to ask a confrontational question).
For a laugh:
[hide="Reveal"]
I remember watching the Adams' interview when it came out. He has an easily misunderstood perspective, which is, for various/whatever reasons, that trump is extremely persuasive. IIRC the gist of what he said panned out. Trump really could shoot an American man, in the pussy, with a Russian pistol, in the capitol hill conservatory, live on twitter, and his staunch base would barely (but reliably) twitch a single eyelash.
It’s said that Rubins’ gets a lot of $$ from a Koch bros think tank fund, and he’s all about the $$, incidentally.
If you could be less abstract and general I might be able to appreciate your claim.
Good point. But weren't they a group of conservative billionaires making the mistake of thinking they were buying themselves a controllable stooge?
Trump would ride his populism to get in. Then deliver the kind of tax breaks, market deregulation, small government, policies they expected once he was surrounded by solid grown-up Republican advisors.
Those like Thiel and Mercer have been expressing buyers remorse - despite getting a lot of that legislation implemented.
Don't forget the Mercer family installed Bannon too. So the "bunker down" alt-right agenda was what some of the billionaires wanted. However that became too alarmingly red-neck and conspiratorial even for them.
So the rich elite didn't back Trump to be a wrecking ball of the globalist economic paradigm. Mostly the reverse. And why would they even expect that of him, given he more than anyone was an incompetent who got lucky from the financial system, the elite social structure, as it is?
My argument is thus that Trump is a rational phenomenon that reflects "the wisdom of the crowd".
There are dark forces in play in that many ordinary folk have it in the back of their minds that rough and turbulent times are coming. So let's provoke the crisis that is going to bring it on ... because we know we have the power when it comes to the show-down.
It is a cool calculation at that level. And there is no downside to that view because you might get what you want because everyone else just caves in to your demands. China, Russia, Europe and the rest might have to keep the globalist charade going as their best available option. No one will call in their debts. Other countries will have to punish their own populations financially and ecologically.
The worst thing that could happen is the US is tipped into such domestic turmoil that there has to be a big social clamp-down. All the names on the watch list need to be rounded up in black SUVs and taken to the FEMA internment camps for the duration. :)
What percent of the US population coolly and rationally thinks that might not be such a bad thing? Bring it on.
So Trump's billionaire backers certainly hoped they were buying something - the usual kinds of things, but delivered by someone who would cut through all the intellectual bureaucratic Washington bullshit that stops them just getting everything they want it, the moment they ask for it.
However, even if Trump voters are comparatively unworldly and illiberal by the standards of the prevailing intellectual elite, they are quite capable of assessing their reality in this gut rational fashion - "What's in it for me and my kind; what do I care about the consequences for others; if we have the power, why not use it; if the current game is tipped on its head, how am I not going to be a winner?"
And Trump is captive to that mood because he doesn't have the character to rise above narcissistic populism. He is a helpless mirror of the masses as he only truly cares about hearing them cheer at that week's stadium rally.
The billionaires miscalculated in thinking they could buy a stooge. Trump hasn't got the focus to be that organised and stick to some strategic agenda. He is just a mouthpiece for a rumbling discontent and anxiety expecting things to turn nasty, but also feeling fairly cocky about the heat it is packing.
Not usually. A devotion to practicality usually follows the possession of real responsibility and some experience with the folly of hubris.
I don't know what you're looking for. Sorry.
Yes, it is. When you judge what is "practical" you are judging that state based your personal standards.
By nature I'm maximally impractical. ..off wondering what it's like to be a cloud...
You are evading.
The truth is, you have a shallow and narrow perspective, in which you stereotype and generalize people based on your subjective interpretations.
There are other political entities whose exploits would more clearly and specifically demonstrate how out of touch with reality a leftist can be. I dont feel like talking about it though. It has zero to do with my original point.
Nothing, apparently.
Way to go!
So then what you are saying is that all our current problems were caused by the Right.
None, we are totally problem free. Now back on track. . .
You are pretending your binary interpretation of the political spectrum is anything other than the subjective black and white painting it is; however, the truth is that you are very much stereotyping people based on your bias, and the reason you don't want to try and substantiate your position is because you know it does not rest on a solid foundation.
If you were an ally of mine you would have made a better attempt at substantiating the claim that you made.
But he's gone and his magic is wearing off. Believe whatever you like, praxis.
Liberals believe in progress so naturally they’ll experiment and try to improve social systems. There’s abundant evidence that intentional progress is possible, and of course not just by the hands of liberals. To say that “one should have respect for what evolves naturally” implies a value system that reveres unintentional development. Not a characterization of conservatism that I think anyone would agree with.
Anyone familiar with the career of the iconic conservative Alan Greenspan would most certainly agree that "one should have respect for what evolves naturally" accurately distills much of 20th Century American conservatism.
And yet you have changed the topic for a second time.
To bring it into context, think about the kind of social engineering experiments that took place during the French Revolution and in Communist regimes. An extreme example of a leftist failure to respect nature is Khrushchev's attempts to grow corn in Russia. Against the advice of Russian farmers, he forced large tracts of land to be planted with corn that never bloomed. It's a side effect of leftist lust to defy conventional wisdom.
On the other hand, devotion to tradition, precedent, tried and true approaches and remedies; these are conservative values. As I said, a devotion to practicality grows out of the weight of real responsibility. Conservatives sometimes fear liberals because they seem to lack concern for the dangers of trying new things. And they are wise to fear.
That's not a failure to respect nature. It's a moral failing of failing to take into account how crops would grow in the environment, against the advice of people who knew how they worked (farmers).
Trump has practical skills, but with a personality that can rub people, who think they are smart and refined, the wrong way. The Liberals tend to be shallow and pretentious and lack ingenuity and common sense. PC is all about the shallow surface of people. PC has nothing to do with skills. Calling person a name only smears the makeup. It does not diminish real skills. If all one is, is make-up, a name can be devastating.
Trump does not have the correct surface features for the Liberals, while the Liberals can't appreciate his skills since this is secondary to them. He can stimulate the economy and all the left can see is he made an error in grammar. The left wades smoothly in the shallows, while Trump makes waves in the shallows, as he heads to deeper water. The left does not like the splashing since it can cause their hair to get wet and eye shadow to smear. This can diminish their image, which is their best feature.
For example, nobody expected Trump to win since he was underfunded, lacked the extensive political social network, and was considered a boar by the elites. The previous formula for success had been the proper two-face, and the most funding and the most access to political consultants; shallow and inefficient.
Trump used ingenuity and was able to break the formula. He started out by attacking the shallows, with clever names, so the pretentious in the group would blink by fearing the splash. He also used his practical skills and boundless energy to make less funding and organization go further. His followers see his capacities and excuse his rough exterior since the exterior is only useful for entertainment, but not for this difficult job.
Thanks for your reply! It would be interesting to see a video of the idea being seriously pitched to Trump of being president. Or maybe it would be slightly nauseating. But one can almost imagine the talk of those floating the idea:
But seriously... it’s probably impossible to tell for sure what Trump’s investors were thinking and wanting, and the level of disappointment or anger there is now amongst the billionaire backers. One could sarcastically tell them “welcome to the party!” In any event, if Trump burns those bridges, he might be setting his big red tie on fire too. But I imagine that he knows who butters his bread.
Quoting apokrisis
There was and is much anger at Washington and Wall Street. (Are the two really even separate entities any more?) That’s a given across the whole political spectrum, I think. That’s the reason Bernie Sanders is as popular as he is, and it’s what pushed Trump over the top. His outsider status and image as a successful businessman were large positives. The voters’ hatred of Hillary was like having the wind at his back. I think one has to go back to the 1800’s to find an example of such a political outsider becoming the POTUS, except for Eisenhower maybe. But Ike was busy winning the war. The ball is his now, to score with or fumble away. I am definitely not a fan of his. But for the sake of the country (and the world), I want this administration to have some success. But if Pence or someone else somehow takes the reigns, so be it. (Trump doesn’t seem like the healthiest guy around, and the stress isn’t helping him. What if he had to resign because of health reasons? Not totally impossible).
Quoting apokrisis
Well, this is the nightmare scenario. The dread that most rational people of all persuasions are (hopefully) pushing against with all their might. I hope to God that I am delusional and merely dreaming this possibility up. That it is not the growing hurricane it appears to be. The round-up of undocumented residents by ICE (or as they might be called: American Revival Storm Enforcement, or ARSE) is unsettling for a lot of people, even those that believe something must be done about immigration. As the last of the survivors of WWII era Europe pass away or enter their 80th year, will the world forget what happened? Or is it too late to put on the brakes, even if we try? Will the whole World War II scenario seem almost tame by comparison? Despite the bitter differences, the Left and Right must together avoid such an abyss.
The goal of "Trump derangement syndrome" is to negate a reasonable voice of concern by distracting people with a caricature.
In the 50s and 60s the KKK claimed it was protecting traditional family values to recruit new members and push their views. Does that phrase sound familiar? Remember how it would then later be used to oppress the LGBTQ community? Keeping the tradition alive, right?
Claiming something is "traditional" is not a rational foundation, and if that is your excuse then you are far from practical. The practical approach is to assess things objectively and if a "tradition" is harmful then it needs to be changed. I am not sure how you can assert a practical position, while at the same time promote such sentimental subjective adherence. Personally, I think you are just regurgitating media talking points instead of facilitating your own thoughts.
What's the most crazy response when Trump utters incredible lies is that the supporters (with the psychosis) simply love it as it offends the people they hate: the liberals, the leftists, the Washington swamp, the "Deep State" etc. The fact that Trump told a lie doesn't matter at all. It's not just that Trump is politically incorrect, which many do like, in the psychosis stage it goes into facts and policies based on lies. And if someone says that what Trump stated was untrue, the he or she has Trump derangement syndrome.
Everything is just political rhetoric. Or everything said against Trump is just political rhetoric. That's how it goes.
And this somehow relates to a reverence for “natural” evolution?
I suppose you believe that Trump actually holds conservative values.
Of course. I'm getting the impression that you know practically nothing about conservatism. And so it follows that you don't really understand liberalism either since they define one another.
A portion of the response to Trump has been hyperbolic, but hyperbolic response is normal political reaction by a portion of both sides. For example, see this, and this
I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon.
.
Relax, Frank, we get what you’re saying. It’s just that your descriptions are odd and misleading, and you’re reluctant to clarify them when asked to for some unknown reason.
Not sure what you mean by this. I’m most interested in what others think of Adams application of cognitive dissonance theory to Trump derangement syndrome.
Oh, me too. But there’s something different about Trump than any other major politician of recent history. Just near impossible to pin down, and I think that is intentional. Not talking about policies, or even his level of intelligence or whatever. More about his style, his operating procedure. He is so unpredictable so often that one has to wonder if its a defensive coping mechanism. Maybe if one is a famous billionaire a protective camouflage layer of BS forms on the surface. He is almost like an octopus. (No, not that way! :wink: ). Whenever under the slightest scrutiny (which is constantly) he releases a cloud of ink and tweets. And then disappears.
Its only unknown to you because you haven't been listening to me. We've strayed some distance from the point I made in response to the OP.
You chose to take me somewhere far from the OP to an abstract exploration of liberalism and conservatism where I'm supposed to be launching a defense for liberal blindspots.
I'd rather discuss it than fight a battle over it. You dont have the foundation necessary for a simple discussion of what liberalism is, though.
Aaaaand that's it. Hasta la vista.
Well, at least you admit to reluctance. I heared that, though I still don’t understand the reason for it.
Adiós muchachos. :smile:
I strongly disagree with Adams that cognitive dissonance is at play. Things only seem different because Trump makes so many problematic statements that rile people up, in evoking backlash. However the reactions are the same as always: demonize those you disagree with by assuming the most sinister of motives. For this reason, I propose a more analytical response, which includes the avoidance of hyperbole, because that just turns too many people off.
But there’s something different about Trump than any other major politician of recent history. Just near impossible to pin down, and I think that is intentional. Not talking about policies, or even his level of intelligence or whatever. More about his style, his operating procedure. He is so unpredictable so often that one has to wonder if its a defensive coping mechanism. Maybe if one is a famous billionaire a protective camouflage layer of BS forms on the surface. He is almost like an octopus. (No, not that way! :wink: ). Whenever under the slightest scrutiny (which is constantly) he releases a cloud of ink and tweets. And then disappears.
I don't know if Trump's behavior is consciously intentional. It might just be an evolved trait that sticks around because of a lifetime of positive reinforcement. Nevertheless we need to remember this is just style, and it is the substance to which we should respond, and I'd like the response to be analytical rather than emotional. As an example, it's worthwhile to continue exposing the various ways he strays from the truth (e.g. normal political spin, naivete, hyperbole, as well as bald-faced lies), and distinguish these from mere differences of political viewpoint, and show why this is not a good thing in a political leader (to his supporters: would you tolerate this behavior in a liberal?)
Very much agree.
Who does? Everyone uses the Dark Arts. But policies do matter too, and Trump's policies were certainly a major part of what got him elected, and Adams has always said that.
not sure I remember Trump actually articulating one complete policy during the campaign. Not really a detail type of guy it appears.
The creation of sanctuary cities began before Trump took office.
Do you not think that those who implemented such a plan did so based on what they felt was happening at the time during whoever was Commander-in-Chief?
Of course, as well as ICE and FEMA. I see more similarities than differences between the last 5-8 US Presidential administrations. I would generally agree with the view expressed in Klein’s The Shock Doctrine that the tried and true strategies of “disaster capitalism” have found a home in government policy and military actions.
Further digging into Hillary bring us to her e-mail server, which she deleted in spite of an order from Congress. This was another crime. If this had been by Trump to Mueller what would have happened? The fix was in.
Then we go back to the sale of uranium to the Russians, whose purchasing delegation was accused of bribery and racketeering. Mueller was the head of the FBI at the time and did not make this known to Congress before the sale. He was protecting Hillary, Bill and Barrack, since the Clintons were to get a large Russian donation for their foundation. Talk about Russian collusion. Russian-Trump collusion is a distraction away from DNC-Russian collusion.
Then there was all the cash sent to Iran. What was the middle man cut from that untraceable cash? How much did the Clintons snd Obama's get and where is it hidden? That was a perfect way to skim the tax payer. By the way the Democrats reacted to Trump dealing with Iran, it is possible the hidden skim was still in Iran and was spread far and wide even through Europe.
The entire Trump soap opera is a distraction to hide all these real crimes. If the soap opera stops real questions will be asked and two former presidents could be on the chopping block. The hate mongering is there to blind the left to their own dirt.
The goal of the left is to use the daily soap opera to take people's mind off Democrat problems. The delay has been effective for over a year, but desperation is setting in, since it is not separating Trump from his followers. It is even backfiring and causing support from moderate Democrats. Trump followers are aware of the dual standard of injustice and are not fooled by the soap opera.
That issue has been resolved, it was resolved rather quickly and he worked to resolve it. But you're talking about it as he is trying to separate the families and I just don't understand why. It's also been done like that for decades but you're hellbent on wringing his neck over it.
He hasn't disparaged allies, that's dramatic nonsense. Relationships aren't always smiles and hugs, if you've ever had family you'd know better, sometimes you have to handle problems... that's how healthy relationships are maintained. If you just smile and gloss over things, and pretend everything's fine, problems linger and it actually kills your relationships. Shows how much you really understand life. And the idea that he should abuse dictators and not be diplomatic with them is actually absurd. You may as well say that peace talks are a bad thing, or peace with North Korea is a bad thing. Do you really see the world as a playground of children hurling blame at one another? Good thing you aren't in charge!
No, the tax cuts hurt the lower and middle class in the short term (via restricted government programs)... and government benefits help the lower and middle class in the short term. But in the long term the tax cuts grow the GDP, create jobs and stave off the US defaulting on its debt, which preserves social security and medicare... thus they help the lower and middle class in the long term - social security and medicare help the lower and middle class; a working economy helps the lower and middle class. And we've said this many times.
No, increasing tariffs causes a variety of complex effects throughout the whole economy. It actually doesn't "only hurt small business", it effects alot of things.
No, those are people with no gratitude for what they have hopping on anti-American bandwagons and setting a horrible example for the black youth in this country. Black youth are 70% without fathers in the home and are driven to the fringes by the corrupt culture ... they need some parental figures to guide them.... For so many black youth in this country their only parental guidance comes from rappers yelling about capping thugs.... They don't need foodball players feeding them more antisocial sentiment.
I wonder how you feel about airport security prioritizing Muslims over non-Muslims in searches? In Germany and other European countries the airport security actually actively profiles and they have the best airport security with the lowest rates of smuggling and crime getting through their ports in the world.
Learn what an actual sexual assault is.
He has every right to appoint a conservative judge and every conservative president before him has appointed conservative judges, likewise every liberal president has appointed liberal judges. This is why we call it Trump Derangement Syndrome.
It wasn't actually just Nazis at the protest.
There is because you've stirred yourself into believing you're some hero and yet your points are easily countered, you should have been able to self-criticize and round out your thinking more than this, meanwhile when people make the points you ignore them and repeat yourself... it's called TDS.
Absolutely none of this is true. There are a fantastic number of publications investigating the zero-tolerance policy, which was started under the Trump administration. I suggest you read up on it. It has not been "done like this for decades", and it hasn't been "resolved".
Quoting ibrust
Wow you really digressed into an absurd strawman didn't you? Trump continually attacks the EU, Germany, Canada, their politicians, etc. He has attacked American institutions and federal department. When you claim that Germany is "totally controlled by Russia", that's disparagement. It's not "dramatic nonsense". When you claim that the media is the "enemy of the American people", that's dangerously disparaging. Unless of course the meaning of disparagement looses any and all meaning, out of convenience to support Trump.
Quoting ibrust
The individual tax cuts expire in the 2020s, and each year the majority of the middle class will receive less and less from their tax cuts, until it eventually expires. However, the tax cut will continue permanently for corporations, and wealthier individuals will receive a larger cut. And ultimately the added $1.4 trillion deficit that the tax cuts will produce will be (already have been) leveraged as a clarion call for cutting social services in the name of the deficit, primarily affecting the poor and middle class. The 2017 tax cut was based on the Kansas tax cut, which was an abysmal failure, and had to be repealed.
Quoting ibrust
Great racist stuff here :up:
Quoting ibrust
I'm actually more concerned with far-right extremists, rather than radical Islamist extremists, given that the former have been responsible for far more attacks than the latter.
Quoting ibrust
So? Are you comparing Nazis with Antifa, an organization you probably only heard about via the protest, in which a woman was killed because a Nazi drove his car into the crowd?
You're racist, you try to manipulate black people into liking you by catering to what you think they want you to say rather than saying the truth. It's proof that you see them in terms of their race. In the process you show that you have no real concern for any of the problems in the black community as you dismiss all the issues that were raised. All this claiming to be sympathetic to blacks is just your effort to keep them under your thumb, you actually do nothing for them and have no interest in helping them. And they know that.
No he actually signed an executive order halting the family separation policy days after this became a public outcry, here is the video of that happening, see for yourself:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?447373-1/president-trump-signs-executive-order-halting-family-separation-policy
It's like nothing I said to you registered - did I not just explain how sometimes, in relationships, people have to call one another out and address the problems...? Did I not explain how glossing over those problems and brushing them under the rug actually damages relationships long term? i.e. damages the alliance long term.? It's like the words I say don't have any effect, you just repeat yourself and ignore what I said to you. This is why the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is useful, when I engage with you people reasoning goes out the window.
So he claimed there were good people at the rally, you said it was a Nazi rally, I said there were people who were not Nazis at the rally..... In other words conservatives that aren't Nazi. Do you understand? Follow the train of thought.
That's because you're caught up in your sheltered, American bubble of ignorance precisely maintained, in part, by said airport security. Though tbh I don't believe you're more concerned with far-right extremists, I think you're saying that because it fits your argument and you're basically a propagandist and a puppet for churning out political babble. Try educating yourself about what's actually happening in Syria before you talk any further. It seems like it's another world away to you but the world is now a very small place, you can travel around the world in 3 days by plane at this point...
Oh ok.
Quoting ibrust
Yet thousands of children remain separated from parents, again, through a policy the Trump administration started. The traumatic psychological effects may last a lifetime for both children and parents. It will never be "resolved".
Quoting ibrust
Calling the EU America's largest economic "foe" is in no way a diplomatic or constructive way to "address problems". Saying that Germany is a puppet of Russia does nothing to "address the problem". Contrast Obama's criticism and constructive solutions of Germany's use of Russia's natural gas, with Trump's.
Quoting ibrust
The 'Unite The Right rally" was specifically organized by Richard Spencer, a white nationalist and neo-Nazi.
Yes, he halted a policy started under his administration because of the public outcry. Here’s an article from May reporting on Sessions’ announcement of the zero tolerance policy.
There is nothing derogatory in saying that Germany gets gas from Russia and is thus economically dependent on Russia and functionally subservient to them. All that is... is observing a geopolitical power dynamic and making a point based on it. World leaders think about things like that constantly. There is nothing offensive or controversial about that statement. If a world leader got offended by that it would prove they were absolutely, utterly incompetent and they would need to be replaced immediately. The way you characterize his position and the things he's saying is so childish, reactive and simplistic. You act like world leaders are a bunch of mindless, bickering children engaging in popularity contests, rather than hard nosed business representatives concerned with the bottom line. It's like you've projected your childish fantasies onto the world at large and you believe the entire world runs based on these petty, bickering idiocies. You just don't have a clear representation of how things really work on that level, the kind of priorities those people actually have. Your tone sounds to me like you've internalized the neurosis of various news channels.
It's like I could turn on the news and get everything you're saying verbatim. I don't even need you, there's no use for you. If I want a response I can just go turn on the news
Where one decides to purchase their energy does not make them automatically subservient to them.
We are not, nor have been subservient to Saudi, Venezuela, Mexico, or Canada.
It could be equally true that Germany as a major purchaser of energy from Russia could exert influence on them.
Except 1) that's not the language that Trump used and 2) it isn't true: Trump's actual words were that Germany gets 70% of its energy from Russia, when in fact natural gas makes up only 20% of Germany's energy use, and about 80% of Germany's natural gas comes from Russia. So no, they are certainly not "economically dependent" or "functionally subservient" to Russia.
Quoting ibrust
Well yeah, I'm getting my answers from valid sources, actually reporting, and expert investigation. What do you do sir?
Actually we have fought wars and engaged in proxy wars on behalf of Saudi Arabia... everything we do in the middle east is geared towards undermining Iran. That's why we've systematically overthrown every major dictator that was leaning closer to Iran.. It actually does largely come down to power and oil in the middle east.
The buyer is dependent on the supplier while the supplier can go to other buyers, the entire world needs oil. It's much easier as a supplier to find new buyers. It's not an equal power exchange. Especially now considering the Russian economy is becoming increasingly free market and it's been growing exponentially. They even have a skyrocketing China right next to them...
So you're just completely wrong, aren't you? Canada and Mexico are in such close proximity to us they could never pose any threat to cutting off our oil, our economies are way too networked.
Maw, since you've made 3 lackluster responses thus far I am discluding you from any further discussion. For example, twice now you have quoted a small portion of what I just said while leaving out other parts that addressed your response. It's a waste of time.
So are you saying the United States of America is, or has been subservient to Saudi Arabia? I would say quite the contrary. We may well have engaged in all types of events to ensure consistent energy supply, but at no time was it at anyone's direction or interest other than our own.
Quoting ibrust
As an aside, and IMO, save these types of comments for your twitter feed. Just make your points, allow others to make theirs. Maybe even think that individuals can have differing viewpoints without the need to be antagonistic
As long as you prove to be reasonable I will refrain from antagonizing you. Your initial comments didn't seem reasonable but your response was thoughtful and you at least read what I said, so...
Lol if you re-read our exchange, you've ignored my responses/evidence to you regarding
1) Trump's Separation Policy
2) Trump's comments on our allies
3) The effects of the Tax Cut
4) That the Unite The Right rally was organized by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer
5) Stats showing far-right terrorists have perpetrated more attacks on American soil than Islamic terrorists.
I would say we were clearly serving our own interests. If others, such as the Saudi Royal family, also benefited that was collateral and coincidental.
we are wandering off the only point i was making. You stated, as some matter of fact, that the simple act of Germany buying natural gas from Russia would make them subservient to them. After our brief discussion do you still consider that to be true?
From Germany's standpoint I do agree it's an alignment of apparent mutual self interest, that's just a different conversation. Trump doesn't have to represent Germany.
I suppose he is obligated to represent the world at large, and so is Germany...
People are subservient to their desires and desires can wreck havoc on an individual. Germany could slip out of political alignment with the EU, the EU could fall apart and Europe could land in chaos which could ultimately be detrimental to Germany and the world at large. From that perspective (and from the prevailing pseudo-morals against dictators which everyone boasts about) Germany will become subservient to Russia... yes
Thanks, I have no idea what that all means. But I think we have exhausted our points. Well at least I have.
"People are subservient to their desires and desires can wreck havoc on an individual. Germany could slip out of political alignment with the EU, the EU could fall apart and Europe could land in chaos which could ultimately be detrimental to Germany. "
In other words what is apparently done out of self interest can amount to chaos and the enslavement to the desires.
I have never watched a rally, I have seen some of the sound bites is all. Do they broadcast these things in full?
This might be one way to make sense of Scott Adams cognitive dissonance theory as applied to TDS. All the dirty deeds that all the Lefties have done doesn't align with their self-image and this causes an internal conflict. Good people (Lefties) don't do dirty deeds, so the only other way to explain it is that Trump did the dirty deeds.
Sound right, wellwisher?
You put a lounge topic about Trump derangement syndrome on the Facebook page? :chin:
It's up to Tiff what she puts on the page and she has a good record, so let's not go off-topic on this and move on, please.
You realized it was morally right for him to win. Perhaps you should watch more of his rallies.
Yes, of course. But obviously we have different conceptions of who he is, what he stands for and what he's doing.
Is any of that relevant to your experience?
I can’t tell if you’re being serious. To be clear, if someone says that a candidate for presidential office ought to win it appears to mean that they believe it’s morally right for them to win, or that the candidate will perform virtuously in that position.
Yes, that is correct. And I am entirely serious. I believe the received wisdom about Trump among the "intelligentsia" is completely wrong, as wrong as wrong can be. The hysterical opposition to him is literally insane, a mind-virus.
I don't think that's true. I think there was a deliberate, concerted attempt to weaken the US, as it's the biggest potential adversary of globalist ambitions.
(To clarify, in this context, by "globalism" I mean the unholy alliance between transnationalist socialism and crony capitalism. The central premise of globalism is that the nation state has had its day and has got to go; its its destruction - the dissolution of borders, national sovereignty, democracy, etc., and their replacement by a global system of social engineering and corporate management - would be convenient for both Leftist utopian ideologues and for big banking and corporations.)
And this is a coordinated, conscious undertaking? Or an uncoordinated trend?
A bit of both, as most of these large, historical movements have been. There are lots of people who simply "breathe together" because they believe the same things. I remember myself when I was a socialist, it just seemed obvious that entryism in politics, and homing in on capturing the education system as the number one overall priority, was the obvious min-max strategy. (And I hadn't even read Gramsci at that point - it's just obvious. Wasn't there a famous Jesuit saying about education? "Give me someone when they're five" or something :) )
On the other hand, it would be foolish to discount the likelihood of actual conspiracies strictly so-called. The problem with actual conspiracy theories is threefold: 1) you're unlikely to get everyone on the same page, so they will often work at cross-purposes, 2) you don't always get what you want anyway (law of unintended consequences), and 3) as you get older you realize how hard it is to organize something even above board in the light of day - how much harder then, to organize something sub rosa. But conspiracies are occasionally found out from time to time, and, again, it would be stupid to think that the ones that have been found out are the only ones that have ever existed.
I think there's definitely been some actual conspiratorial stuff going on at a high level between what one might call "transnationalist socialists" and crony capitalists. And it's not even all that secret (Bilderberg group, etc.). There has been a drive to erase the nation state as a thing - partly in the no doubt sincere (but I think mistaken) belief that nations as such are the cause of war (this would be largely the motivation for Left/liberal utopians and transnationalist socialists); partly because it's better for big business if Rome has a single neck, as it were - if everything is centralized and run bureaucratically, with consent manufactured (this would be the main motivation for big business). There's also a strong animus against European/American males - mainly I think because they're the biggest potential spanner in the works of globalist ambitions. (This is actually the tail that's wagging the dog re. all the anti-White, anti-male propaganda that saturates the mainstream - the ideological twaddle behind it is just squid-ink for the useful idiots.)
Unfortunately for the globalists (though fortunately for the world) they rather overplayed their hand, and we're now starting to see the frog noticing that it's been being boiled, and jumping out of the pot.
TDS. Scott Adams had predicted that by now it would have been abated.... pretty much the only issue about which he has been wrong. If anything, it has gotten stronger. We are talking about a full-blown mass hysteria now. Orangeman baaaaad!