Trump Derangement Syndrome

[mickthinks]

... but on the matter of Biden and Clinton are not anything near so graphic and verbose, ...

You mean this kind of thing ...

“BIDEN IS AN AUTHORITARIAN,” a banner on Fox declared. “BIDEN DECLARES WAR ON MILLIONS OF AMERICANS,” yet another Fox banner read. “FULL TOTALITARIAN,” Breitbart’s homepage splash screamed. The far-right, but mass consumed, Gateway Pundit ripped the “Biden regime” for its “tyrannical mandates.” The Federalist described it as a “fascist move.” On and on it went… "

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/09/medi ... index.html

Do you not remember "Lock Her Up!" ?

"They hate her, in a deep and primal way that goes beyond anything logical or rational, much less anything having to do with issues or the challenges of the presidency."

https://theweek.com/articles/637132/rep ... owing-turn

"The Left" doesn't hate Trump in any comparable sense, though I grant, you will always find persons of weak intellect an unstable character making similarly unbalanced statements about him. But "the Left" does not hate Trump. We oppose him and his backers and his base.

[Immanuel Can]

... but on the matter of Biden and Clinton are not anything near so graphic and verbose, ...

You mean this kind of thing ...

“BIDEN IS AN AUTHORITARIAN,”

That's a poor rejoinder, I must say.

It might argue for the existence of a "BDS," or "Biden Derangement Syndrome," but says nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of a "Trump Derangement Syndrome." At best, it's a specimen of the "et tu quoque" fallacy.

Is Biden "authoritarian"? I suspect not, because I think he lacks the capacity to be, at this stage of his life. Is he "totalitarian"? I don't think he can actually govern himself at this point, so any totalitarianism would be coming from his 'managers,' not him. And I think that's a fair and dispassionate assessement. It's clear that now even the Democrats know and are acting on the fact that he's not mentally capable.

However, I was speaking of the days when he, in possession of all his faculties, presumably, sexually assaulted Tara Reade, and the days when Clinton, likewise in full capacity, repeatedly preyed on women. That both are most probably impotent now is scarcely an excuse for the failure of Democrat supporters to decry their crimes, either then or now. So again, the disproportionality is manifest in them.

So while you are likely right to see the claims about Biden as hyperbolical...they just have nothing to tell us about TDS.

[mickthinks]

At best, it's a specimen of the "et tu quoque" fallacy.

Your whole defence of Trump against his detractors seems to me to be one grandiose and inflated tu quoque, Manny.

[Immanuel Can]

At best, it's a specimen of the "et tu quoque" fallacy.

Your whole defence of Trump against his detractors seems to me to be one grandiose and inflated tu quoque, Manny.

It's "et tu quoque." I think perhaps you misunderstand what that fallacy entails...but you're free to say what you will, of course.

I would say the evidence is in hand...unless you believe that Clinton's and Biden's confirmed behaviour is less egregious than the frat-boy comments alleged to be made by Trump.

And I don't think you believe that.

But I'm actually not "defending Trump." You'll notice that my discussion is devoid of that particular goal, if you look. I don't make any attempt at all to extenuate the conduct alleged by the Democrats, but I point to the much worse conduct of their own, and wonder at their hypocrisy, and question their motives for so glaring an oversight.

And that's surely fair.

[mickthinks]

But I'm actually not "defending Trump.

lol I guess you don't know you're doing it, huh?

Your point here which switches attention to criticism of Democratic leaders, is part of your argument that criticism of Trump is deranged. That conclusion is a defence of Trump.

Do you see what you are doing now?

[Immanuel Can]

But I'm actually not "defending Trump.

lol I guess you don't know you're doing it, huh?

Find the place where I did. Quote it.

Your point here which switches attention to criticism of Democratic leaders, is part of your argument that criticism of Trump is deranged. That conclusion is a defence of Trump.

Oh, I get it...

You've bought into the ridiculous theory that the Dems are above criticism, because any question thrown their way would inadvertently serve Trump. So they've got to be treated as infallible, above even a shadow of doubt, perfect as saints, so that Trump doesn't win? And you even want me to feel bad, traitorous to the cause of all that is good and right, for pointing out when they lie, take bribes, or rape women?

Lovely.

Sorry...the Dems come in for the bashes they get. You're just going to have to live with the fallout. If they deserved to be above criticism, they'd have behaved much better. But they didn't. And you know they didn't. But what that means to one D. Trump is of no concern to me, either way. I neither laud him nor fear him.

But you do furnish a further example and symptom of TDS...the inability to see one's own party for what it is...

So thank you for that much.

[commonsense]

Please clarify. The Trump Derangement Syndrome is about things that Democrats think are Trump’s shortcomings but that really are not? Or about crimes of the Democrats that really are crimes? Or both? Or something else?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you see what you are doing now?

You give me an interesting idea.

Are you a U.S. citizen?

If you are, you come from a totally two-party system, one historically polarized strictly into Repubs and Dems. You may be totally unaware that most countries are multi-party democracies. For instance, Canada has three major and a couple of minor parties; Germany has 15, though most are small; and the Israeli Knesset is composed of 13, all represented in shifting alliances. By contrast, in America, you're always either Dem or Repub. There's really no meaningful alternative. And Americans tend to view the world as if that's a law of nature...anybody who criticized the Dems must be a Republican supporter, by mere way of elimination...

Except that's ridiculous. As somebody who sits outside that system, I feel no obligation to either party (hard for an American to imagine, I know). I feel perfectly free to criticize both, and not at all compelled to criticize them equal amounts if they don't deserve equal criticism. Criticism for one is not support for the other, because I vote for neither and have no historical association with either. My political situation does not even parallel that.

So you may think that criticism of the Dems is Trump support. But it's not. And from where I sit, I can see perfectly well what's going on, without concerning myself with which party is gaining or losing by my comments. I'm not even deeply concerned about the Dems corruption; I'm interested in how they are mobilizing the "Trump hate" strategy to secure their own position. And it concerns me because any exercise in inflamatory propaganda tends to claim victims well beyond the immediate object of its hatred.

As I watch America, I cannot help but marvel at the overblown rhetoric against Trump. "Maga Republicans are terrorists," says the feeble puppet of the Leftists...and I cannot help but wonder what that means, and what forces he's attempting to summon as his party dangles over the pit of a potential massive defeat in November. And I cannot help but marvel that many Americans are so prone to buy it...so indoctrinated into the two-party binary that they fall prey to such extremist rhetoric, such naive and obviously excessive claims, and supinely yield their votes to the purveyors of it.

It's a little frightening to see such helpless group-think at work. And I'm grateful for every American there may remain who can see that something is really rotten in America right now. Because as America goes, so goes the world, really. That should be a serious concern to all of us.

[Immanuel Can]

Please clarify. The Trump Derangement Syndrome is about things that Democrats think are Trump’s shortcomings but that really are not? Or about crimes of the Democrats that really are crimes? Or both? Or something else?

Neither, ultimately.

It's about the credulity of Americans, I think. Not all of them, of course; but enough, apparently. Why has the public perception become so marked by unbalanced rhetoric, crazy claims (like "MAGA Republicans are terrorists") that seem to go utterly unchallenged and undoubted by most? Why are people so willing to refer to debunked slanders like the Charlottesville claims or the Russia Collusion thing, and so slow to relinquish them afterward? How does something like the Hunter Biden laptop get buried during an election, and even afterward, when it's revealed as evidentiary, is allowed to come to nothing? What kind of a hold do the purveyors of power in America have over their citizens, and how does the Trump narrative lend it power?

These are the real questions, it seems to me. Because if this sort of political manipulation gets carried on in America, then where can it NOT be carried on?

[Walker]

- Steve Bannon, Trump associate, 9-9-22.[/i]

That's the Steve Bannon ...

- Get serious and focus on this, Einstein.
- 35 Trump associates officially raided in one night.
- This proves just how serious and important and necessary was the raid on Trump's home by the government (not).
- The message: Anyone who works with Trump can and likely will be raided by very important government law-enforcement agencies. Very official.
- Old school, the 35 would quietly disappear. This totalitarian tactic has evolved to fit the woke.
- Now, they can be silenced, deplatformed, demonitized. Just as effective, and much more humane.
- No one will want to work with Trump, should he seek the presidency.

or, stay stupid and focus on this ...

Steve Bannon. Isn’t he the man who destroyed Hillary Clinton’s phones and computers? Back when she was subpoenaed to turn over her phones and computers, someone tried to access the digital phone data with a hammer but unfortunately destroyed the actual phones in the process. When asked on camera if she had done the professional scrub job on her computers to make the data irretrievable she wondered with wide-eyed innocence if that meant wiping them down with a cloth. Isn’t Steve Bannon the one who scrubbed her computers and smashed her phones with a hammer after she was served with a subpoena? No wait, that was not investigated. Everyone just shrugged, chuckled at Hillary Clinton’s clever crack about scrubbing, and moved on. So, no one can really say for sure that Bannon did not destroy those records. They could accuse him of doing that and investigate that for the next five or ten years, tie it into Russian collusion because Trump was investigated for so long over Russia by very important government agencies that it must be true, right?

When fact checking, begin with the first. I didn't bother with it. Bannon's 35 could be as complete a fabrication as the official assertion that no one is walking over the southern border (they're mostly swimming).

Some think it might be more than 35. Very hush hush.

[Sculptor]

Stop Press.

This News just in: Trump secretly Knighted by Her Majesty the Queen!

With the death of the Queen Trump can finally reveal that the Queen Knight him Sir Donald of Duck, claims Trump.

Yeah she bigly knighted me with the big, the biggest sword, biggest ever, it was secret oh really top secret, so secret no one knew, it was great she a lovely women, so lovely the loveliest ever ev vER. They all love me over there, so much.

[FlashDangerpants]

- Steve Bannon, Trump associate, 9-9-22.[/i]

That's the Steve Bannon ...

- Get serious and focus on this, Einstein.
- 35 Trump associates officially raided in one night.
- This proves just how serious and important and necessary was the raid on Trump's home by the government (not).
- The message: Anyone who works with Trump can and likely will be raided by very important government law-enforcement agencies. Very official.
- Old school, the 35 would quietly disappear. This totalitarian tactic has evolved to fit the woke.
- Now, they can be silenced, deplatformed, demonitized. Just as effective, and much more humane.
- No one will want to work with Trump, should he seek the presidency.

or, stay stupid and focus on this ...

Steve Bannon. Isn’t he the man who destroyed Hillary Clinton’s phones and computers? Back when she was subpoenaed to turn over her phones and computers, someone tried to access the digital phone data with a hammer but unfortunately destroyed the actual phones in the process. When asked on camera if she had done the professional scrub job on her computers to make the data irretrievable she wondered with wide-eyed innocence if that meant wiping them down with a cloth. Isn’t Steve Bannon the one who scrubbed her computers and smashed her phones with a hammer after she was served with a subpoena? No wait, that was not investigated. Everyone just shrugged, chuckled at Hillary Clinton’s clever crack about scrubbing, and moved on. So, no one can really say for sure that Bannon did not destroy those records. They could accuse him of doing that and investigate that for the next five or ten years, tie it into Russian collusion because Trump was investigated for so long over Russia by very important government agencies that it must be true, right?

When fact checking, begin with the first. I didn't bother with it. Bannon's 35 could be as complete a fabrication as the official assertion that no one is walking over the southern border (they're mostly swimming).

Some think it might be more than 35. Very hush hush.

Did you send money to Bannon?

[commonsense]

It was alleged by FOX TV News last night that Hunter Biden, the son of then Vice President Joe Biden, ordered the execution of the younger Biden’s business partner.

The hit man’s identity is not currently being revealed, according to anonymous sources who have direct knowledge of the hit man’s contract and method of operation.

Biden has not responded to the news that his son was responsible for the hit, and the official White House position is that the hit was never carried out. More will follow as this breaking news develops.

[mickthinks]

Your point here which switches attention to criticism of Democratic leaders, is part of your argument that criticism of Trump is deranged. That conclusion is a defence of Trump.

You've bought into the ridiculous theory that the Dems are above criticism

No, I've bought into the theory that you, Manny, are defending Trump. You're doing so by deflecting (using "whataboutery" like a Kremlin professional). Your whataboutery is a defence of Trump.

... the degree of venom directed against him ...

You and Walker keep making this kind of assertion, but you haven't yet provided any substance, Manny. How are you measuring the degree of venom you are seeing?

I believe you are confused: there's a lot of trenchant opposition to Trump and his supporters, but opposition is not venom.

[commonsense]

Your point here which switches attention to criticism of Democratic leaders, is part of your argument that criticism of Trump is deranged. That conclusion is a defence of Trump.

You've bought into the ridiculous theory that the Dems are above criticism

No, I've bought into the theory that you, Manny, are defending Trump. You're doing so by deflecting (using "whataboutery" like a Kremlin professional). Your whataboutery is a defence of Trump.

... the degree of venom directed against him ...

You and Walker keep making this kind of assertion, but you haven't yet provided any substance, Manny. How are you measuring the degree of venom you are seeing?

I believe you are confused: there's a lot of trenchant opposition to Trump and his supporters, but opposition is not venom.

Well said.