1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome and the 2020 Election

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 08:33
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome—i.e. the tendency to be equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical over Donald Trump—emerged early in his campaign and blossomed at his election.  Although he said that black churches have inspired “a sense of charity and unity that binds us all together,” calling for a “civil rights agenda of our time”; although he said we must “work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally” and seek to make life better “for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit and Ferguson”; although he said that “Mexican American citizens” have made great contributions to “our two countries” and that illegal immigration is a problem because it threatens legal, low wage workers, “especially African-American and Hispanic workers” for whom upward mobility should be a priority (emphasis added); in short, although he said all these things, outlets like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon declared, just in different ways, that Trump was “running on pure white supremacy” and was “an openly white supremacist nominee”; that “there’s no such thing as a good Trump voter”; that “Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism”; and that “Trump’s win tells people of color they aren’t welcome in America.”  How can such a disconnect between what a candidate actually says and what a candidate purportedly represents persist?  What explains Trump Derangement Syndrome?

First, TDS requires selective emphasis.  The above named outlets focused only on the deplorable things he said during the campaign—things like the “grab’em by the pussy” and illegal immigrants are “bringing drugs,” “bringing crime” and “they are rapists” etc.—then they define him against those statements while selectively omitting the things he says contrary to the definition.  Thus Trump Derangement Syndrome has as its first step cherry-picking negative comments at the specific exclusion of the positive ones, or ones otherwise politically normal.  This cherry-picking is doubly suspect when one considers that mainstream outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post dutifully reported on most of the speeches in which the above statements were made—or if not them, then local media outlets did, outlets easily accessible to anyone following the campaign (as presumably the editors at Slate et. al. did).  In any case, the primary element of Trump Derangement Syndrome is cherry-picking in what can only be described as bad faith, a bad faith that excludes in advance any possibility of something positive about the man.  Not everyone who has the syndrome is guilty of this per se; some simply inherit it for having caught the syndrome.

Second, TDS is rooted in hate.  Because of this bad faith cherry picking; because of this willful misconstrual of Trump as a “white supremacist” or a “racist,” regardless of the intellectual honesty sacrificed to maintain it; because of this refusal to give the man, apriori, anything like fair shake based on the full gamut of what he actually says—for these reasons Trump Derangement Syndrome is an expression of hate, a hate that extends not just to Trump himself but to anyone who supports him.  “Hate” here means simply an apriori disposition to see nothing but negative, nothing worth redeeming, nothing favoring compromise or reconciliation.  It is, I think, the perfect analogue of the “love” that equally blinds and binds die-hard Trump supporters to Trump.  For them, nothing he says pricks the bubble of their derangement in favor of him, just as nothing he says will prick the derangement against him.  In my experience this dual tendency to “love” and “hate” underlies all politics, but it seems to me clearer now.  It seems to me amplified into its purest forms during Trump’s campaign, and his Presidency.  In any case, Trump Derangement Syndrome is driven by a politics of hate that refuses to see anything potentially redeeming in the man, much less his policies or his supporters, and its primary mechanism for maintaining the Derangement is cherry-picking only his deplorable and idiotic statements, at the specific exclusion of those not so (again, willful at the source; by inheritance among the infected).  Taken together hate and cherry-picking drive the roughly 8% of the population that either self-identify or can be accurately identified as “far left,” or “activist left,” or at the political level the “Justice Democrats” (the left’s version of the Tea Party).  Their outlets, as mentioned above, include journals like Slate, Vox, HuffPost, and Salon.

I have already defended the so-called “Trump supporter” against this politics of hate and its Derangement Syndrome here.  This time I want to shift the focus, from the man per se and his supporters to the dynamics of the upcoming election.  My thesis—which I leave open for discussion—is that if Trump Derangement Syndrome persists; if this 8% of the population comes to define the Democratic primary; if the meaning of the Democratic platform becomes as divorced from reality as Warren’s recent Ferguson Tweet; then what should be a 3-foot layup for a Democratic win will become a 50-50 three-point shot.  In other words, what in professional basketball should be a sure thing could end up going either way.  To this point, I maintain that that the middle voter that could go either way in any given election, depending on the candidate (Obama skunked Romney, for instance), is sick and tired of the politics of hate.  They are sick and tired seeing derangement and hysterical outrage rule politics, whether it is deranged support for Trump or deranged opposition against him.  And more specifically, the sense of fairness intrinsic to most people dispose these voters to side with someone—if they side with anyone—who is the target of unfair treatment—not unfair in a moral sense, exactly, but unfair in an obvious sense where the hysteria, derangement, and outrage is as disconnected from the reality as is the disconnect is between ‘Trump is running on pure white supremacy” versus what Trump actually said about race during the campaign.  That kind of disconnect cannot maintain itself in the face of facts—facts that are covered in the national and local non-ideological outlets—and my fear is that should the Democratic platform be high-jacked by TDS, this will create, against its intent, enough valance toward Trump to edge out the election, just as he edged it out in 2016.  I don’t think people caught up in Trump Derangement Syndrome appreciate how outright ridiculous it looks when one has access to—and reads—the broader coverage of what he actually says on any given issue, and therefore what he presumably stands for (if he stands for anything but his own aggrandizement, which is unlikely).  Anyway, the dangers of it infecting the 2020 election is the germ of a fear I leave open for discussion, no doubt subject to augmentation along the way…

 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3145
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
05 September 2019 11:13
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 08:33 AM

  My thesis—which I leave open for discussion—is that if Trump Derangement Syndrome persists; if this 8% of the population comes to define the Democratic primary; if the meaning of the Democratic platform becomes as divorced from reality as Warren’s recent Ferguson Tweet; then what should be a 3-foot layup for a Democratic win will become a 50-50 three-point shot.  In other words, what in professional basketball should be a sure thing could end up going either way.  To this point, I maintain that that the middle voter that could go either way in any given election, depending on the candidate (Obama skunked Romney, for instance), is sick and tired of the politics of hate.  They are sick and tired seeing derangement and hysterical outrage rule politics, whether it is deranged support for Trump or deranged opposition against him.  And more specifically, the sense of fairness intrinsic to most people dispose these voters to side with someone—if they side with anyone—who is the target of unfair treatment—not unfair in a moral sense, exactly, but unfair in an obvious sense where the hysteria, derangement, and outrage is as disconnected from the reality as is the disconnect is between ‘Trump is running on pure white supremacy” versus what Trump actually said about race during the campaign.  That kind of disconnect cannot maintain itself in the face of facts—facts that are covered in the national and local non-ideological outlets—and my fear is that should the Democratic platform be high-jacked by TDS, this will create, against its intent, enough valance toward Trump to edge out the election, just as he edged it out in 2016.  I don’t think people caught up in Trump Derangement Syndrome appreciate how outright ridiculous it looks when one has access to—and reads—the broader coverage of what he actually says on any given issue, and therefore what he presumably stands for (if he stands for anything but his own aggrandizement, which is unlikely).  Anyway, the dangers of it infecting the 2020 election is the germ of a fear I leave open for discussion, no doubt subject to augmentation along the way…

I agree that the Democratic Party is lost at sea with the extremes such as ban on (straws, red meat, gas-powered cars, incandescent bulbs, nuclear energy, fracking, natural gas exports, off-shore drilling, factory farming,  “carbon”)  ... and wanting open borders,  health care for all, including illegals.

I think it appears the common sense democratic voters (whatever number left behind) seem to agree as they opt to put unsteady hands of Joe Biden at the helm, running away from the crazies. There are also indications that the political center is already a little tired of the Everything-Is-Racist trope and weary of the media’s out in the open slant from (accused) fake news to “official” fake news when NYT news chief D. Baquet announced that the paper needed a replacement for the now proven hoax of RussiaGate.

I disagree with the “what should be a 3-foot layup for a Democratic win ” assertion, especially when the merely lost at sea ship now, starts to sink this fall faced with expected published(including criminal) reports by Justice Dept regarding Democratic Operatives Brennen, Clapper, Comey, Lynch, McCabe and even Obama.  No sane person will wish to put the Dems in charge again.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
05 September 2019 12:34
 

A person’s character cannot be judged by some kind of count or attempt at prioritizing contradictory statements as if they can be balanced in some way.  Contradiction indicates some of what is said is false or deception.  Someone of character who respects women would NEVER say he could “grab’em by the pussy”.  Someone of character who considers all people to be equal would NEVER say the conglomeration of things that Trump has said.  It’s not cherry-picking to hold someone accountable for ALL that they say, especially a POTUS.

The OP, by its title and content, depicts many of Trump’s opposition as deranged, that they are the haters, terms like “far left” and “activist left” used with disdain, a lumping together, putting many of those in opposition in a tidy little box.  The language and obvious underlying emotion showing every bit as much outrage as that which is being criticized.  The pot calling the kettle black.

In the OP:  “They [the middle voter] are sick and tired seeing derangement and hysterical outrage rule politics, whether it is deranged support for Trump or deranged opposition against him”.  This may be true, but don’t think the sentiments expressed in the OP could be considered objective or as landing in the middle. 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 13:17
 

Celal

I’m reluctant to correct anyone who says they agree me, but I did not say the Democratic Party is lost at sea with extremes; at most I indicated that it could go down that road, if the radical elements within the party catch hold and dominate.  As for the rest, predictably you see Biden negatively, and as predictably you are convinced middle voters are sick of what you condemn on political grounds.  But we are far apart here, Celal, you being a political creature and me not.  I am interested in Trump and TDS solely as a political phenomenon, not because I suffer from it or suffer from those who suffer from it.  I appreciate the response, but I have to point out that we in fact do not agree here. In fact, I doubt we could be much further apart.

Jan_CAN

You’re not doing yourself any favors, Jan_CAN.  You preach about holding someone accountable for “ALL that they say,” yet you studiously ignore the implications of what Trump has actually said when it comes to the main thrust in the OP—cited copiously: race and white supremacy; that he is supposedly a racist and a white supremacist, yet he says things that contradict what any racist and white supremacists would say.  And this after you yourself say he is two steps back on race and civil rights when his stated words—part of ALL that he says—indicates nothing of the kind.

You are half right that “contradiction indicates some of what is said is false or deception” (one can just be inconsistent without being either), but you yourself are the one judging a person’s character by “some kind of count or attempt at prioritizing contradictory statements as if they can be balanced in some way.”  You’ve decided that the negative statements reveal Trump’s true character, while—again—studiously ignoring the positive statements. Hence the cherry-picking described in the OP. 

Nice try, but you are just projecting and flailing here—a symptom of resistance to having one’s TDS pointed out.  To your pot calling the kettle black I retort: “Guilty conscience, eh.” 

(Incidentally, in case you missed the part that equates TDS with a ‘TDS’ from the other side, I reiterate it here (emphasis added to “equally blinds” and “derangement”): 

“Hate” here means simply an apriori disposition to see nothing but negative, nothing worth redeeming, nothing favoring compromise or reconciliation.  It is, I think, the perfect analogue of the “love” that equally blinds and binds die-hard Trump supporters to Trump.  For them, nothing he says pricks the bubble of their derangement in favor of him, just as nothing he says will prick the derangement against him.

Polls show this does express the middle ground, as it represents the disaffection with politics some polls put at 60% of eligible voters.)

 

[ Edited: 05 September 2019 13:47 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 14:12
 

“I have spoken all over the world and I have great respect for Muslims, I have great respect for the African people, I have respect for the other races. Even back home in Lousiana, I’m called a racist, but I have respect for the Black people of my country and I want them to have their own life, too, and I want them to be able to pursue their own destiny and not be controlled, and not be damaged.”. - David Duke (according to wiki quote).

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
05 September 2019 14:18
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 01:17 PM

Jan_CAN

You’re not doing yourself any favors, Jan_CAN.  You preach about holding someone accountable for “ALL that they say,” yet you studiously ignore the implications of what Trump has actually said when it comes to the main thrust in the OP—cited copiously: race and white supremacy; that he is supposedly a racist and a white supremacist, yet he says things that contradict what any racist and white supremacists would say.  And this after you yourself say he is two steps back on race and civil rights when his stated words—part of ALL that he says—indicates nothing of the kind.

And you’re not doing either of us any favours by misinterpreting what I’ve said.  It carries little weight that Trump said things that contradict his being a racist (my words were that he does not “consider all people to be equal”), since as I indicated in my previous post, saying some things even once shows a person’s real views.  When I said that someone is accountable for ALL that they say, I did not say it ranked equally as when a contradiction indicates deception.

You are half right that “contradiction indicates some of what is said is false or deception” (one can just be inconsistent without being either), but you yourself are the one judging a person’s character by “some kind of count or attempt at prioritizing contradictory statements as if they can be balanced in some way.”  You’ve decided that the negative statements reveal Trump’s true character, while—again—studiously ignoring the positive statements. Hence the cherry-picking described in the OP.

Yes, the negative statements do reveal more about his true character.  The others are scripted and deception which is plain to see.

 
Nice try, but you are just projecting and flailing here—a symptom of resistance to having one’s TDS pointed out.  To your pot calling the kettle black I retort: “Guilty conscience, eh.”

I’ve never hidden my opinion of Trump as a lying narcissist unfit to be President.  He might be charming and a lot of fun at a party though, but I don’t much care.  And I don’t feel the least bit guilty, or deranged, either.  wink

(Incidentally, in case you missed the part that equates TDS with a ‘TDS’ from the other side, I reiterate it here (emphasis added to “equally blinds” and “derangement”): 

“Hate” here means simply an apriori disposition to see nothing but negative, nothing worth redeeming, nothing favoring compromise or reconciliation.  It is, I think, the perfect analogue of the “love” that equally blinds and binds die-hard Trump supporters to Trump.  For them, nothing he says pricks the bubble of their derangement in favor of him, just as nothing he says will prick the derangement against him.

Polls show this does express the middle ground, as it represents the disaffection with politics some polls put at 60% of eligible voters.)

It’s obvious from this (and other) thread that our views lay on different sides of the political spectrum and that we are very different people.  However, perhaps both of us could try to read each other’s strong views with a lighter tone, a smile?  Since I like to talk against division and for open dialogue, I should practise what I preach.  (And you’ve livened things up ‘round here; it’s been a little boring lately.)

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 14:24
 
mapadofu - 05 September 2019 02:12 PM

“I have spoken all over the world and I have great respect for Muslims, I have great respect for the African people, I have respect for the other races. Even back home in Lousiana, I’m called a racist, but I have respect for the Black people of my country and I want them to have their own life, too, and I want them to be able to pursue their own destiny and not be controlled, and not be damaged.”. - David Duke (according to wiki quote).

“White people don’t need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals”.

“Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.”

“What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don’t want Negroes around. We don’t need Negroes around. We’re not asking— you know, we don’t want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That’s in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation.”

—David Duke, the same source.

It takes a singular lack of intelligence to quote any man so selectively in order to make a point.

 

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 14:28
 

It’s obvious from this (and other) thread that our views lay on different sides of the political spectrum and that we are very different people.  However, perhaps both of us could try to read each other’s strong views with a lighter tone, a smile?  Since I like to talk against division and for open dialogue, I should practise what I preach.  (And you’ve livened things up ‘round here; it’s been a little boring lately.)

Fair enough, and thank you.  As a rule I find you do practice what you preach, and in our interactions I have always tried—and will try even harder now—to reciprocate in kind.

P.S. I’m curious to know what “side” of the political spectrum you think I’m on.

 

[ Edited: 05 September 2019 15:29 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 14:30
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 02:24 PM
mapadofu - 05 September 2019 02:12 PM

“I have spoken all over the world and I have great respect for Muslims, I have great respect for the African people, I have respect for the other races. Even back home in Lousiana, I’m called a racist, but I have respect for the Black people of my country and I want them to have their own life, too, and I want them to be able to pursue their own destiny and not be controlled, and not be damaged.”. - David Duke (according to wiki quote).

“White people don’t need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals”.

“Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.”

“What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don’t want Negroes around. We don’t need Negroes around. We’re not asking— you know, we don’t want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That’s in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation.”

—David Duke, the same source.

It takes a singular lack of intelligence to quote any man so selectively in order to make a point.

Yet that is the essence of the first paragraph of the first post.

Or, to put it another way, your own post shows the very same singular lack of intelligence; by your standards.

[ Edited: 05 September 2019 14:33 by mapadofu]
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3145
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
05 September 2019 14:37
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 01:17 PM

Celal

I’m reluctant to correct anyone who says they agree me, but I did not say the Democratic Party is lost at sea with extremes; at most I indicated that it could go down that road, if the radical elements within the party catch hold and dominate.  As for the rest, predictably you see Biden negatively, and as predictably you are convinced middle voters are sick of what you condemn on political grounds.  But we are far apart here, Celal, you being a political creature and me not.  I am interested in Trump and TDS solely as a political phenomenon, not because I suffer from it or suffer from those who suffer from it.  I appreciate the response, but I have to point out that we in fact do not agree here. In fact, I doubt we could be much further apart.

Fair enough. They were my words, not yours. I erred on the account of thinking at least you shared the same sentiments.

Let’s see if I can get you to agree on anything with me.  I believe American people by and large reject the notion that everyone and everything not “woke” is a racist, a white supremacist, and a domestic terrorist. I believe American people by and large reject the idea that banning straws should be priority in California while there are miles long homeless camps, designated defecation sites in the streets in once beautiful cities. Finally I think American people reject the notion of illegals freely flooding the border, the cities, healthcare system and schools.

The common thread in each and every example above is COMMON sense. The Democratic Party has lost its common sense.  The issue isn’t unique to Democratic Party. There are Republicans too also lost their way. Many of whom can not be trusted either.

That is why Trump was elected. That is why he will be elected in 2020.  As long as the left is on the loose out there in streets, threatening to “stab motherfuckers in the heart” referring to Sen Majority Leader McConnell, whilst San Francisco votes to declare NRA a terrorist organization, Trump will easily win, especially as an incumbent.

[ Edited: 05 September 2019 14:39 by Celal]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 14:41
 
mapadofu - 05 September 2019 02:30 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 02:24 PM
mapadofu - 05 September 2019 02:12 PM

“I have spoken all over the world and I have great respect for Muslims, I have great respect for the African people, I have respect for the other races. Even back home in Lousiana, I’m called a racist, but I have respect for the Black people of my country and I want them to have their own life, too, and I want them to be able to pursue their own destiny and not be controlled, and not be damaged.”. - David Duke (according to wiki quote).

“White people don’t need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals”.

“Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.”

“What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don’t want Negroes around. We don’t need Negroes around. We’re not asking— you know, we don’t want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That’s in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation.”

—David Duke, the same source.

It takes a singular lack of intelligence to quote any man so selectively in order to make a point.

Yet that is the essence of the first paragraph of the first post.

Or, to put it another way, your own post shows the very same singular lack of intelligence; by your standards.

Uh huh.  And the second paragraph of the OP quoted two “deplorable” statements and acknowledged that he made others…“grab’em by the pussy” and illegal immigrants are “bringing drugs,” “bringing crime” and “they are rapists.”  It then set up the problem of cherry picking by pointing out Vox, et al. infer “racism” and “white supremacy” from something like the negative statements while omitting any reference to the contradictory positive ones.  Or did you miss that part—the one that set up in two paragraphs quotes representing both “good” and “bad” statements in order to set up a problem?

And here I thought your stupidity was limited to Bayesian statistics, not elementary reading skills as well…

[It’s back to Ignore for you because these refutations are too obvious to be fun, much less helpful by forcing me to think.  I feel “unclean” even making them; degraded, as it were…]

[ Edited: 05 September 2019 15:22 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 15:14
 

Celal

Yes, I believe the American people by and large reject the “woke” left’s emphasis on systemic racism being all pervasive, and that white supremacy is a rising, existential threat.  But on the same token, I think too large a faction of those same people minimize the progress on “race” that still needs to be made; that they underestimate the legacy and impact of past systemic racism; that they need to be reminded, less militantly, that positive steps are still required to redress it.

I don’t know anything about “banning straws.”  Is that really a thing?  If so, then yes, I suspect most people would say that priority is retarded.

I can’t say much about immigration.  I’d say most people don’t want to hang anyone out in the cold, illegal or not, but beyond that, meaning services for them, etc. the country seems to me pretty much divided along party lines.  That said, I doubt any but the hard left believe in a free-for all of open borders, if even they believe that.

You say “the Democratic Party has lost its common sense.”  I don’t see that.  I think the Democratic Party is in danger of losing it; that it is experiencing the same push from the extremes that Boehner experienced with the rise of the Tea Party.  In fact, I see a strong parallel between him and Pelosi as the “old guard” against the radical “young guns” of the up and coming. To this point I see established politicians like Warren and Sanders either apriori or aposteriori sympathetic or aligned with these “young guns” (last I saw they called themselves “Justice Democrats” or “Socialist Democrats”), and yes, I think those two and those like them represent the abandonment of sense—a threat to the integrity of any party.  That is why I suspect that neither Sanders nor Warren will win the nomination—if, at least, the “old guard” can withstand the “young guns.”
 
I sort of agree that Republicans losing their way is how Trump won the nomination, but not so much how he got elected.  I think Trump capitalized on a deeply misguided desire for authenticity in politics, meaning his believers were clearly disaffected with the party elites yet deeply misguided in respecting his crass, deplorable, and vulgar authenticity as something worth supporting, simply because it was “authentic” (I’ve posted more extensively on this at the linked post in the OP).  And to this point, I think voters in general, not just Trump voters, still hunger for something like “authenticity,” and that they are disillusioned with Trump’s—enough of them, that is, though not his die-hard “deranged” (to quote the OP) supporters.  For this reason I think the election is Biden’s to loose.  He’s got the decency and the authenticity that I think voters crave, and so long as he doesn’t go “woke,” I think he’ll beat Trump as soundly as, or even more soundly than, Obama beat Romney.  Like I said in the OP, I think middle voters are sick of the current extremes of “love” and “hate,” meaning the hysteria, outrage, and derangement both for and against Trump.  In this respect, I think Trump may be a turning point, one that wakes us up a bit, should things go well with someone like Biden.  And with someone like Biden I think they could go well enough, so long as the Republican’s keep a small majority in the Senate, just to keep everyone honest…

There, those are my political cards, for what they are worth.  There may be some real agreement there despite some real disagreement likely to remain…

[ Edited: 05 September 2019 15:32 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6355
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
05 September 2019 15:40
 

This is only slightly harder than that card trick.

One secretive confession is not outweighed by two public denials. The invisible point in displaying the contrasting quotes supports the rest of your case. Can we watch you pull a rabbit out of your point?

The trump is not a racist or white-ist. Either position would have to be thought through and he doesn’t do that. He is a practiced pitchman and the entrenched Reaganist minority formed in the ‘80’s was happy to take the re-branding. He is an ink blot for his base. There is an amazing variety of things folks claim to see in him. In my experience, Reagan’s base was almost uniformly white-ist though most would insist true racism would require hatred which they insist they do not possess.

I think the new question this all raises is whether anyone is to be called a racist if they are comfortable saying racist comments in order to get along, curry favor, suck up, protect their blood and holdings or simply out of cowardice. Reagan’s recently exposed remarks to Nixon surprised many. Lacking a modern racial enlightenment might only mean one has spent a lifetime avoiding ever thinking the issue through. I am not ready to equate my mom with Mr. Duke, who has given his words a lot of thought. I’m only as far as racist collaborator.

We are less skittish in defining racism (and sexism) these days. It takes time for words to catch up with public perceptions. Or is it the other way around?

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2019 15:57
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 02:41 PM
mapadofu - 05 September 2019 02:30 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 02:24 PM
mapadofu - 05 September 2019 02:12 PM

“I have spoken all over the world and I have great respect for Muslims, I have great respect for the African people, I have respect for the other races. Even back home in Lousiana, I’m called a racist, but I have respect for the Black people of my country and I want them to have their own life, too, and I want them to be able to pursue their own destiny and not be controlled, and not be damaged.”. - David Duke (according to wiki quote).

“White people don’t need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals”.

“Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.”

“What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don’t want Negroes around. We don’t need Negroes around. We’re not asking— you know, we don’t want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That’s in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation.”

—David Duke, the same source.

It takes a singular lack of intelligence to quote any man so selectively in order to make a point.

Yet that is the essence of the first paragraph of the first post.

Or, to put it another way, your own post shows the very same singular lack of intelligence; by your standards.

Uh huh.  And the second paragraph of the OP quoted two “deplorable” statements and acknowledged that he made others…“grab’em by the pussy” and illegal immigrants are “bringing drugs,” “bringing crime” and “they are rapists.”  It then set up the problem of cherry picking by pointing out Vox, et al. infer “racism” and “white supremacy” from something like the negative statements while omitting any reference to the contradictory positive ones.  Or did you miss that part—the one that set up in two paragraphs quotes representing both “good” and “bad” statements in order to set up a problem?

And here I thought your stupidity was limited to Bayesian statistics, not elementary reading skills as well…

[It’s back to Ignore for you because these refutations are too obvious to be fun, much less helpful by forcing me to think.  I feel “unclean” even making them; degraded, as it were…]

Someone tell Analytic that he’s right, from me. ( assuming he has set “ignore”).

Actually, on second thought no.  Para. 1 quote mines.  And while para. 2 presents the counter quotes it does so in a dismissive way.  In order to present a very specific case.

[ Edited: 05 September 2019 16:03 by mapadofu]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
05 September 2019 16:02
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 02:28 PM


P.S. I’m curious to know what “side” of the political spectrum you think I’m on.

Almost missed your edit-P.S.
It’s often tough to place people on a scale since views on specific topics can put us in different places on it.  In general, in my country I’d put myself somewhere in the middle, but on a U.S. scale, I’d be at least slightly left of middle.  I’m thinking that you think of yourself as in the middle, but here you’d be right of the middle, maybe.  But wherever we are, I’d say that I’m left of you.

 

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›