‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome and the 2020 Election

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
06 September 2019 15:07
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 06 September 2019 02:57 PM
Jan_CAN - 06 September 2019 02:54 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 06 September 2019 01:50 PM
Jan_CAN - 06 September 2019 01:01 PM

(We have a federal election coming up next month, but I bet few around here even know that, eh?)

(You’re Canadian, right?  What’s the election for?)

Yes, Canadian.  The election is for our federal Members of Parliament (MPs) and Prime Minister (PM).

Oh, an election.  Who’s the front runner so far?

And, what’s the Canadian version of a Conservative? I was floored, for instance, to discover Angela Merkel was a German’s version of conservative…

Of the ‘top’ three parties, the Liberals (Justin Trudeau) and Conservatives (Andrew Scheer) are neck-to-neck in the polls, with the NDP (Jagmeet Singh) trailing behind.

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2019 15:12
 
Jan_CAN - 06 September 2019 03:07 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 06 September 2019 02:57 PM
Jan_CAN - 06 September 2019 02:54 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 06 September 2019 01:50 PM
Jan_CAN - 06 September 2019 01:01 PM

(We have a federal election coming up next month, but I bet few around here even know that, eh?)

(You’re Canadian, right?  What’s the election for?)

Yes, Canadian.  The election is for our federal Members of Parliament (MPs) and Prime Minister (PM).

Oh, an election.  Who’s the front runner so far?

And, what’s the Canadian version of a Conservative? I was floored, for instance, to discover Angela Merkel was a German’s version of conservative…

Of the ‘top’ three parties, the Liberals (Justin Trudeau) and Conservatives (Andrew Scheer) are neck-to-neck in the polls, with the NDP (Jagmeet Singh) trailing behind.

I’ve got some time until Mrs. Anus gets home.  I Google Schreer to see how he differs from Trudeau…

 

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21959
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
06 September 2019 15:46
 
Nhoj Morley - 06 September 2019 12:29 PM

What makes Sen. Warren an extremist? Are the issues she raises unworthy of concern and attention? Is she alarmed about things that are not worthy of alarm? Are her proposed solutions too ambitious or misdirected? Is her method of making her case dishonest or misleading? Does she propose too massive a course correction and too quickly? Is her take on reality too unreal?

I am not a supporter but not for any extreme reasons. Is there a consensus on what makes her (or Sanders) an extremist?

The total cost of all her proposals, which is in the multiple trillions.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6962
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
06 September 2019 16:25
 

The potential problem with the phrase, “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” is the degree to which its definition, “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical,” is a matter of opinion. Take, for example, Trump’s “good people on both sides” comment after the violence in Virginia. His detractors insist he meant that there were good people among the racists and neo-Nazis; his supporters insist he meant there were good people who opposed the removal of a civil war statue. If you take his supporters’ interpretation, then of course his detractors’ interpretation sounds “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical.” But if you take his detractors’ interpretation, then it’s none of those things.

That said, I do think that the leftstream media’s tendency to obviously and persistently mischaracterize Trump and overreact to the things he says probably helps more than hurts him. Trump claimed that his supporters were so loyal that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and they’d still support him. I think the converse is also true: he could stop global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons; the leftstream media would still criticize him for it. Which means that valid criticism tends to be dismissed as just more “fake news.”

It’s the “boy who cried wolf” problem.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2019 17:03
 

ASD

You point correctly to a potential problem with the phrase: on some issues—if not many—parts of the definition are subject to interpretation.  “Inaccurate” is relatively straightforward, but not perfectly so.  For instance, if someone said “good people on both sides” means “Trump is a white supremacist” or even that it means “Trump is endorsing white supremacy,” the first is clearly inaccurate and the second is inaccurate as well, though this inaccuracy is subject to some careful obfuscation that conceals that fact.  But, aside from its inaccuracy, the second may not be “apoplectic” or “hysterical,” since he clearly is refusing to condemn Neo-Nazi’s, which for any politician should be a slam dunk.  One could argue, then, that a reasonable person could infer he has some sympathy for white supremacists—hence the “some are good people”—and therefore saying he’s endorsing them wouldn’t be “hysterical” or “apoplectic,” per se, just a biased interpretation of what he actually said.  In any case, you are right that the elements of the definition are subject to interpretation, but the definition isn’t meant to be a clear cut and dry template not subject to interpretation—and it doesn’t have to be to be useful, just as “reasonable doubt” isn’t subject to a clear cut and dry template criterion, but it is still a useful standard for jury trials.  And so forth.  Without a doubt there is room for disagreement on what is or is not “apoplectic” or “hysterical,” but that doesn’t mean that as a definitional matter the terms fail to indicate stable elements in pattern of responses to Trump. 

And regarding those “stable elements” your example gets at, I think, what the definition indicates.  You point out that for some, Trump could stop global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons and the “leftstream media would still criticize him for it.”  I don’t know if I would go that far, but that idea expresses exactly what TDS refers to: nothing is redeemable about the man; in this case any criticism is valid, regardless of the merits of what he’s done.  Extending your example, the leftstream media, for instance, might still say he’s a horrible president because he refused to condemn white supremacy, global warning and nuclear weapons be damned.  Would that assessment not qualify in your mind as “hysterical” and “apoplectic,” even though the terms as such are flexible?  If so, then you have identified, I think, a useful application of the definition.

[ Edited: 06 September 2019 17:05 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3545
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
06 September 2019 17:07
 
GAD - 06 September 2019 08:00 AM

I’ve been doing online dating for a while now, and this week I had one woman say her match needs to be conservative, I ask her what her definition was and said if it didn’t involve praising gods or Trump I might meet it. She replied back that she praises God and is thankful for Trump and so we are not a good match. Yesterday I had a atheist woman like me but her profile says she spends most of her time working to get Trump out in 2020. I told her I despise Trump but I would take him over any of the extremest Dems as I think for all his talk he would do less damage. She replied that she could never hang with anyone who would support Trump for any reason and that “anyone, anyone, no mater what” is better then Trump.

These two women represent the issue here to me. Rejected by the theist for not loving Trump enough and rejected by the Atheist for not hating him enough. Two sides of the same extremist coin, if you don’t agree with their views 100% you are on the wrong team and not even worth talking to. This is a reflection of the our current politics as well, where the reasonable middle is considered weakness and extremeness as strength with Trump being the line in the sand.

You definitely don’t wanna come on too strong…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjQvVBZgI_k

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  773
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2019 17:14
 

Who are the leftstream media?

I’m unsure if you’re emphasizing a bias in many of the big news outlets (CNN, NYT etc., maybe) or of you’re partitioning our the more obviously left leaning outlets (MSNBC, Vox, maybe).

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6962
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
06 September 2019 17:39
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 06 September 2019 05:03 PM

ASD

You point correctly to a potential problem with the phrase: on some issues—if not many—parts of the definition are subject to interpretation.  “Inaccurate” is relatively straightforward, but not perfectly so.  For instance, if someone said “good people on both sides” means “Trump is a white supremacist” or even that it means “Trump is endorsing white supremacy,” the first is clearly inaccurate and the second is inaccurate as well, though this inaccuracy is subject to some careful obfuscation that conceals that fact.  But, aside from its inaccuracy, the second may not be “apoplectic” or “hysterical,” since he clearly is refusing to condemn Neo-Nazi’s, which for any politician should be a slam dunk.  One could argue, then, that a reasonable person could infer he has some sympathy for white supremacists—hence the “some are good people”—and therefore saying he’s endorsing them wouldn’t be “hysterical” or “apoplectic,” per se, just a biased interpretation of what he actually said.  In any case, you are right that the elements of the definition are subject to interpretation, but the definition isn’t meant to be a clear cut and dry template not subject to interpretation—and it doesn’t have to be to be useful, just as “reasonable doubt” isn’t subject to a clear cut and dry template criterion, but it is still a useful standard for jury trials.  And so forth.  Without a doubt there is room for disagreement on what is or is not “apoplectic” or “hysterical,” but that doesn’t mean that as a definitional matter the terms fail to indicate stable elements in pattern of responses to Trump. 

And regarding those “stable elements” your example gets at, I think, what the definition indicates.  You point out that for some, Trump could stop global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons and the “leftstream media would still criticize him for it.”  I don’t know if I would go that far, but that idea expresses exactly what TDS refers to: nothing is redeemable about the man; in this case any criticism is valid, regardless of the merits of what he’s done.  Extending your example, the leftstream media, for instance, might still say he’s a horrible president because he refused to condemn white supremacy, global warning and nuclear weapons be damned.  Would that assessment not qualify in your mind as “hysterical” and “apoplectic,” even though the terms as such are flexible?  If so, then you have identified, I think, a useful application of the definition.

After I posted, I realized that “obviously and persistently mischaracterize Trump and overreact to the things he says” is no less a matter of opinion than “inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical.” So it’s probably more a matter of what I see as the pejorative connotation of the words, “derangement” and “hysterical.” I think using the phrase, TDS kind of distracts from the question about its impact on the election.

To your specific point, I think it’s still a matter of opinion. If you perceive the danger of white supremacy to be large relative to the danger of global warming or nuclear weapons, then you might still think the president was horrible. Although I admit, it would be hard to justify characterizing a president who ended global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons as horrible—no matter what else he or she did or didn’t do.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6962
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
06 September 2019 17:50
 
mapadofu - 06 September 2019 05:14 PM

Who are the leftstream media?

I’m unsure if you’re emphasizing a bias in many of the big news outlets (CNN, NYT etc., maybe) or of you’re partitioning our the more obviously left leaning outlets (MSNBC, Vox, maybe).

I don’t think there’s much left of the “mainstream” media anymore. There’s mainly just leftstream media and rightstream media. If it’s not rightstream, then it’s probably leftstream. If you think CNN or NYT are “mainstream,” that’s merely a reflection of your own political bias.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
06 September 2019 17:58
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 06 September 2019 05:50 PM
mapadofu - 06 September 2019 05:14 PM

Who are the leftstream media?

I’m unsure if you’re emphasizing a bias in many of the big news outlets (CNN, NYT etc., maybe) or of you’re partitioning our the more obviously left leaning outlets (MSNBC, Vox, maybe).

I don’t think there’s much left of the “mainstream” media anymore. There’s mainly just leftstream media and rightstream media. If it’s not rightstream, then it’s probably leftstream. If you think CNN or NYT are “mainstream,” that’s merely a reflection of your own political bias.

I suggest tuning into BBC and CBC now and again for a different perspective on American and International news.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
06 September 2019 19:20
 

I suspect a misdiagnosis – rather than Trump Derangement Syndrome, the patients (i.e. the world) are suffering from Trump Fatigue Syndrome.  The cure apparently unavailable until at least 2020.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2019 19:26
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 06 September 2019 05:39 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 06 September 2019 05:03 PM

ASD

You point correctly to a potential problem with the phrase: on some issues—if not many—parts of the definition are subject to interpretation.  “Inaccurate” is relatively straightforward, but not perfectly so.  For instance, if someone said “good people on both sides” means “Trump is a white supremacist” or even that it means “Trump is endorsing white supremacy,” the first is clearly inaccurate and the second is inaccurate as well, though this inaccuracy is subject to some careful obfuscation that conceals that fact.  But, aside from its inaccuracy, the second may not be “apoplectic” or “hysterical,” since he clearly is refusing to condemn Neo-Nazi’s, which for any politician should be a slam dunk.  One could argue, then, that a reasonable person could infer he has some sympathy for white supremacists—hence the “some are good people”—and therefore saying he’s endorsing them wouldn’t be “hysterical” or “apoplectic,” per se, just a biased interpretation of what he actually said.  In any case, you are right that the elements of the definition are subject to interpretation, but the definition isn’t meant to be a clear cut and dry template not subject to interpretation—and it doesn’t have to be to be useful, just as “reasonable doubt” isn’t subject to a clear cut and dry template criterion, but it is still a useful standard for jury trials.  And so forth.  Without a doubt there is room for disagreement on what is or is not “apoplectic” or “hysterical,” but that doesn’t mean that as a definitional matter the terms fail to indicate stable elements in pattern of responses to Trump. 

And regarding those “stable elements” your example gets at, I think, what the definition indicates.  You point out that for some, Trump could stop global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons and the “leftstream media would still criticize him for it.”  I don’t know if I would go that far, but that idea expresses exactly what TDS refers to: nothing is redeemable about the man; in this case any criticism is valid, regardless of the merits of what he’s done.  Extending your example, the leftstream media, for instance, might still say he’s a horrible president because he refused to condemn white supremacy, global warning and nuclear weapons be damned.  Would that assessment not qualify in your mind as “hysterical” and “apoplectic,” even though the terms as such are flexible?  If so, then you have identified, I think, a useful application of the definition.

After I posted, I realized that “obviously and persistently mischaracterize Trump and overreact to the things he says” is no less a matter of opinion than “inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical.” So it’s probably more a matter of what I see as the pejorative connotation of the words, “derangement” and “hysterical.” I think using the phrase, TDS kind of distracts from the question about its impact on the election.

To your specific point, I think it’s still a matter of opinion. If you perceive the danger of white supremacy to be large relative to the danger of global warming or nuclear weapons, then you might still think the president was horrible. Although I admit, it would be hard to justify characterizing a president who ended global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons as horrible—no matter what else he or she did or didn’t do.

Well, you eat your own dog food, and I respect that.  If you concede that not all opinions have equal merit, then I’d say we’re close enough on this for government work and leave it at that.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2019 19:28
 

TFS…I know I have a mild strain of it.  One can catch it just from the more vociferous strains afflicting others.

[ Edited: 06 September 2019 19:37 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  491
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
07 September 2019 10:23
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 September 2019 08:33 AM

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…

Given that Trump lies or mis-informs approximately 53% of the time, I see no reason to believe anything he says.  It’s all pandering.  However, he appears to pander more effectively to white racists - indicating they see something genuine in it.  And he has a history of racism, for example, his “birtherism”, and reportedly saying blacks are lazy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump). 

Disregard for truth, incompetence, divisiveness, corruption, spending too much time watching Fox “news”, or racism, take your pick.  Even if you believe calling for ‘“civil rights agenda of our time”’ might be a genuine representation of his view as much as his pandering to white supremacists, the rest are bad enough.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  491
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
07 September 2019 10:29
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 06 September 2019 04:25 PM

The potential problem with the phrase, “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” is the degree to which its definition, “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical,” is a matter of opinion. Take, for example, Trump’s “good people on both sides” comment after the violence in Virginia. His detractors insist he meant that there were good people among the racists and neo-Nazis; his supporters insist he meant there were good people who opposed the removal of a civil war statue. If you take his supporters’ interpretation, then of course his detractors’ interpretation sounds “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical.” But if you take his detractors’ interpretation, then it’s none of those things.

That said, I do think that the leftstream media’s tendency to obviously and persistently mischaracterize Trump and overreact to the things he says probably helps more than hurts him. Trump claimed that his supporters were so loyal that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and they’d still support him. I think the converse is also true: he could stop global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons; the leftstream media would still criticize him for it. Which means that valid criticism tends to be dismissed as just more “fake news.”

It’s the “boy who cried wolf” problem.

I think Trump got support from leftists when he tried to get peace with North Korea, see https://truthout.org/articles/peace-with-north-korea-should-be-a-priority-for-us-progressives/.

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›