Trump Derangement Syndrome

Author: Mister_Man

Posts

Total: 65
Topic's author
#1
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
So I'm curious as to why so many leftists disregard objectively positive accomplishments by Trump. Sometimes they even take it steps further by wishing the country would go to war just so they could say they were right.

The best example of this is the relationship between the US and Russia. Hillary Clinton, while running for Preisdent, claimed she would impose a no-fly-zone over Russian occupied Syria, in which Putin responded by saying he would immediately attack US troops throughout the continent. Trump, within the first few months of being president, repaired (for the most part) relations with Russia, met with Putin, and eradicated any threat of violence or war.

Democrats and leftists responded to NO WAR by complaining about Trump "being in bed with Putin/Russia." I consider this a great thing, given Putin was threatening war with the US prior to Trump repairing this relationship.

I have a billion and one other examples of this, but I won't bother as I'm sure this won't pick up much traction. Just wanted to get people's thoughts on leftists literally complainaing about NOT engaging in World War 3. I'm in Canada and can't stand Trudeau for the life of me, but when he does something good, I give him credit and I actually feel good that he's done something productive for the country. Why is it that the left can't do the same thing?

#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Because to admit Trump did something right is to admit they did something wrong by supporting Hillary.
#3
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Mister_Man
I would say that there could be several reasons

1. That the objectively positive accomplishments are massively overshadowed by the colossal amount of objective negatives
2. Some of the positive accomplishments attributed to Trump are falsely implied to be solely attributed to him which triggers a backlash due to the perception that he is taking undue credit
3. Difference in perspective in evaluating accomplishments and hence determining whether the accomplishments are actually positive or not

With specific note to 3 and your example, leftists aren't comparing Trump's presidency to a hypothetical Hillary presidency. You can't make determinations on what would've happened in an alternate future if Hillary had been elected. Especially not with complex diplomatic interactions. Trump is the president and his actions are evaluated on their own merit.

In this case, he has improved relations with Russia which is certainly a positive
However by doing this he is implicitly condoning Russia's actions, which, when considering they include meddeling the American election in a bid to help Trump, seems like a bit of quid pro quo. Which of course is objectively bad.


#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Condoning Iran has far greater direct ramifications to American life than whatever Russia can do to us as a country.
#5
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@pollywannacracker
WTF can Iran do? cheeeeezus. Propaganda is breakfast lunch and dinner to your lot.
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
The Great Donald Trump is the greatest President England never had. 
#7
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
there's plenty of videos of people being interviewed, claiming something was done or said by the likes of Obama etc, after they readily say how great it was they are told that in fact it was Trump, then all of a sudden it's terrible.  There's some serious pathology to this behavior.
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Russia hasn't really had any effect or global influence on the USA since Reagan. God knows they try, the last best effort was to sucker the USA into a proxy war in Syria (which Trump got us out of)...Russia isn't a threat to the US or Nato now that Trump has gotten EU to bolster their military contributions to NATO.


However, Iran directly supports and finances terror in the Middle East and across the globe in addition to being a nuclear threat (they have the will to use them unlike Russia). Iran supports Hamas, Isis, any jihadist group to take the USA down, as they have been at war with us for 40 years since Jimmy Carter. Trump is the 1st person since Reagan to actually address the real threat.
#9
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@pollywannacracker
Check the closet and under your bed, there are boogymen.
Topic's author
#10
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@dustryder
Good point. However I wasn't trying to compare Trump to Hillary at all, I just brought up what was likely to happen between the US-Russia relationship if Trump hadn't negotiated with Putin and eased tensions. I don't believe Russia did anything that directly impacted the outcome of the US election, however even if that were the case, I would much rather see that a foreign entity interfered in a US election and deal with it accordingly than engage in world war 3.

TheDredPriateRoberts Brought up a fantastic point about people saying how great accomplishments are if Obama is presented as the person responsible, but immediately backtrack and try to find something wrong with said accomplishments when told it was actually Trump who was responsible.

#11
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Mister_Man
The problem is you're approaching this as if World War 3 were an inevitable conclusion if Trump hadn't stepped in.

Firstly, predicting the relationships between nations based on one aggressive remark is ridiculous. It was not the first time that Russia made aggressive threats that did not lead to war and Russia has continued to make threats against the US despite Trump easing tensions. In practice, the most likely actions are that either one side backs down, or one side does not back down and the US slaps sanctions on Russia.

Secondly, you've framed this as if only Trump could've/would've eased tensions which is false. I think it is universally understood that war is unlikely to be beneficial for any of the participants involved and should be avoided at any cost. This includes any presidential nominee and his/her advisers.

Thirdly, regardless of my first and second points, while you claim you aren't comparing Hillary to Trump, that's essentially what you are doing by claiming that any Trump alternative would've ended up in World War 3. Because the only alternative to Trump was Hillary. And again, you can't make comparisons to hypothetical scenarios to decide whether something is positive or negative, because you've seemly demonized Hillary to the point where Trump can be absolved of anything if you compare him to Hillary and spin the right scenario. You can only judge Trump's actions on their own merits.



Also, I would take what what TheDredPriateRoberts has said with a grain of salt as there's likely to be context missing or cherry picking involved. For example, what were the accomplishments used? Are these accomplishments that can be solely attributed to Trump. Are these accomplishments objectively positive regardless of party affiliation or political views. Out of the total number of participants, how many had such a reaction? How many did not have such a reaction? Were all the reactions lumped into the same category or were there different levels of flip-floppery which have been described as the same level of reaction?



#12
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@dustryder
Well said

#13
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Mister_Man



well anyway, there's the whole salt shaker lol

safe rooms, stuffed animals etc all provided for TDS sufferers  a very sad state to be sure.  The feeble minded snow flakes will be the ruin of the U.S.

There should be a telethon to raise money for TDS like Jerry Lewis did for muscular dystrophy.
Topic's author
#14
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@dustryder
Let me maybe rephrase then, as I admittedly made a mistake by involving third parties and hypotheticals;

I wasn't comparing Trump to Hillary, I was looking at the possible path the country was headed down in regards to international relations, and because of Trump, relations with Russia and the Korean peninsula have progressed. I'll leave Hillary out of it and won't make any assumptions as to what would have happened if Trump hadn't done what he did.

The fact still remains that relations between the US and Russia have improved since Trump took office (I'll leave Korea out of it for now, even though the South Korean President suggested Trump recieve the Nobel Peace Prize). This is thanks to Trump and his negotiation/communication skills, without involving hypotheticals or third parties.

As far as the video evidence of liberals flip-flopping goes, it's next to impossible to guage the percentage of leftists that mindlessly disagree with anything presented by a right winger, but the fact still stands that there is an incredibly large number that do so.

Slightly Offensive's newest video proves this as well, that leftists mindlessly dislike Trump (for example) without even doing their own research on him.

I admit that some right wingers had their stupid moments during Obama's presidency, but the numbers pale in comparison to leftists' current attitude toward anything and everything right wing.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts

#16
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Mister_Man
The fact still remains that relations between the US and Russia have improved since Trump took office (I'll leave Korea out of it for now, even though the South Korean President suggested Trump recieve the Nobel Peace Prize). This is thanks to Trump and his negotiation/communication skills, without involving hypotheticals or third parties.
This is a great start but it's still a bit of a shallow interpretation. 

For example, relations between Russia and America have definitely improved. In what ways is this a positive and in what ways is this a negative?
You claim this is thanks to Trump and his negotiation/communication skills. In what ways were his negotiation/communication skills instrumental in achieving this?

My previous example was that by improving relations with Russia, Trump was seen to be condoning Russia's actions. Which in the case of America was the election interference. In turn, this has decreased confidence in his leadership and further split apart the country (on the basis that he is seen to be a Russian puppet). Apart from this, when you examine global politics as a whole, confidence in America and its leadership has tanked in most cases. This goes back to the first point I made in my first post. 

So is this an example of an objectively positive accomplishment? Not really


As far as the video evidence of liberals flip-flopping goes, it's next to impossible to guage the percentage of leftists that mindlessly disagree with anything presented by a right winger, but the fact still stands that there is an incredibly large number that do so.

Slightly Offensive's newest video proves this as well, that leftists mindlessly dislike Trump (for example) without even doing their own research on him.

I admit that some right wingers had their stupid moments during Obama's presidency, but the numbers pale in comparison to leftists' current attitude toward anything and everything right wing.
Well, two things

Firstly, it's impossible to make statements such as "there are a large number of", "the numbers pale in comparison to" without actually having numbers. If I understand it correctly you've watched videos, and extrapolated that because there are examples of such behaviours in these videos, there must be a large number of such people. This is bad reasoning because the people in these videos aren't representative of the population as a whole.

Secondly, I think you're weighting the Obama and Trump administrations equally, which is a mistake. Objectively, the Trump administration and the Republican party have been embroiled in more scandal than the Obama administration and the Democratic party were. Consequently, they should be on the receiving end of more criticism.
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
How do you objectively measure scandals with the ridiculous media bias? There are many members of the MSM that claim Obama was 100% scandal free for 8 consecutive years. How is this remotely objective?
#18
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Google "list of obama scandals". Then google "list of trump scandals"?

#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Exactly. If MSM does not report it, then it's not a scandal. Also...if we go by the sheer number of "scandals" it most certainly won't be objective as MSM lists one scandal as when Trump had 2 scoops of ice cream while everyone else had one (yes that was a real news story)..

Let's not even talk about the number of fake scandals the MSM created to overthrow Trump. MSM handed out Pulitzer prizes to themselves simply for pushing the fake collusion narrative. Viva la resistance!


Lists 61 serious scandals, nothing to do with ice cream counts or crowd size counts but rather loss of human life etc...

#20
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. If MSM does not report it, then it's not a scandal
I mean.. if you have examples or evidences of these unreported scandals, by all means, bring them forth. Personally, I think if there were any whiff of impropriety or scandal to be reported on, right-wing news media would've published them in a heartbeat.

Also...if we go by the sheer number of "scandals" it most certainly won't be objective as MSM lists one scandal as when Trump had 2 scoops of ice cream while everyone else had one (yes that was a real news story)..
The threshold for a scandal seems to be public outrage. I can't imagine most people caring enough for there to be outrage. It seems like a Trump-variant of the obama dijon mustard news reporting. Amusing, but ultimately pointless.


If you're going by wikipedia pages, the Trump administration has 84. Of course, his administration has only been active for two and a bit years so I would give time for the page to grow

#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
I saw that page as well. As I predicted, that page includes the fake media narratives as well as count discrepancies. A bee fart is a scandal on that page.

On the Obama scandal page .. i'd say the most trivial scandal was "Crumb and get it."..but nothing else is even remotely as trivial as the ones on the Trump page.
#22
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
You not liking something does not change reality

#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Sure let's go with apples and oranges then. Seems fruitful.

Like seriously...the MSM cited Trump's fake news awards as a "scandal"

How butthurt and full of TDS do you have to be to consider that a serious scandal?
#24
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
What certainly isn't fruitful is hand-waving away legitimate Trump criticisms under the guise of "fake media narratives". It goes hand in hand with other hand-wavey phrases such as "God has a plan", "The scientists are corrupt" and "Big pharma paid for these studies", and is equally as dishonest and pointless as them.

Personally, I think the leader of the free world displaying such juvenile behaviours, perpetuating a nonsense term and undermining the freedom of the press should be regarded as somewhat alarming. Though, I can understand why people may not when Trump has normalized these kinds of behaviours, such that this is only yet another iteration.

#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
I'd agree it would be alarming if the rhetoric matched the outcomes, but with Trump that isn't always the case, so you need to take a lot of his rhetoric with a grain of salt and focus on his actions. For example, his recent actions in Syria demonstrates his actions toward non-interventionist where long drawn out proxy wars are avoided and military presence is kept to the absolute minimal.

This means we can expect Trump to have similar actions toward Venezuela, regardless of the rhetoric. Simply by following actual policy trends and outcomes.
#26
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
That would be fine if his rhetoric never matched the outcomes. However in this case there are now people ironically using the phrase "fake news" and people who now irrationally distrust generally reliable news media. 

In this case, focusing on his actions are completely insufficient.
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
I don't think people are making funny fake-news montages on youtube solely, or even partly because of trump rhetoric. The actual clips from the biased news media are hilarious on their own, especially the clips that do not age well. (you know, the fake and totally inaccurate apocalyptic predictions)


Don't you believe in a free society that we should hold fake news accountable? Is unscrutinized propaganda okay as long as you agree with it? (even if you are ultimately proven wrong too as they were)

The ratings fluctuations seem to think that fake news and fake narratives should be held accountable, especially considering the recent ratings drop after the 2 year collusion narrative crashed and burned.
#28
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't say people solely did. There will always be people to swoop in and clip particular news segments, and this happened before Trump as well. I'm more so referring to things like this


Don't you believe in a free society that we should hold fake news accountable? Is unscrutinized propaganda okay as long as you agree with it? (even if you are ultimately proven wrong too as they were)
What is fake news?
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
What is fake news?

Good question. While I think other criteria may be in play, I think the core of fake news relies on no corroboration, anonymous or false sources, and grand speculation. Also saying you have evidence for something when you do not have evidence is fake news, for example..Schiff said repeatedly he saw evidence of Collusion, yet never revealed that evidence.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Do you think the media have any part of the blame for their public perception?