Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Immanuel Can]

You cannot show any examples antipathy towards Donald Trump from me, because there are none

Hmmm...I think I just did.

Again: Why is it, then, that your antipathy is reserved for Trump, who is not even for the incumbent, who is clearly both less competent (and very plausibly far more corrupt, given the laptop, though doubtless you will say you won't judge until after the trial that's never going to be allowed to happen) and not for the incumbent or others? Why do you enumerate accusations against him, but none against the alternates? What's so special about Trump, for you?

Where is the antipathy?

Oy vey.

Okay, well, if it's all a wash to you now, I think I'll just leave things there. Apparently you're not in any position to tell me anything about TDS, because now you don't dislike the man at all. You never did, apparently.

Be well, I guess.

[tillingborn]

A MAGA, by his very makeup, watches Fox and discounts all other news sources,

Really? This "MAGA" of yours hasn't discovered the internet? He doesn't get Netflix or CNN, or CNBC, or foreign news services? He can't Google? He never goes to a movie, or is in public education, or listens to Democrats' speeches, or podcasts, or radio?

But they do all watch FOX, somehow?

Where do you find these miracles of isolation?

You claim to be one of them:

You get American news. I don't.

[Immanuel Can]

A MAGA, by his very makeup, watches Fox and discounts all other news sources,

Really? This "MAGA" of yours hasn't discovered the internet? He doesn't get Netflix or CNN, or CNBC, or foreign news services? He can't Google? He never goes to a movie, or is in public education, or listens to Democrats' speeches, or podcasts, or radio?

But they do all watch FOX, somehow?

Where do you find these miracles of isolation?

You claim to be one of them:

You get American news. I don't.

Not at all. I don't even get FOX. And I've watched all sorts of stuff, from all sorts of places. What I seem to have missed is only the tape of Trump...which you assure me you don't even believe is authentic, because there's been no court case to prove its authenticity...and you never make a judgment without a summary legal ruling.

[tillingborn]

I've watched all sorts of stuff, from all sorts of places.

Just not America you say.

You get American news. I don't.

What I seem to have missed is only the tape of Trump...which you assure me you don't even believe is authentic, because there's been no court case to prove its authenticity...and you never make a judgment without a summary legal ruling.

I take it the wink is you conceding that your presuppositions are errant. Perhaps there is some self reflection in this:

Well, you're never going to engage my questions, and I'm never going to concede your errant presuppositions.

You might even engage my question:

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault. Neither have been convicted. On what grounds do you find one guilty and the other innocent?

[Immanuel Can]

I've watched all sorts of stuff, from all sorts of places.

Just not America you say.

Don't be silly. Of course I watch some American stuff. Everybody does, these days. But if there was any tape of Trump saying what was alleged about him, I was simply unaware that tape existed. You assure me it does. I've not disagreed with you. I have no reason to suppose you to be lying.

But I do not subscribe to FOX News (or any news source), as commonsense suggests. Nor do I vote Trump, nor do I wear a MAGA hat, nor am I oblivious to the internet (obviously), or MSNBC, or CNN, or the Beebs, or Sky News, or a whole host of sources. Like most people today, I sample quite widely, actually, and choose to formulate my own understanding of what people tell me. Almost nobody today is so completely naive as simply to trust the "legacy media," which has become undeniably partisan in the extreme.

I suspect that supporters of Trump, or mere anti-Socialists like me, probably do the same in most cases. Commonsense's explanation strikes me as improbable and highly convenient, the sort of myth routinely ginned up by the Democrat propagandists who invented the meme of people "being MAGAs" in the first place.

MAGA was a slogan, standing for "Make America Great Again," as you know. Only as the clipped abbreviation preferred by the Democrat press does it appear to be some sort of insult. Taken literally, it just means there are people who wish America to do well. That seems pretty unobjectionable, even from an outside perspective. Are we to think that the Democrats are admitting to "Not Wanting to Make America Great Again"? Should we call them NWAGAs?

Sounds like a Swahili curse.

What I seem to have missed is only the tape of Trump...which you assure me you don't even believe is authentic, because there's been no court case to prove its authenticity...and you never make a judgment without a summary legal ruling.

I take it the wink is you conceding that your presuppositions are errant.

No, just funny.

And they're not really "presuppositions," since they refer to your own claims.

[commonsense]

And "DTS" is...what? "Donald Trump Syndrome"? So you want to argue that the only reason anybody votes for Trump is that they are led to love him by the major mass media...that hates him?

You're going to have to explain that reasoning to me.

DTS. Deranged Trump Syndrome

What the MAGAs suffer from.

There is no such thing as "a MAGA," so far as I can tell. It's a riffing off Trump's slogan by the Dems., though the media parrots that meme, too, so I'm not surprised to see you reproduce it here.

No, your explanation really doesn't work. It's quite plausible to think the mass media gins up hatred against Trump, sure. It's not possible to think that it, at the very same time and by pretending to hate him, is working on getting people to like him. That's nonsensical.

Nor is it reasonable to suppose that people vote Trump because they "don't like the media." That might make some sense if media reform were on the Republicans' ticket, and catering to big tech at the expense of ordinary folks was on the Democrat ticket; but it would have to be pretty extreme and obvious on both sides. I don't see that as being the case.

If you mean that the reason people vote Trump is because when they don't watch media they aren't fooled into voting Democrat, I would say that's possible, but it's not the explanation that flatters the Democrats, for sure. And if they don't watch the media, then there's nothing manipulating their feelings...and they aren't "deranged," at all: they're more likely thinking normally, since they aren't media-indoctrinated. I don't really think you want either of those explanations.

I’m afraid you’ve gone off the rails here. No matter where they find their news, they will not believe it—just like there are people who won’t believe science—unless it comes from FOX. No matter where they find their news, they will not believe it unless it comes from FOX. MAGAs do not trust news media unless their confirmation bias is fed.

[mickthinks]

Of course I watch some American stuff.

So you do get American News. So when you said;

You get American news. I don't.

that was a mistake, and what you meant to say was "You get American news. So do I."

lol Makes a difference, doesn't it?

Glad we've cleared that one up!

[commonsense]

That's what you guess?

Or did you have a demographic study from which you gleaned that "a MAGA" (whatever that is) doesn't use the internet, or watch CNN, or foreign news services, or Democrat speeches and press releases, or ever even pay attention to popular culture of any kind?

I'm kind of thinking that's not likely...we do live in a media-dominated age, and that's as true for people in the outback (if that's what a MAGA is) as it is for people in the cities.

A MAGA, by his very makeup, watches Fox and discounts all other news sources,

Really? This "MAGA" of yours hasn't discovered the internet? He doesn't get Netflix or CNN, or CNBC, or foreign news services? He can't Google? He never goes to a movie, or is in public education, or listens to Democrats' speeches, or podcasts, or radio?

But they do all watch FOX, somehow?

Where do you find these miracles of isolation?

MAGAs support Trump and only believe news that confirms their bias. That’s what they are.

[Immanuel Can]

No matter where they find their news, they will not believe it—just like there are people who won’t believe science

Oh. So now "science" and CNN are the same? And people who recognize MSNBC as shilling for the Dems are equivalent to "science deniers"?

Oh, my. That's a good one.

[Immanuel Can]

MAGAs support Trump and only believe news that confirms their bias. That’s what they are.

There's no such thing as "a MAGA."

Maybe you can also explain to me what "Ultra MAGA" is. It sounds like a superhero.

Do they wear streetclothes when they're just "a MAGA," but have a cape and boots when they transform into "an Ultra MAGA"?

[Immanuel Can]

...what you meant to say was "You get American news. So do I."

Fair enough. What I meant is that I don't have American news dropped on me by the legacy media, so that I get whatever "stories" they are compelling the public to digest at the present moment. But techically, you're right; I can see what everbody else can see, so far as the internet goes. I'm just not sitting in the American public news pipeline, drinking in whatever sloshes down that dirty pipe.

And I don't think you misunderstood that. After all, what do you think I'm typing on, an abacus?

[commonsense]

No matter where they find their news, they will not believe it—just like there are people who won’t believe science

Oh. So now "science" and CNN are the same? And people who recognize MSNBC as shilling for the Dems are equivalent to "science deniers"?

Oh, my. That's a good one.

I’ve gotta laugh, too. You’ve twisted my words in a way that makes a hilarious statement of your own!

[tillingborn]

I've watched all sorts of stuff, from all sorts of places.

Just not America you say.

Don't be silly. Of course I watch some American stuff.

As mickthinks has already pointed out, you're the one who said it:

You get American news. I don't.

if there was any tape of Trump saying what was alleged about him, I was simply unaware that tape existed. You assure me it does.

This is your confabulating and abysmal logic again. I have not assured you that any tape of "Trump saying what was alleged about him" exists. Others and myself have brought it to your attention that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct. Thanks to us, you are now better informed.

Like most people today, I sample quite widely, actually, and choose to formulate my own understanding of what people tell me.

Congratulations. Now that you appreciate that you "choose to formulate your own understanding", you understand that the answer to my original question:

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault. Neither have been convicted. On what grounds do you find one guilty and the other innocent?

is that you choose to formulate your own understanding. What you have identified is that what you believe to be true, is what you choose to be true.

[Immanuel Can]

If there was any tape of Trump saying what was alleged about him, I was simply unaware that tape existed. You assure me it does.

I have not assured you that any tape of "Trump saying what was alleged about him" exists.

I went back and checked. My apologies...my memory failed me. One of my early interloctors insisted I should have known about it. I asked for a source, and he gave none. But you're right...it wasn't you.

I stand corrected, then. No wonder I was unaware of any such tape, then...neither you nor I have reason to think it exists...so the term "alleged," was correct, when I used it. Alright.

Others and myself have brought it to your attention that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct.

But you don't believe those allegations. You never make a decision unless there's been a judicial ruling, you say...?

So you misinformed me. What you meant to say, is that everybody's innocent in your eyes until there's been a court case. And since there's been none, Trump is innocent; is that what you're telling me?

[tillingborn]

Others and myself have brought it to your attention that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct.

But you don't believe those allegations. You never make a decision unless there's been a judicial ruling, you say...?

So you misinformed me. What you meant to say, is that everybody's innocent in your eyes until there's been a court case. And since there's been none, Trump is innocent; is that what you're telling me?

Clearly your memory is failing:

As I said, your premises are false and your logic is abysmal. Of course I have beliefs about what my friends might have done; they're my friends. I know something of their character, what they are capable of, and will believe things about them I wasn't a witness to. We are talking about sexual assault; how many of your friends do you believe are capable of that? What sort of evidence would it take for you to believe such an accusation against one of your friends? Suppose the accuser was your wife. Would you defer judgement until the accused was in jail?
I can't count Clinton, Trump or Biden among my friends. From what little I know of their character, there are things I would believe they have done, but for all their incontinent behaviour, I cannot say any of them is a "serial rapist".

The point is that unless you are party to some information you have yet to share, neither can you. You already have some level of derangement because it needed to be pointed out to you that an accusation is not proof of guilt. If you cannot treat the accusations against Clinton, Trump and Biden equally, either that Clinton and Biden are presumed innocent until proven guilty, or that Trump too is a serial rapist, then you are suffering precisely the sort of syndrome this thread is about.