Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[Godzilla@1989]

View attachment 806785
CNN got so butthurt over chants of CNN Sucks that they cut away. I'm lovin' it.

Man, AT&T’s shareholders are probably annoyed with how much manbabies CNN has.

Obama was worse but for some reason you never hear about it.

He has the media deep throating him til the dawn of time.

Case in point.

A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump

Hint: It has to do with race.

www.google.com

 

[eternal dog mongler]

It's clever in that it makes you completely forget about the fact that Trump beat more than a dozen candidates in the running for the Republican nomination, and he beat them so badly that it's difficult to remember who he was even running against in those debates, and that he even had competition in the first place. All but every last one of them was an "old school" contender, and had household names. They had the recognition, the experience, and the support of their communities, and Donald Trump utterly pummeled them into the floorboards.

The RNC considered changing their debate rules because Trump ruined a bunch of people's political careers during the primary.

Jeb, Chris Christie, Rubio...

Newt somehow got away but also disappeared. Ben Carson got shoved into HUD. Ted Cruz nearly lost to Beto. We probably need to do a wellness check on Kasich.

 

[heyitsmike]

History is not gonna treat that nigga well at all, that's for true.

Inshallah.

 

[The Great Chandler]

View attachment 806809

....do I even dare?
View attachment 806810

Fucking big oof.

It's like showing an ignited dynamite to everyone, only that it blows up on you.

 

[Ledian]

View attachment 806809

....do I even dare?
View attachment 806810

Fucking big oof.

If this country had a government like the Nazi's then they wouldn't be reporting stuff like this. Just puff pieces on how good America is and how the war in China will be over in about a month.
Probably because the Nazi's took over the media in Germany to control what the people knew. That might have had something to do with it.
These people better hope an actual Nazi movement doesn't happen- oh what am I kidding, that's practically impossible unless the left try to pull a 1919 German Civil War and that is pants on head stupid for them to do.

 

[Vorhtbame]

Ah, a perfect description of conservatives. You remember how you were all about the RED WAVE in 2018? Come talk to me again in 2020.

Well, I guess that means we won't be hearing from him again in this thread.

Like I give a shit about internet points.

Is it 2020 already?

 

[The Pink Panther]

Would you say that the Democratic party is still prevalent in racism as it was in the 20s and 30s? @Syaoran Li mentioned in his well, thought out post that each party went through a cultural shift to cater to a specific audience of votes.

A theme that I'm saying is that Democrats are using minorities for voters and spokespeople, but I see the likes of Candace Owens and Kevin Martin puppet as many talking points to the Trump GOP as minorities. Granted, they are not as well known and I'm likely missing others, but a point is that both parties are predominately white and use race as a selling point.

Abraham Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves, he just wanted to perserve the Union. Ronald Reagan's economic policy, particularly during the Iran War wasn't very suitable towards small business or the black community. The War on Drugs was much more of an American policy and profitable than Iran or the Gulf War.

You're not wrong that the Democratic Party founded the KKK or put several systems in place to keep African Americans in poverty, but from what I've seen, the Republican Party didn't do much (aside from a few figures) to fix that issue. The general consensus of Democratic and Republicans then in the 80s and 90s were indistinguishable, especially if you asked a black person then. After Obama, they voted as a black person has gotten significant value in the United States government. Could you really blame them for the total migration the Democratic Party has gotten then and now?

The whataboutism of the Democratic and Republican Party in politics reminds me of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" analogy? Whichever way you slice it, American politics have had their fair share of bigotry and screw ups, we'd be in here all day describing the many successes and failures of both. Even now, the stigma of America's politics is corrupted by old guard, new age, the media, hypocrisy, racism, and greed.

Which Donald Trump himself benefits from, regardless of whether or not you would think he's Hilter or the Second Coming of Christ.

I think this is a good point to make. The Republican Party is often apathetic towards the idea of race, despite not doing as much to try to oppress other races or categorize them. The neutral mind of thought for the Party is that they only do what they can to tie their audiences over through ideas, not really ones of race specifically.

 

[Harvey Danger]

He has the media deep throating him til the dawn of time.

Case in point.

A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump

Hint: It has to do with race.

www.google.com

Ok, I did the heavy reading on the actual study that article is flogging. Surprise surprise, the article headline doesn't match the reality.

TL;DR They didn't actually ask Trump voters why they switched. Instead, they used statistical modeling to guess that white voters who agreed with "racially conservative policy" had a 10-50% probability to switch from being Obama voters to Trump voters.

On one hand, it's an interesting survey of other studies that show the effects of the Dem's focus on racial politics (emphasis added):

the increased political attention to racialized issues (policing, immigration) during Obama’s tenure and the increased reliance on non-white voters is shifting the Democratic Party’s median position on issues away from the median white citizen’s position, resulting in white shifts towards the Republican Party as white voters update their partisanship to match their policy positions. According to identity-based conceptions of partisan change, the increased perception of the Democratic Party as a coalition of non-white voters is changing perceptions of where many whites feel they belong.

(Which incidentally explains how the alt-right came to be, a movement that felt they didn't belong in either party and reacts most strongly to racial politics and Obama's brand of internationalism. But hey, blaming Barry for bad identity politics makes you a Nazi or something.)

On the other hand, the entire measure of whether race had anything to do with the decision of whites to switch from Obama to Trump was not based on actually asking people why they switched. Instead, they took other survey questions about "acknowledging racism" and created a reductionist scale:

We combine three questions about acknowledgement of race and racism into a scale of racial attitudes... and recode it to range between 0 (racially liberal) and 1 (racially conservative).

Even so, they can't draw a hard conclusion.

We find support for part of hypotheses H1 and H2. Symbolic racial and immigration attitudes were strongly associated with vote switching in the 2016 election.

White voters who held punitive immigration or racially conservative views were more likely to switch to Trump in the 2016 election than those with pro-immigration or racially liberal views, who were more likely to switch to Clinton.

Well no shit. Next you'll be telling me that someone's views on feminism were mysteriously associated with voting for or against a candidate

It goes on to argue that there's a lesser effect for economic concerns than for racial concerns, even though it does find an effect. But the point is this isn't an actual survey of why people voted for Trump. It's just another way to throw the racism flag around, in a slightly more rigorous way so they can try to discredit the economics rationale.

At this point I probably put more work into this than the article writer, by actually bothering to read the source material. Someone had to, I guess. I need a better hobby.

 

[The Last Stand]

Trump refuses to apologize to Central Park 5, despite their exoneration

The five black and Hispanic men were teenagers when they were convicted. Their convictions were vacated in 2002.

www.businessinsider.com

Trump refuses to apologize to Central Park 5, despite their exoneration

Associated Press

4m

U.S. President Trump departs for travel to Florida from the White House in Washington Reuters

• President Donald Trump is refusing to apologize to the five men wrongly convicted of rape in the 1989 Central Park Five case.
• Trump took out full-page newspaper ads at the time calling for five to receive the death penalty.
• The five black and Hispanic men were teenagers when they were convicted. They said their confessions were coerced.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is refusing to apologize to the five men wrongly convicted of rape in the 1989 Central Park Five case, saying "they admitted their guilt."
Responding to a reporter's statement that the men were exonerated, Trump said Tuesday, "You have people on both sides of that."
Trump took out full-page newspaper ads at the time calling for five to receive the death penalty.
The five black and Hispanic men were teenagers when they were convicted. They said their confessions were coerced.
Their convictions were vacated in 2002 after evidence linked a serial rapist to the crime.
New York City reached a roughly $41 million settlement with the five without admitting wrongdoing.
Trump says some prosecutors believe the city should never have settled in the case.
SEE ALSO: Michael B. Jordan presents Central Park 5 with courage award

What is "both sides" supposed to mean? They were found innocent at rape, yet the person that made ads on the paper about them won't even acknowledge their existence? Guilty until proven innocent, I suppose.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Guilty until proven innocent, I suppose.

Maybe in '89, but now it just seems like a case of Trump not giving a shit.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Obama was worse but for some reason you never hear about it.

Yeah, and most of the people bitching about Trump's policies regarding ICE/Border Patrol or the conflict in Syria don't realize that those policies were started under Obama and the MSM outright ignored Obama's hardline immigration policy and cheered him on in bombing the fuck out of Syria with drone strikes and wasting money on a weak resistance force that was neither ISIS nor Al-Assad's government while ISIS grew exponentially in its territorial controls and manpower.

Within Trump's first two years, ISIS were decimated militarily and a lot of their lone wolf operations abroad have greatly decreased (aside from Europe, where they can exploit the refugee crisis) and by the time of the mid-terms in 2018, the last ISIS territory was decimated by US-backed resistance fighters.

Obama started the policies of "children in cages" and "ICE Prison Camps" but Trump gets the heat for it because he talks about a border wall and actually acknowledges that there is a need for borders and legal immigration processes.

As much as the leftist clickbait mills and the MSM like to exploit the Charlottesville rally and the Parkland shooting to push their "Alt-Right" moral panic, they don't talk too much about the Pulse Nightclub, San Bernadino, or terrorist attacks in Europe unless they want to demonize the right to civilian gun ownership.

Tellingly, Pulse Nightclub and San Bernadino were not done by "evil alt-right white males" and had much higher body counts than Unite The Right or Parkland, and both Pulse and San Bernadino happened under Obama.

 

[thismanlies]

Are they seriously circling back to that shit again? Those pictures were taken in like, June of 2018 or something. I feel like the media's just caught in some kind of endless loop, except now they can't circle back to the Russian Collusion angle anymore.

I’ll give them credit. At least they learned not to circulate pictures from 2014.

 

[Slap47]

Spoiler

I would have used this to pull of the scam they tried do in The Producers.

 

[School of Fish]

View attachment 806809

....do I even dare?
View attachment 806810

Fucking big oof.

See this is why Godwin's Law is a thing anyway.
When you find yourself losing an argument, when in doubt just bring up the Nazis in a desperate attempt to win an argument.

 

[potato fan]

Ok, I did the heavy reading on the actual study that article is flogging. Surprise surprise, the article headline doesn't match the reality.

TL;DR They didn't actually ask Trump voters why they switched. Instead, they used statistical modeling to guess that white voters who agreed with "racially conservative policy" had a 10-50% probability to switch from being Obama voters to Trump voters.

On one hand, it's an interesting survey of other studies that show the effects of the Dem's focus on racial politics (emphasis added):



(Which incidentally explains how the alt-right came to be, a movement that felt they didn't belong in either party and reacts most strongly to racial politics and Obama's brand of internationalism. But hey, blaming Barry for bad identity politics makes you a Nazi or something.)

On the other hand, the entire measure of whether race had anything to do with the decision of whites to switch from Obama to Trump was not based on actually asking people why they switched. Instead, they took other survey questions about "acknowledging racism" and created a reductionist scale:



Even so, they can't draw a hard conclusion.



Well no shit. Next you'll be telling me that someone's views on feminism were mysteriously associated with voting for or against a candidate

It goes on to argue that there's a lesser effect for economic concerns than for racial concerns, even though it does find an effect. But the point is this isn't an actual survey of why people voted for Trump. It's just another way to throw the racism flag around, in a slightly more rigorous way so they can try to discredit the economics rationale.

At this point I probably put more work into this than the article writer, by actually bothering to read the source material. Someone had to, I guess. I need a better hobby.

I don't get the premise of what they are trying to say. So apparently shitton of white people voted for Obama (nominally a black person), but did not vote for Clinton (suspected lizardperson, but still wearing a white skin suit), and the reason for this is... racism? like if they are so racist, why had they voted for Obama in the first place?
Did they not see the guy's face and assumed "Barack Obama" is white person's name? Or did 8 years of Obama turn them racist?

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Here's how he can still win! Match me!

 

[MirrorNoir]

On a somewhat related note: I genuinely admire the cleverness of the "Bernie would have stomped Trump" argument because it's actually pretty well-designed. It pits Trump up against a well-liked (At the time) candidate who had a lot of Populist fuel in his tanks, and lays out the argument that because Trump was a no one who could have been beaten by essentially anyone who wasn't Hillary, he's doomed against any other well-known candidate.

It's clever in that it makes you completely forget about the fact that Trump beat more than a dozen candidates in the running for the Republican nomination, and he beat them so badly that it's difficult to remember who he was even running against in those debates, and that he even had competition in the first place. All but every last one of them was an "old school" contender, and had household names. They had the recognition, the experience, and the support of their communities, and Donald Trump utterly pummeled them into the floorboards.

It's naive to believe that Donald Trump won purely because the DNC shoved Hillary to the top of the stack. His entire campaign was custom-built to thrash her where she was weakest and ignore the places that his campaign knew that it couldn't win. He would have done the same thing to Bernie Sanders, and he's going to do the same thing to whatever poor bastard the DNC finally decides is going to get the least mangled when they're put up on stage with him.

People think Bernie would beat Trump because Bernie's populism would cancel out Trump's populism and Trump wouldn't have that to distract from his ethno-nationalist stuff. Not to mention the notion, given how Trump was already "in for a dime, in for a dollar" style race baiting stuff, that Trump would feel pressure to make a huge deal out of Bernie being Jewish, which could have done what the "Grab Them By The Pussy" couldn't do and actually kill Trump's campaign and forced the GOP to pull an audible and basically subbed someone else into the race at the last minute. And that even if Trump refused and drew the line at refusing to engage in antisemetism, that it would have schismed his base who would demand Trump denounce Bernie for being Jewish and cost him enough votes from his base to allow Bernie to win.

As it stands, these people feel Hillary was so much a globalist shill that had Bernie won, he would have decimated Trump by being a legit alternative to Trump in terms of populist vs populist showdown. And that those who basically held their nose and voted for Trump, would have gone for Bernie if they had another option that wasn't Hillary and the status quo.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

 

[Harvey Danger]

I don't get the premise of what they are trying to say. So apparently shitton of white people voted for Obama (nominally a black person), but did not vote for Clinton (suspected lizardperson, but still wearing a white skin suit), and the reason for this is... racism? like if they are so racist, why had they voted for Obama in the first place?
Did they not see the guy's face and assumed "Barack Obama" is white person's name? Or did 8 years of Obama turn them racist?

Basically they were really eager to disprove the idea that white working class people voted for Trump because of economic instability. They want to say it was attitudes about race that motivated them instead. Statistically, their model suggests both were effects but "racially conservative views" were the stronger effect. However it's all based on correlations to other questions, not by direct survey of voting motivations.

This study isn't terrible; it's just hand-waving, trying to put some statistics to the "dumb white people voted Trump because they're racist" narrative.

The strongest part is a survey of previous studies, claiming there's been a long-term trend towards racial politics in the Democratic party, that the transformation was incomplete in 2012 but really accelerated 2013-2016. If you model partisan voting/identification by race, then whites got pushed out of Democratic identification, almost as an afterthought, once the Democrats became known as the party of non-whites.

Interestingly, the study also claims the Republicans didn't try to pick up more white votes, so in 2016 white working class voters hadn't been courted by any major party. The thesis is that Trump did this on his own, idiosyncratically. And when you look at the populist uprising he led against the GOP, and the screeching against him by the ideological conservatives, that also has the ring of truth.

Put it all together and the reality seems to be that whites were pushed out of the Democratic party, didn't find a home anywhere else, until Trump made an appeal to them and broke the "blue wall".

I'd add my non-rigorous opinions that (1) a tiny fraction found a home in the alt-right before Trump came along, and (2) Trump didn't actually campaign on white identity politics--if he had, you'd never hear the end of those quotes. Instead he campaigned on anti-identity politics, the antithesis of the diversity-worshiping minority victim narrative, which to progressives is enough to label him as a white supremacist.

Then they claimed every policy he espoused was dog-whistle racism: border security is anti-Mexicans. Screening for terrorists is anti-Muslim/brown people. MAGA, which is basically 1960s Democratic Party-style economic nationalism, is an endorsement of Jim Crowe, slavery, homophobia, etc.

(Funny how only the Progressives can hear super secret racist messages everywhere. Almost like the voices in their head are all terrible bigots.)

I'll take my Autistic flag now.

 

[RockVolnutt]

I don't get the premise of what they are trying to say. So apparently shitton of white people voted for Obama (nominally a black person), but did not vote for Clinton (suspected lizardperson, but still wearing a white skin suit), and the reason for this is... racism? like if they are so racist, why had they voted for Obama in the first place?
Did they not see the guy's face and assumed "Barack Obama" is white person's name? Or did 8 years of Obama turn them racist?

The argument for that idea usually is built on something like they voted for Obama and then "showed their true colors" while he was out saving the world because they couldn't handle the necessary changes. Oversimplification but more or less this.