Does he really believe it?
-
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
@jon-nyc said in Does he really believe it?:
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
Surely a psychological allergy to losing is at least something you can understand, jon.
Did you read my post? I've baked in that it would be tremendously difficult for him psychologically to accept a loss. But by believing his own shit doesn't that mean he has to believe he's suffered the greatest defeat at the hands of his enemies in American political history? Far worse than just being beaten by the impersonal forces of a virus and it's impact on the economy. Seems to me anyway.
His reaction has clearly allowed you to further cement him as the Biggest Loser of All Time, in your mind, maybe in most minds with TDS. Believing that Trump is a loser is of great emotional value for some of us. But that's your cross to bear. For the rest of us, his reaction is understandable and predictable, and IMO regrettable. But it's not a revelation to me, and it will come to nothing. Enjoy it while it lasts. He'll be gone from the white house at the appointed time.
There is an intense need to rub it in but it must be irritating as hell that the intended receipients don’t feel that way.
-
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
I don't know what their options are. If you'd like to delineate them, I'll go ahead and predict what might or might not occur.
I'm not asking for your prediction, im asking when 'nothing burger' ends and 'concerning' begins.
Like, say all of the GOP senators refuse to ratify the count, and therefore the process is thrown into some minor chaos. (put aside the fact that the result of that would be President Pelosi on 1/20). I'm sure we can agree that would no longer warrant being called a 'nothing burger'.
But short of that, what would you find concerning?
-
@jon-nyc said in Does he really believe it?:
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
If you believe there is such a thing as TDS, do you believe you manifest it with your opinions and reactions to all things Trump?
This will just be an argument over who gets to define TDS. Here it's generally used to describe any criticism of the man that goes beyond 'occasional impoliteness'.
I would define it that more like adopting beliefs that don't make objective sense, just because it casts Trump as the villain. Example - saying he was trying to get a Covid drug approved because he owned a mutual fund with a minuscule holding in the company. That makes zero sense, but plenty of people adopted that as his motivation. There were even pieces written about it, not just hot takes on twitter.
There are clear reasons to dislike Trump and it could have been a worthy conversation. But the TDS crowd showed its motivations, means and use of every possible tool and abuse of our systems to get rid of him and therefore are the LAST people who should be listened to. The stuff Trump is doing now is just a reflection of what the last four years looked like. People who don’t like it ought to look in the mirror. And yeah it’s much more of a nothing burger than what was attempted on the Presidency.
-
@jon-nyc said in Does he really believe it?:
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
If you believe there is such a thing as TDS, do you believe you manifest it with your opinions and reactions to all things Trump?
This will just be an argument over who gets to define TDS. Here it's generally used to describe any criticism of the man that goes beyond 'occasional impoliteness'.
I would define it that more like adopting beliefs that don't make objective sense, just because it casts Trump as the villain. Example - saying he was trying to get a Covid drug approved because he owned a mutual fund with a minuscule holding in the company. That makes zero sense, but plenty of people adopted that as his motivation. There were even pieces written about it, not just hot takes on twitter.
Yes, a lack of objectivity would seem the fundamental thing. I sense you still believe in your own objectivity regarding Trump. I think few on this board would agree with you about that, but we all create our own realities, just like Trump.
-
@jon-nyc said in Does he really believe it?:
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
I don't know what their options are. If you'd like to delineate them, I'll go ahead and predict what might or might not occur.
I'm not asking for your prediction, im asking when 'nothing burger' ends and 'concerning' begins.
Like, say all of the GOP senators refuse to ratify the count, and therefore the process is thrown into some minor chaos. (put aside the fact that the result of that would be President Pelosi on 1/20). I'm sure we can agree that would no longer warrant being called a 'nothing burger'.
Right. I predict that will not happen.
But short of that, what would you find concerning?
I don't know the possibilities. I do know nobody will be breaking the law in plain sight. Can you tell me some legal strategy that might be employed, other than the one you described above (which will not happen), which you would consider to be important?
-
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
Yes, a lack of objectivity would seem the fundamental thing. I sense you still believe in your own objectivity regarding Trump. I think few on this board would agree with you about that, but we all create our own realities, just like Trump.
This is very typical of how the phrase “TDS” is used here. Just as a hand-wavy ad hominem for the shitters out there that aren’t on the train.
You would do well to taboo the phrase (as in the game ‘taboo’), and force yourself to be specific in your disagreements when people criticize Trump. Say specifically why the criticism is unfounded, rather than gripe generally at the idea that he’s being criticized. It would be interesting to see.
-
I would be terribly concerned if what Trump did came out of a vacuum, I am not concerned at all after the last four years. Why people don’t get that is way beyond me. What the media and democrats did to Trump is order of magnitude more significant than some loyalists running around at the last minute trying to be loyal to their boss and scare up some dirt in a show of defiance in death.
-
That might be the case if you isolate the comparison to this little skirmish planned fir Wednesday.
But what Trump has done to undermine the election (and perhaps all future ones) is orders of magnitude worse than the impeachment. Which was surely reasonable, if ultimately futile.
-
@jon-nyc said in Does he really believe it?:
That might be the case if you isolate the comparison to this little skirmish planned fir Wednesday.
But what Trump has done to undermine the election (and perhaps all future ones) is orders of magnitude worse than the impeachment. Which was surely reasonable, if ultimately futile.
Packing the Supreme Court and getting rid of the electoral system are right and just I suppose? Being ashamed of being white? Calling our President a Russian agent? The attacks on Kavanaugh? Your team lead us down this path pal.
-
@jon-nyc said in Does he really believe it?:
Well if the game is to compare what Trump actually did with anything anyone who disagrees with you simply proposed, then sure.
I’m just not sure what the point of that game is. You’re a little old for Calvinball.
I’m trying to explain to you why most people could care less what Trump is doing. So I think you get they don’t, maybe they are too stupid to be alarmed in your opinion. But also understand many people saw what was done to Trump and recognize it is not morally justifiable no matter how undesirable Trump is. For some reason you inflated him to be the big bad wolf, it is and and never was. The anxiety I think comes from within.
-
@jon-nyc said in Does he really believe it?:
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
Yes, a lack of objectivity would seem the fundamental thing. I sense you still believe in your own objectivity regarding Trump. I think few on this board would agree with you about that, but we all create our own realities, just like Trump.
This is very typical of how the phrase “TDS” is used here. Just as a hand-wavy ad hominem for the shitters out there that aren’t on the train.
You would do well to taboo the phrase (as in the game ‘taboo’), and force yourself to be specific in your disagreements when people criticize Trump. Say specifically why the criticism is unfounded, rather than gripe generally at the idea that he’s being criticized. It would be interesting to see.
I do that. When I say that TDS caused people to take in stride as righteous cultural warfare the, for instance, NYT op ed and subsequent book about anonymous adults in the white house actively subverting the president, I meant that TDS caused that emotional reaction to what amounted to bragging about what was, as portrayed, way more of a "constitutional crisis" than Trump ever directly represented. Then there's the shameless Russian collusion nonsense. We cataloguers of TDS never had to scum the depths of Twitter to find pure neuroses.
-
On the other hand, when I respond to mindless hatred, I'm happy to just call the TDS for what it is, and move on. But you haven't even acknowledged there is such a thing as TDS. You'll claim that conversation is meaningless in that definitions are not agreed upon, while happily giggling at "Deranged Magat Syndrome" sufferers all day. Or sometimes "resident crazy uncle", or, in the past, as you've dismissed me, those who've fallen down the rabbit hole of mindless tribalism - a claim you made because of the gestalt of your impressions of my posts, rather than any details about specific opinions. Such details and specifics are now what you request of me, and my gestalt impression of TDS sufferers. I would say "fair enough", but it's really not. You have a knack for condescension and elitism, and again if you don't see that about yourself, you are one of the few.
-
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
On the other hand, when I respond to mindless hatred, I'm happy to just call the TDS for what it is, and move on. But you haven't even acknowledged there is such a thing as TDS. You'll claim that conversation is meaningless in that definitions are not agreed upon, while happily giggling at "Deranged Magat Syndrome" sufferers all day. Or sometimes "resident crazy uncle", or, in the past, as you've dismissed me, those who've fallen down the rabbit hole of mindless tribalism - a claim you made because of the gestalt of your impressions of my posts, rather than any details about specific opinions. Such details and specifics are now what you request of me, and my gestalt impression of TDS sufferers. I would say "fair enough", but it's really not. You have a knack for condescension and elitism, and again if you don't see that about yourself, you are one of the few.
Actually Jon of late presents us with these trolley problems where we are supposed to see imaginary lives on one of the tracks. It’s a thought experiment within a thought experiment.
-
@loki said in Does he really believe it?:
@horace said in Does he really believe it?:
On the other hand, when I respond to mindless hatred, I'm happy to just call the TDS for what it is, and move on. But you haven't even acknowledged there is such a thing as TDS. You'll claim that conversation is meaningless in that definitions are not agreed upon, while happily giggling at "Deranged Magat Syndrome" sufferers all day. Or sometimes "resident crazy uncle", or, in the past, as you've dismissed me, those who've fallen down the rabbit hole of mindless tribalism - a claim you made because of the gestalt of your impressions of my posts, rather than any details about specific opinions. Such details and specifics are now what you request of me, and my gestalt impression of TDS sufferers. I would say "fair enough", but it's really not. You have a knack for condescension and elitism, and again if you don't see that about yourself, you are one of the few.
Actually Jon of late presents us with these trolley problems where we are supposed to see imaginary lives on one of the tracks. It’s a thought experiment within a thought experiment.
Imaginary Lives Matter.
-
I’ll just add. The Russia collusion stuff and impeachment was precipitated by the idiocy of Trump.
Let’s remember that Sessions recused himself, Trump went on Lester Holt and said stupid shit and Rosenstein (not the NYT) appointed a special council.
The Trump conversations to Ukraine were also idiotic
Now - it didn’t really amount to much because it was all out of stupidity on Trump’s part and not villainous corruption. But it’s not like it was a figment of some people’s imagination.
I’m saying this, because Trump’s actions now are not an analogue of what happened to him. They’re different and went over board in different ways. It’s a different thing though.
-
-
Nope, anybody that rubbed their hands in glee at Russia! Russia! Russia, while knowing there was nothing to it, is nothing more than a partisan hack.
In fact, they are worse than a partisan hack. These people have allowed hate for the individual to be placed ahead of the rule of law and what is best for the country. At this point, I would never trust them to do what is honorable or right, not if it meant furthering a political agenda...
