TDS Syndrome?

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna96648

07.31.2023 10:54PM

3

2

5

07.31.2023 10:54PM

Interesting article from NBC News this week pointing out just how little support Donald Trump has from his own cabinet:

"NBC News reached out to 44 of the dozens of people who served in Trump's Cabinet over his term in office. Most declined to comment or ignored the requests. A total of four have said publicly they support his run for re-election."

I have a question for any Trump supporter out there or especially anyone who loves to accuse us lefties of TDS; what is your explanation for this? Is it fake news? Did Trump hire a bunch of liberals to lead his administration? How do you explain why the people closest to Trump whom he hand picked don't even support him?

#2

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

07.31.2023 10:59PM

3

4

10

07.31.2023 10:59PM

-->

@Double_R

Well Trump IS a New York liberal at heart, so that explains some of it.

Also this:

"NBC News reached out to 44 of the dozens of people who served in Trump's Cabinet over his term in office. Most declined to comment or ignored the requests. A total of four have said publicly they support his run for re-election."

These people probably people hate NBC news a lot more than they hate Trump. For obvious reasons.

If NBC is a platform for hate speech against Republicans, these people contacted (probably cold contacted) will likely exercise their freedom to not associate with NBC.

If you want to accuse Republicans of some kind of derangement syndrome, it's their collective and often irrational hatred of corporate media calling them deplorable every day.

#3

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,148

3

4

8

07.31.2023 11:14PM

3

4

8

07.31.2023 11:14PM

-->

@Double_R

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
― H.L. Mencken, 1920

#4

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

07.31.2023 11:24PM

3

4

10

07.31.2023 11:24PM

-->

@FLRW

Thanks again for describing why we have Biden. Cause it isn't because of corruption, it's because Democracy "perfected" by crony elites is a failed system. Thanks.

Topic's author

#5

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.01.2023 10:17AM

3

2

5

08.01.2023 10:17AM

-->

@Greyparrot

If NBC is a platform for hate speech against Republicans, these people contacted (probably cold contacted) will likely exercise their freedom to not associate with NBC.

As the quote pointed out: "A total of four have said publicly they support his run for re-election."

Why only 4?

#6

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,130

3

6

08.01.2023 04:15PM

3

6

08.01.2023 04:15PM

We are talking about the MAGA morons.

They are not grounded in reality.

Anyone appointed by Trump who no longer supports Trump can be explained away by detaching themselves from reality.

Explanations include:

They are RINOs. Trump failed to recognize them as such before he appointed them to his Cabinet because he was misled by other RINOs. It wasn’t Trump’s fault.

They are tools of the Deep State. This is all part of a conspiracy to stop Trump from draining the swamp.

The media is lying. His old Cabinet actually supports another Trump Presidency. Even the ones running against him.

They are “ Never Trumpers” which means they have TDS. Trump didn’t realize they were NTs when he appointed them but it wasn’t his fault. He only hires the best people.

#7

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,148

3

4

8

08.01.2023 04:17PM

3

4

8

08.01.2023 04:17PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Remember that Trump's IQ is 73.

#8

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.01.2023 04:18PM

3

4

10

08.01.2023 04:18PM

-->

@Double_R

The methodology of the article implies by stating "most people did not respond" that the people that chose to not respond to NBC were put in the category of "not publicly supporting Trump"

Considering a platform for hate speech against Republicans is obviously motivated to use a methodology that makes that number as high as possible, it's extremely likely this methodology was used to push the narrative.

#9

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.01.2023 04:18PM

3

4

10

08.01.2023 04:18PM

-->

@FLRW

According to the FBI.

Topic's author

#10

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.01.2023 05:56PM

3

2

5

08.01.2023 05:56PM

-->

@Greyparrot

The methodology of the article implies by stating "most people did not respond" that the people that chose to not respond to NBC were put in the category of "not publicly supporting Trump"

Correct, because they have not commented in any public capacity that they are supporting Donald Trump. That has nothing to do with NBC.

You don't find that a bit odd? Only 4 out of his entire cabinet? He has more cabinet members that have publicly stated they do not support him than the ones that have said they do.

#11

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.01.2023 06:32PM

3

4

10

08.01.2023 06:32PM

-->

@Double_R

You don't find that a bit odd? Only 4 out of his entire cabinet? He has more cabinet members that have publicly stated they do not support him than the ones that have said they do.

I don't find it odd at all that only 4 people chose to talk to NBC, a known platform for hate speech. There's always a few people that give hate speech platforms second chances.

#12

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,130

3

6

08.01.2023 07:36PM

3

6

08.01.2023 07:36PM

NBC, a known platform for hate speech

That’s a lie. More lies from the libertarian

I don't find it odd at all that only 4 people chose to talk to NBC,

Trumps former cabinet members could publicly support Trump on a myriad of networks and communications channels, but they have not. To the contrary, many have said they don’t believe Trump should be President again.

#13

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

https://thehill.com/homenews/3733190-white-house-adviser-says-painting-maga-republicans-as-extremists-was-effective-strategy/

08.01.2023 07:37PM

3

4

10

08.01.2023 07:37PM

-->

@Double_R

any public capacity

You said "public capacity" in your first mention...not "any"

By being purposely vague and un-nuanced, a hate speech platform like NBC can cover their tracks while driving home the narrative they are paid to promote. If Republicans overwhelmingly choose to not associate with a hateful organization like NBC, then they can be said to not publicly engage by defining NBC as an outlet for the public.

Topic's author

#14

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.01.2023 10:22PM

3

2

5

08.01.2023 10:22PM

-->

@Greyparrot

This has nothing to do with NBC. What they are reporting, accurately, is that only 4 members of Trump's cabinet have publicly expressed support for Trump.

Publicly doesn't mean "on NBC". Publicly means any public platform including Fox news, talk radio, social media, etc.

If all you're going to do is respond by talking about how NBC is a hate speech against republicans platform then you've already answered the question at least in your case; you reconcile this fact by pretending it isn't real.

#15

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.01.2023 10:32PM

3

4

10

08.01.2023 10:32PM

-->

@Double_R

Publicly doesn't mean "on NBC". Publicly means any public platform including Fox news, talk radio, social media, etc.

You don't know that. They specifically said the 4 people they talked to expressed support, as if that was the criteria. But then again, they purposely hid their methodology of the poll for obvious reasons.

Can you take an educated guess why the vast majority refused to talk to NBC?

Would you reasonably claim Republicans have "MDS" (Media Derangement Syndrome)

#16

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,130

3

6

08.02.2023 08:34AM

3

6

08.02.2023 08:34AM

-->

@Double_R

You don't know that. They specifically said the 4 people they talked to expressed support, as if that was the criteria.

A mind like a steel trap. It distorts things.

Topic's author

#17

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.02.2023 10:34AM

3

2

5

08.02.2023 10:34AM

-->

@Greyparrot

You don't know that. They specifically said the 4 people they talked to expressed support, as if that was the criteria. But then again, they purposely hid their methodology of the poll for obvious reasons.

It wasn't a poll. Why is this so difficult?

They didn't say they talked to the 4. They said 4 have publicly expressed support and went on to explain why they know that. At least one of them was because he tweeted it.

Public support is something you can Google yourself. There's no methology to disclose there.

Topic's author

#18

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.02.2023 10:35AM

3

2

5

08.02.2023 10:35AM

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

A mind like a steel trap. It distorts things.

But we're the ones with derangement syndrome...

#19

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.02.2023 12:16PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 12:16PM

-->

@Double_R

It wasn't a poll. Why is this so difficult?

Because the article started out saying "we asked 44 people"

Why do you rely on difficult sources? Oh that's right. A paid narrative gets you hooked. That goes for the right as well as they eat up the deranged narrative that all paid news is out to insult them.

You never did answer why the majority of those 44 refused to talk to NBC. Quite telling on your part, as you seem to agree with me.

#20

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.02.2023 12:17PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 12:17PM

But we're the ones with derangement syndrome...

Again, don't insult yourself to internet strangers. It is unhealthy.

Topic's author

#21

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.02.2023 01:23PM

3

2

5

08.02.2023 01:23PM

-->

@Greyparrot

You never did answer why the majority of those 44 refused to talk to NBC. Quite telling on your part, as you seem to agree with me.

I didn't answer the question because it's completely irrelevant to this thread.

The question I began by asking is how do you account for the fact that only 4 members of Trump's entire cabinet have publicly endorsed him, and even more have done the opposite. The point is that if Trump is really so great then why does he have such little support from his own people?

Instead you have spent this entire thread deflecting to NBC.

Once again, public statements can be made on any platform and are easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection. NBC was just the conveyer of this information, so why focus on the conveyer rather than the information? Because you're clearly not interested in the information.

The fact that you decided to fixate on NBC and ignore the point of this thread offers a pretty revealing look at how Trump supporters are able to grasp onto any straw they see in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of dealing with the very simple reality the article is pointing out.

And you're allegedly not even a Trump supporter, so I can only imagine how much worse it gets.

#22

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.02.2023 01:46PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 01:46PM

-->

@Double_R

The only indication of the methodology of their poll is the statement "most refused to talk to NBC"

That could mean 30 didn't talk to them, maybe as many as 40 didn't talk to NBC. That matters.

Why would such a poll be given any relevance if not for an affirmation of a manufactured narrative?

This is why asking that question is highly relevant.

#23

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.02.2023 01:48PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 01:48PM

-->

@Double_R

The fact that you decided to fixate on NBC

I don't care about NBC. I care about manufactured polls. Do you know the methodology of their polling? How many answered? How many did not out of the 44?

What was the exact question(s)? What were the exact responses? These questions are far from irrelevant.

You are the one that started the thread with a quote describing an NBC poll of 44 people. It's you who fixated on NBC, not me.

And I only bring up NBC negatively because if you listen to the other side, they seem to be irrationally deranged against paid media narratives.

#24

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.02.2023 02:04PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 02:04PM

-->

@Double_R

Let's pull back a hot minute and go to the heart of this thread. Whether you are basing your current opinion on this NBC poll is irrelevant for this question.

Why would 44 government appointees in any way, shape, or form -Arguably creatures of "the DC swamp"- accurately reflect the pulse of the American voter? Do you really believe average people care about government appointees much in the way they irrationally worship Hollywood celebrities'? Even abstractly?

I think, even if you were to parse the voters from both parties, you would have to conclude this isn't remotely true for any case.

Topic's author

#25

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.02.2023 05:28PM

3

2

5

08.02.2023 05:28PM

-->

@Greyparrot

You are the one that started the thread with a quote describing an NBC poll of 44 people. It's you who fixated on NBC, not me.

Wow.

First of all, it wasn't a poll. I've explained this numerous times already, you continue to ignore it so you can repeat yourself over and over again.

Second, I've been setting that aside for the entirety of this thread ever since. No matter how many times I tell you this has nothing to do with NBC and everything to do with their public statements which you can Google your very self, you keep bringing it back to NBC. So claiming I am the one fixated on NBC is patently absurd.

Third, this is now my sixth reply to you explaining that this has nothing to do with who spoke with NBC and everything to do with the public statements or lack thereof of the people in question. To not understand my point after the first response is bad enough because it was quite clear, but to sit here 5 responses later and counting demonstrates either a remarkable and significant case of cognitive dissonance or a blatant attempt to troll with bad faith arguments.

Those has nothing to do with NBC or whatever poll you seem to have concocted in your mind. This is about the lack of public support from the people in question. Acknowledge that point or move on, I have no interest in your repeated deflections towards NBC.

#26

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.02.2023 05:35PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 05:35PM

First of all, it wasn't a poll. I've explained this numerous times already, you continue to ignore it so you can repeat yourself over and over again

I actually agree with you. a sample size of 44 is nowhere near enough to get the pulse of American voters. I guess that's that then.

In the grand scheme of things, the views of former government appointees, including Cabinet members, won't be a concern of the general public. Here are some reasons why the general public doesn't give a crap.

Limited Relevance to Daily Life: For the average citizen, the opinions of former Cabinet members do not have any impact on their daily lives or immediate concerns.
Changing Landscape: Government appointees come and go with administrations, like dirty diapers. As their roles change or they leave office, their influence on policies and decisions diminishes or becomes dated and irrelevant.
Diverse Perspectives: Cabinet members, like any group of individuals, can hold diverse and sometimes conflicting opinions. The views of one former Cabinet member may not represent the entire group or even their successor. Appointees are like assholes, everyone has them.
Focus on Current Policies: The public tends to be more interested in the policies and actions of the present and dysfunctional current administration, rather than those of past officials of a loser president.
Election Outcomes: Government appointees are typically chosen by elected officials, and their opinions may not carry the same weight as those of elected representatives. People never elected those crony appointees, so they probably don't care what they say; as the political appointees do not represent them.
Public Trust and Skepticism: Some individuals may be skeptical about the motivations behind public statements made by former government appointees, considering potential political interests or personal agendas and also considering the pervasive antigovernmental sentiment among Trump supporters.
Focus on Broader Issues: The general public may be more concerned about broader societal and economic issues that impact their well-being and livelihoods, such as WW3 or crippling inflation.

Topic's author

#27

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,281

3

2

5

08.02.2023 05:42PM

3

2

5

08.02.2023 05:42PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Why would 44 government appointees in any way, shape, or form -Arguably creatures of "the DC swamp"- accurately reflect the pulse of the American voter?

They wouldn't and no one is claiming or suggesting they would.

Let's try this one more time.

The Genesis of this thread is a response to those who claim that Trump was a great president and those of us who don't understand that are just being intellectually dishonest to the point of derangement. Setting aside all of the tit for tat arguments we can go back and forth about, let's take a huge step back and recognize one curious fact.

The people we would all expect to be the most supportive of any president are the people who worked closest to them. These are the people whom the president hand selected and who would have the most reason to be defensive of and loyal to Trump.

Stop, reread the previous paragraph as many times as it takes to absorb before continuing.

So if among this group Trump had almost no public support... That is incredibly odd. That is not something any honest and intellectually curious person can just brush off. That needs to be reconciled somehow.

I'm asking how you reconcile it. I'm asking how you explain the slew of negative comments from people like Bill Barr and John Bolton just to name a few. It's it all a massive conspiracy? Is Trump the worst hiring manager in history? How do you make sense out of the reality that his own hand picked administration insiders are showing no public support for him?

I cannot make my question any more clear. If you have any interest in a real conversation on this subject then talk about the subject of this thread which I just explained yet again.

#28

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

08.02.2023 05:44PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 05:44PM

The people we would all expect to be the most supportive of any president are the people who worked closest to them

Wrong and opposite. Can you back this opinion up with any source?

Let's try this one more time.

Yeah let's. Why do you care if the majority of Trump appointed officials refused to talk to NBC? Is it because they do not support NBC? Did you really expect most of them to respond and also say they support the president? We can extrapolate that would have been the case as NBC did not mention in the article a single person that responded to NBC in the negative about Trump. Big shocker there, I know.

One of these claims has to be true.

#29

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA

08.02.2023 06:15PM

3

4

10

08.02.2023 06:15PM

-->

@Double_R

So if among this group Trump had almost no public support... That is incredibly odd.

odd to the point of it being a disingenuous claim. This is top tier Kathy Neumann "so what you really are saying is..."insert narrative""

Not talking to NBC or not publicly supporting Trump =/= does not support Trump, publicly or privately.

You are spinning pure fanfiction along with NBC here and presenting this as some kind of "evidence"

That is not something any honest and intellectually curious person can just brush off.

I just did, because fanfiction should not be taken seriously in an intellectual debate, honest or not.

#30

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,040

3

4

10