ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

The_Reporter wrote:

[Removed by Support]

That's funny, in the first two paragraphs they do a review of how much they hate Trump, before getting to the actual point of the article. I pity people so wrapped up in hatred, like the author of that article.

I didn't make it past the first sentence so I'm not sure if the author is wrapped up in hatred like you said but it was way too editorialized.

Anyone who knows what a cult is or how they work in the slightest knows Trump fits the archetype. You don't need a news article to tell you the man is a blathering demagogue getting by on bluster and chutzpah (and a massive heaping helping of finger-pointing, rabble-rowsing, discord-sowing and Blame Gaming) rather than intelligence and competence. He did it during his campaign, he's done it every single day since being sworn into office, he'll continue to do it every day he's not in prison, and the people he's whipped into a slobbering fervor over their shared hatred of anything like a moderate viewpoint are absolutely cult-like in their devotion to their Preacher of Woe, to their own and everyone else's detriment. No one should ever be so devoted to a leader, any leader, that they refuse to examine that leader's actions for merit.

.
..
...

That said, I've basically stopped trusting any Main Stream-y news source at this point. The agenda-pushing has gotten blatant to the point of idiocy in all of them. It's kinda sad when the best way a gal knows to get some reasonably unbiased news about actual world events is fucking Wikipedia's news feed. The Mueller investigation is a dilapidated joke, the Trump Cabinet is one of those revolving sets old people keep for pots and pans, the administration's answer to anything is "what would piss Democrats and Centrists off the most if we said it? Whatever that is, that's our reply", and everyone is so busy scrambling to keep their jobs whilst upending everyone else from their jobs that nobody knows if we'll even have a government by 2020 - and every single "news" source out there is having a field day trying to terrify their chosen half of the population into believing the End Times are nigh and nothing can stop the Apocalypse now.

It's disgusting to watch, it really is.

"

1453R wrote:

Anyone who knows what a cult is or how they work in the slightest knows Trump fits the archetype. You don't need a news article to tell you the man is a blathering demagogue getting by on bluster and chutzpah (and a massive heaping helping of finger-pointing, rabble-rowsing, discord-sowing and Blame Gaming) rather than intelligence and competence. He did it during his campaign, he's done it every single day since being sworn into office, he'll continue to do it every day he's not in prison, and the people he's whipped into a slobbering fervor over their shared hatred of anything like a moderate viewpoint are absolutely cult-like in their devotion to their Preacher of Woe, to their own and everyone else's detriment. No one should ever be so devoted to a leader, any leader, that they refuse to examine that leader's actions for merit.

Are the Trump fans devoted to Trump because they love Trump? or because they hate current people the US gov't (leading into Trump's election win) and Trump basically insulted all of them (both parties) through the course of the entire campaign.

I don't think of Trumpists as cult members, so much as people who really, really hate the vast majority of politicians; and were/are hoping to see Trump figuratively blow up Washington DC.

"

Salon

Reminder that that site illegally uses visitors computer to mine crypto. (as If someone needed another reason to not give them clicks)

-gave links but guess they were deleted for a reason or another, either way you can google this easily-

EDIT: Thanks mods.
2ND EDIT: and hey, if you really want to post something Salon just screencap it or save the article to a archived version with sites like archive.org/web or archive.is

"

Khoranth wrote:

Are the Trump fans devoted to Trump because they love Trump? or because they hate current people the US gov't (leading into Trump's election win) and Trump basically insulted all of them (both parties) through the course of the entire campaign.

I don't think of Trumpists as cult members, so much as people who really, really hate the vast majority of politicians; and were/are hoping to see Trump figuratively blow up Washington DC.

And is the phrase "I voted for a total and complete incompetent blowhard because I was specifically hoping that he'd crash, burn, and take Washington with him" really something a person should be proud of saying?

Is that really where we want to be? At the point of deliberately and intentionally sabotaging our own systems? Because allow me to say that such a point is not nearly as far away from armed revolt as any of us should be remotely comfortable with.

"

1453R wrote:

I've basically stopped trusting any Main Stream-y news source at this point. The agenda-pushing has gotten blatant to the point of idiocy in all of them. It's kinda sad when the best way a gal knows to get some reasonably unbiased news about actual world events is fucking Wikipedia's news feed. The Mueller investigation is a dilapidated joke, the Trump Cabinet is one of those revolving sets old people keep for pots and pans, the administration's answer to anything is "what would piss Democrats and Centrists off the most if we said it? Whatever that is, that's our reply", and everyone is so busy scrambling to keep their jobs whilst upending everyone else from their jobs that nobody knows if we'll even have a government by 2020 - and every single "news" source out there is having a field day trying to terrify their chosen half of the population into believing the End Times are nigh and nothing can stop the Apocalypse now.

It's disgusting to watch, it really is.

"

1453R wrote:

And is the phrase "I voted for a total and complete incompetent blowhard because I was specifically hoping that he'd crash, burn, and take Washington with him" really something a person should be proud of saying?

Is that really where we want to be? At the point of deliberately and intentionally sabotaging our own systems? Because allow me to say that such a point is not nearly as far away from armed revolt as any of us should be remotely comfortable with.

Me personally? I am voting for Ted Cruz in the 2020 primary; Ted Cruz is a trustworthy genius, with outstanding moral character.

But I understand that there are people out there (seems like about 35% of the country) who thoroughly hate 99.9% of the elected politicians in the federal gov't. SO, of course they are proud to say they threw a grenade at Washington DC. What would make you think otherwise?

I dont think they hate the system, so much as they hate all the elected politicians. I think some people are fed up with life long career politicians and wanted to vote in a guy who has never been in politics.

These same people would 100% definitely vote for Stone Cold Steve Austin, if he ran, or the Rock.

"

1453R wrote:

And is the phrase "I voted for a total and complete incompetent blowhard because I was specifically hoping that he'd crash, burn, and take Washington with him" really something a person should be proud of saying?

Is that really where we want to be? At the point of deliberately and intentionally sabotaging our own systems? Because allow me to say that such a point is not nearly as far away from armed revolt as any of us should be remotely comfortable with.

It's closer to armed revolution than the normal revolution we're presented with every election season, but I think the question that you're not asking here is, "was it necessary?" There's increasing unrest and annoyance with the mainstream politicians basically doing whatever they please, and simply voting for another guy isn't much of an option since that person will also do whatever they please, and in the case of the Democratic party there are actual codified systems in place to ensure any person who doesn't conform can't even get on the ballot. Of course you could have voted for a third party candidate, but every media outlet does their best to make sure you don't know they exist, and this election the two biggest candidates were also pretty unimpressive, as Gary Johnson kept blanking in interviews, and Jill Stein was in jail for vandalism during the election.

Trump may be an idiot and a blowhard, but he was probably the only way people were going to get anything even close to someone who doesn't just follow their party line in charge.

Love Melania's face in this one.

I've been thinking about The_Reporter's link to that Salon article, specifically how the "cult leader expert" said that Trump supporters want to have confirmation bias, as if it's something that applies to "them" but doesn't apply to "us." Well, that's not a fair or accurate way to present confirmation bias, because the single most important thing to understand about confirmation bias is that no one is immune. (The article did touch upon this lightly, but not enough to convey the proper impression.)

You have a massive confirmation bias. As do I. It's universal. We all prefer to fit new evidence into our pre-existing ideology instead of doubting that which we believe we know. I mean, imagine it from an evolutionary standpoint, if humans were genetically predisposed to doubt that which they believe they know; obviously, such a species would die off. We are built to be sure, not skeptical, because life requires action, not idle contemplation.

The only way to deal with your own confirmation bias is to treat yourself as members of Alcoholics Anonymous treat themselves. In that group, people with former alcohol abuse spread and practice the ideology that they are incurable alcoholics, that no matter how sober they are for how long they will always be corrupted, and that their thoughts will forever be their opponent, driving them to drink again. In so doing, they turn their own confirmation bias against itself — when they think a thought that might lead them to drink, they experience cognitive dissonance as they want to believe both that the recent thought is reasonable and the belief that their thoughts are those of an incurable alcoholic. This is why the program works to the extent that it works — it puts the practioner in a situation where thoughts are pitted against each other, instead of running unopposed, and the dispute mediated internally.

In the same way, your only hope against confirmation bias is to acknowledge its irremovable and pervasive impact upon all of your thought, without exception. This isn't to say you always act as your confirmation bias directs you, but that it always will attempt to direct you, and that on some level you will always desire it to. It is perhaps the only legitimate original sin. Once you do that, "I am eternally the attempted victim of confirmation bias" becomes your confirmation bias, at which point you'll be able to properly question your own assumptions thanks to self-induced cognitive dissonance.

Even then, this is only a hope. Internal mediation doesn't necessarily mean competent mediation. Critical thinking is a rare, not a common, response to cognitive dissonance. Rationalization is far more common, even when it manifests as conspiracy theory.

I mean, I could definitely go on regarding that Salon article, but for now let me just say: is a thing "fear programming" even if it's believed to be true? Indeed, is any instance of fear programming effective if it isn't believed to be true? What does that make the Salon article, that attempts to convince you the President is a cult leader?