Psycho-pathology of Trump Supporters

Mott the Hoople said:
Which brings up the third and fifth psycho-pathology of Trump supporters. Social Dominance Order and Relative Deprivation as most Trump supporters are low status males who feel deprived of their position in a rigid social hierarchy they feel is their birth right and harbor resentments to those outside their perceived social order as relatively depriving them of that birth right.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Describes this forum’s racist pigfuckers, doesn’t it?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
If Trump really wants to "drain the swamp", why did he blast the Justice Department for indicting congressmen Collins (R-N.Y.) and Hunter (R-Calif.) on charges of corruption and fraud? Btw, they were the first two congressmen to endorse his candidacy in 2016.
Click to expand...

Attacking Collins and Hunter is not draining the swamp.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Which brings up the third and fifth psycho-pathology of Trump supporters. Social Dominance Order and Relative Deprivation as most Trump supporters are low status males who feel deprived of their position in a rigid social hierarchy they feel is their birth right and harbor resentments to those outside their perceived social order as relatively depriving them of that birth right.
Click to expand...
you are describing an aristocracy.The US never has a rigid social hieiarchy, except those who are rich and famous
 
This is an article in the NYT from back in May, surprising it even got published. It really does sum up the smugness, self importance and self-righteousness displayed by board liberals like Cypriss, Twatsky, Dumber76, Nonads, Bowel Woman and McSquawker.

Liberals, You’re Not as Smart as You Think
By Gerard Alexander

Mr. Alexander is a professor of political science at the University of Virginia

I know many liberals, and two of them really are my best friends. Liberals make good movies and television shows. Their idealism has been an inspiration for me and many others. Many liberals are very smart. But they are not as smart, or as persuasive, as they think.

And a backlash against liberals — a backlash that most liberals don’t seem to realize they’re causing — is going to get President Trump re-elected.

People often vote against things instead of voting for them: against ideas, candidates and parties. Democrats, like Republicans, appreciate this whenever they portray their opponents as negatively as possible. But members of political tribes seem to have trouble recognizing that they, too, can push people away and energize them to vote for the other side. Nowhere is this more on display today than in liberal control of the commanding heights of American culture.

Take the past few weeks. At the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, the comedian Michelle Wolf landed some punch lines that were funny and some that weren’t. But people reacted less to her talent and more to the liberal politics that she personified. For every viewer who loved her Trump bashing, there seemed to be at least one other put off by the one-sidedness of her routine. Then, when Kanye West publicly rethought his ideological commitments, prominent liberals criticized him for speaking on the topic at all. Maxine Waters, a Democratic congresswoman from California, remarked that “sometimes Kanye West talks out of turn” and should “maybe not have so much to say.”

Liberals dominate the entertainment industry, many of the most influential news sources and America’s universities. This means that people with progressive leanings are everywhere in the public eye — and are also on the college campuses attended by many people’s children or grandkids. These platforms come with a lot of power to express values, confer credibility and celebrity and start national conversations that others really can’t ignore.

But this makes liberals feel more powerful than they are. Or, more accurately, this kind of power is double-edged. Liberals often don’t realize how provocative or inflammatory they can be. In exercising their power, they regularly not only persuade and attract but also annoy and regards

In fact, liberals may be more effective at causing resentment than in getting people to come their way. I’m not talking about the possibility that jokes at the 2011 correspondents’ association dinner may have pushed Mr. Trump to run for president to begin with. I mean that the “army of comedy” that Michael Moore thought would bring Mr. Trump down will instead be what builds him up in the minds of millions of voters.

Consider some ways liberals have used their cultural prominence in recent years. They have rightly become more sensitive to racism and sexism in American society. News reports, academic commentary and movies now regularly relate accounts of racism in American history and condemn racial bigotry. These exercises in consciousness-raising and criticism have surely nudged some Americans to rethink their views, and to reflect more deeply on the status and experience of women and members of minority groups in this country.

But accusers can paint with very wide brushes. Racist is pretty much the most damning label that can be slapped on anyone in America today, which means it should be applied firmly and carefully. Yet some people have cavalierly leveled the charge against huge numbers of Americans — specifically, the more than 60 million people who voted for Mr. Trump.

In their ranks are people who sincerely consider themselves not bigoted, who might be open to reconsidering ways they have done things for years, but who are likely to be put off if they feel smeared before that conversation even takes place.

It doesn’t help that our cultural mores are changing rapidly, and we rarely stop to consider this. Some liberals have gotten far out ahead of their fellow Americans but are nonetheless quick to criticize those who haven’t caught up with them.

Within just a few years, many liberals went from starting to talk about microaggressions to suggesting that it is racist even to question whether microaggressions are that important. “Gender identity disorder” was considered a form of mental illness until recently, but today anyone hesitant about transgender women using the ladies’ room is labeled a bigot. Liberals denounce “cultural appropriation” without, in many cases, doing the work of persuading people that there is anything wrong with, say, a teenager not of Chinese descent wearing a Chinese-style dress to prom or eating at a burrito cart run by two non-Latino women.

Pressing a political view from the Oscar stage, declaring a conservative campus speaker unacceptable, flatly categorizing huge segments of the country as misguided — these reveal a tremendous intellectual and moral self-confidence that smacks of superiority. It’s one thing to police your own language and a very different one to police other people’s. The former can set an example. The latter is domineering.

This judgmental tendency became stronger during the administration of President Barack Obama, though not necessarily because of anything Mr. Obama did. Feeling increasingly emboldened, liberals were more convinced than ever that conservatives were their intellectual and even moral inferiors. Discourses and theories once confined to academia were transmitted into workaday liberal political thinking, and college campuses — which many take to be what a world run by liberals would look like — seemed increasingly intolerant of free inquir

It was during these years that the University of California included the phrase “America is the land of opportunity” on a list of discouraged microaggressions. Liberal politicians portrayed conservative positions on immigration reform as presumptively racist; Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, once dubiously claimed that she had heard Republicans tell Irish visitors that “if it was you,” then immigration reform “would be easy.”

When Mr. Obama remarked, behind closed doors, during the presidential campaign in 2008, that Rust Belt voters “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” it mattered not so much because he said it but because so many listeners figured that he was only saying what liberals were really thinking.

These are the sorts of events conservatives think of when they sometimes say, “Obama caused Trump.” Many liberals might interpret that phrase to mean that America’s first black president brought out the worst in some people. In this view, not only might liberals be unable to avoid provoking bigots, it’s not clear they should even try. After all, should they not have nominated and elected Mr. Obama? Should they regret doing the right thing just because it provoked the worst instincts in some people?

This is a limited view of the situation. Even if liberals think their opponents are backward, they don’t have to gratuitously drive people away, including voters who cast ballots once or even twice for Mr. Obama before supporting Mr. Trump in 20

Champions of inclusion can watch what they say and explain what they’re doing without presuming to regulate what words come out of other people’s mouths. Campus activists can allow invited visitors to speak and then, after that event, hold a teach-in discussing what they disagree with. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that states had to allow same-sex marriage, the fight, in some quarters, turned to pizza places unwilling to cater such weddings. Maybe don’t pick that fight?

People determined to stand against racism can raise concerns about groups that espouse hate and problems like the racial achievement gap in schools without smearing huge numbers of Americans, many of whom might otherwise be Democrats by temperament.

Liberals can act as if they’re not so certain — and maybe actually not be so certain — that bigotry motivates people who disagree with them on issues like immigration. Without sacrificing their principles, liberals can come across as more respectful of others. Self-righteousness is rarely attractive, and even more rarely rewarded.

Self-righteousness can also get things wrong. Especially with the possibility of Mr. Trump’s re-election, many liberals seem primed to write off nearly half the country as irredeemable. Admittedly, the president doesn’t make it easy. As a candidate, Mr. Trump made derogatory comments about Mexicans, and as president described some African countries with a vulgar epithet. But it is an unjustified leap to conclude that anyone who supports him in any way is racist, just as it would be a leap to say that anyone who supported Hillary Clinton was racist because she once made veiled references to “superpredators.

Liberals are trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle. When they use their positions in American culture to lecture, judge and disdain, they push more people into an opposing coalition that liberals are increasingly prone to think of as deplorable. That only validates their own worst prejudices about the other America.

Those prejudices will be validated even more if Mr. Trump wins re-election in 2020, especially if he wins a popular majority. That’s not impossible: The president’s current approval ratings are at 42 percent, up from just a few months ago.

Liberals are inadvertently making that outcome more likely. It’s not too late to stop.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/...-youre-not-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are.html in
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
This is an article in the NYT from back in May, surprising it even got published.
Click to expand...

The author is tilting at a caricature.

"I know many liberals," he says. I should hope so! Around 25% of Americans self-identify as liberals, and more as liberally-inclined moderates. How many of those fit the stereotype that the author is criticizing?

And btw, surprising as it may seem, the NY Times frequently publishes op-eds by conservatives.


ETA. One of the commenters makes this point:
"I think most liberals are like me (pretty mild and non-judgemental) and the hatred comes from Fox, Sean Hannity and his ilk who magnify every slight by militant liberals and foment distrust and division."

Agree or disagree?
 
Last edited:
Tranquillus in Exile said:
The author is tilting at a caricature.

"I know many liberals," he says. I should hope so! Around 25% of Americans self-identify as liberals, and more as liberally-inclined moderates. How many of those fit the stereotype that the author is criticizing?

And btw, surprising as it may seem, the NY Times frequently publishes op-eds by conservatives.
Click to expand...

Any danger of actually addressing some of the points he raised? Isn't the OP just a stereotyping of Trump supporters, or is that in someway different?
 
domer76 said:
Nope. I give to you what you have earned, suckee fuckee.

Comprende, cockbite?
Click to expand...

You've been a nasty cunt pretty much from the first day you've started on here. If you want to indulge in racist stereotypes then go ahead, but don't forget to remind your missus to smoke your pork for you and wipe her chin afterwards.
 
Within just a few years, many liberals went from starting to talk about microaggressions to suggesting that it is racist even to question whether microaggressions are that important.
“Gender identity disorder” was considered a form of mental illness until recently, but today anyone hesitant about transgender women using the ladies’ room is labeled a bigot.

Liberals denounce “cultural appropriation” without, in many cases, doing the work of persuading people that there is anything wrong with, say, a teenager not of Chinese descent wearing a Chinese-style dress to prom or eating at a burrito cart run by two non-Latino women.

Pressing a political view from the Oscar stage, declaring a conservative campus speaker unacceptable, flatly categorizing huge segments of the country as misguided — these reveal a tremendous intellectual and moral self-confidence that smacks of superiority.
It’s one thing to police your own language and a very different one to police other people’s. The former can set an example. The latter is domineering.

This judgmental tendency became stronger during the administration of President Barack Obama,
Click to expand...
PC progs.
 
HillbillyStyle said:
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.





Im sorry but what is mine is mine, I dont work to benefit you from my hard labor.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You got your property from your ancestors enslaving other people and stealing other people's land, kid: you never did any hard labour in your arse-licking life. I suppose you don't think you belong in 'the community as a whole' because of your degeneracy, but we'll look after you all the same! :)
 
Thing1 said:
I'll ask again: please provide the supporting verbiage for the lie.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Just stop with the lie crap. Thanks in advance.

Strzok coordinated a leak campaign with the DOJ and if they violated the Espionage Act in the process that’s kind of a big deal. And it’s a really big deal if the agenda was to keep the Russians in the news so as to adversely affect Trump and/or get an SP appointed.

The text exchange occurred in April 2017 and Mullet was appointed the next month.

Those of us who don’t become irrational when the word ‘Trump’ comes up find this to be pretty suspicious. And if our suspicions are correct, the real colluders are in our own government.

Pretty sweet, huh?
 
It is an utter lie that more than a very tiny number of fake votes ever occur. It is entirely weird that it was accepted by anyone not being well paid for lying.
 
iolo said:
It is an utter lie that more than a very tiny number of fake votes ever occur. It is entirely weird that it was accepted by anyone not being well paid for lying.
Click to expand...

The voter-fraud fiction is a darling of the Reichwing because there is simply no other way that *anyone* would vote for a (D) candidate, particularly a female or a black one. Therefore most of those votes in favor of such candidates are fraudulent.
 
I remember when I realized the illegal voters thing was a lie. I was born and raised very, very conservative. I had heard millions of "them" people voted illegally every election and that is the only way democrats could ever get enough votes to win, for years and years, cause you know, everyone with any sense and character voted Republican. I heard that over and over my whole life. I truly believed it and I was not being paid. If you hear something often enough...Then one day I thought about he entire concept and realized it was a lie. There really isn't millions of illegal voters, cause if there really was and we couldn't catch them, we are too stupid to have a country anyway.
iolo said:
It is an utter lie that more than a very tiny number of fake votes ever occur. It is entirely weird that it was accepted by anyone not being well paid for lying.
Click to expand...
 
This is what concerns me.

You look at this guy.
He looks like a complete buffoon.
His hair looks literally like a clown costume wig.
He purports to be a billionaire, but doesn't have a decent fitting suit.

Then you listen to him talk.
He's supposed to an Ivy League graduate,
but he sounds like a high school dropout.

Then listen to his opinions.
None of them has much to do with democracy.
Most of them virtually define fascism.

Now look at his associates.
If one of them wanted to join your country club,
wouldn't you petition the membership committee to keep him/her out?

Putin?
Meth Head Barbie Conway?
Friar Pence?
Mike Huckabee's little angel?

Now look at his manners.
If you're a young lady, watch out for your "pussy" to use a crude term.

Just look at the whole package...

and imagine what kind of blob of sub-human protoplasm would vote for him---for President of the United States.

That's what we're up against.
That's how much garbage we have infecting our population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top