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

[HTTP Error 404]

It's disgusting how Twitter acts like everyone is too gullible to not think for themselves when reading a damn tweet of all things.

It's more that they don't want people thinking a certain way, and tweets that might lead towards that thought process are a sin against wokeism.

 

[Josterman]

Pinkerton Security isn't Pinkerton anymore, it's Securitas.

Jesus Christ, why do I have to fact check the fact checkers?

It’s people like this who have low IQs and are morons Plus they are racists and call for a genocide

 

[Inventor of the Telephone]

lol.
"[the daily show is successful becasuse it was] funny enough that the house knew when to laugh."

Setting the bar real high there.

"But the president gave no indication that the photo was a joke; he simply tweeted “AMERICAN HERO!” and the picture. A close acquaintance of mine, who is not an idiot, saw the photo on Facebook and assumed Trump had in fact given the medal to a dog."

I have some bad news about your friend....

In October 2019, for example, he tweeted a photograph of himself giving the Medal of Honor to a dog. This event did not happen.

Is he serious? lol. These people are all wacked way the fuck out.

Organizations like The Times and CNN have to take the president seriously. When he says something that isn’t true, they must soberly point out that it isn’t, even when the intent of the untruth is not to deceive but to achieve some rhetorical effect. As a result, news organizations unequipped to cover an ironic president get lumped in with partisans who misconstrue his irony in bad faith. Both groups are cast as humorless scolds, solidifying the loyalty of MAGA types who think of themselves as in on a joke the media does not understand.

Is he serious? lol. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

like his televised claim that injecting bleach might stop the coronavirus.

Ah, he's not serious, he's just a subversive piece of shit.

https://twitter.com/DanAmira/status/1311154688260276224

Yeah, why doesn't Trump denounce white supremacists....it's a real mystery

https://twitter.com/DanAmira/status/1312450989656473601

That is the head writer of The Daily Show. Gee, I wonder why it hasn't been funny in several years.

Here lies the problem facing “The Daily Show” and its offspring: Consumers of this brand of comedy are so horrified by Trump that irreverence can feel like betrayal.

They've turned comedy into a safe space for the hyperfragile deranged. Gee, I wonder why it hasn't been funny in several years.

This miasma of ill-defined but ever-present irony makes Trump virtually impossible to mock, because that job is taken.

Trump is incredibly easy to mock, to skewer. People have been doing it routinely for 35 years. The amount of golden material his presence delivers to comedians is unparelled in the history of the world. The question isn't how Trump has ruined comedy, its how comedians have become ruins under Trump.

“The Daily Show” lost about a third of its viewers when Stewart left in 2015. In the intervening five years, it has recaptured that audience and then some, thanks to the charisma of its new host.

There's no way that is true. I don't know anyone who watches The Daily Show, and everyone I know watched it religiously for most of its run. No one I know likes Noah, they all split, like me, after Stewart left.

Perhaps because of Noah’s likability, the post-2015 “Daily Show” has steered away from acerbic jokes and toward observational humor coupled with declarations of broader progressive values.

This article has to be a paid advertisement. The hubris of the author is a lot funnier than any of these late night hosts have been in 5 years.

 

[No. 7 cat]

https://tw.tinf.io/BretagnePoint/status/1315265065252249600/

Wyświetl załącznik 1655246

Taliban denies endorsing Donald Trump

Afghan militant group says CBS misrepresented its words

www.independent.co.uk

I suppose CBS are the fakest of fake news, so that's to be expected.

 

[verissimus]

Pinkerton Security isn't Pinkerton anymore, it's Securitas.

Jesus Christ, why do I have to fact check the fact checkers?

Huh...I didn't know that.

 

[Dafuqisdis?]

There's no way that is true. I don't know anyone who watches The Daily Show, and everyone I know watched it religiously for most of its run. No one I know likes Noah, they all split, like me, after Stewart left.

Yeah I did a bit of a fact check on that and that's a load of shit.

Going back to 2015 at the and of the shows run in a non election year Daily Show was probably averaging well over a million an episode and a 4-5 in the demo. Nowadays in the heat of an election season it's doing 600-700k and less than half in the demo.

So fake news.

 

[Inventor of the Telephone]

https://twitter.com/Psammead5/status/1315356871620878336

Check out the cover of this week's New Yorker. White People as Dogs... Fed by orange man

 

[GuntPunt]

Trump called out 538. Nate Copium didn't take it too well.

 

[Leonard Helplessness]

Twitter is a great place for great people.

 

[PepsiVanilla]

Twitter is a great place for great people.

Wyświetl załącznik 1655918

User description for Kat Swan:
"On a mission to restore sanity and kindness to our country."

 

[BubbleButt]

Twitter is a great place for great people.

Wyświetl załącznik 1655918

Explains why this incident didn't pop up in the News subreddit when I checked a little bit ago.

ETA: OPE! Never mind, I found them and they're just as stupid as you'd expect.

 

[Allanon]

Trump called out 538. Nate Copium didn't take it too well.
Wyświetl załącznik 1655899

2008 Nate Silver: Watch me predict the most obvious election ever!
USA: witchcraft!
2016 Nate Silver: Watch me fall flat on my face because I'm actually politically motivated with my predictions
USA: oh never mind
2019 Nate Silver: I know I thoroughly humiliated myself last time but THIS time I'm definitely right!
USA: nah
2020 Nate Silver: Here's why I wasn't actually wrong in 2016!
USA:

 

[Harvey Danger]

Trump called out 538. Nate Copium didn't take it too well.
Wyświetl załącznik 1655899

"I was only pretending to be retarded!" in Tweet form.

 

[RockPaper]

Silver's been playing that card for four years.

"I was slightly less Pro-Hillary than all these other speds, so I was actually the most right!"

Oh, Good for you, then? lol

 

[Gehenna]

Silver's been playing that card for four years.

"I was slightly less Pro-Hillary than all these other speds, so I was actually the most right!"

Oh, Good for you, then? lol

Didn't he still predict a fairly massive Clinton Win? he just wasn't FULL nuts and saying things like "99% chance"?

 

[RockPaper]

Didn't he still predict a fairly massive Clinton Win? he just wasn't FULL nuts and saying things like "99% chance"?

Of course he did. That's why the never ending attempt weasel out of being wrong. He said something like "I gave Trump a 20% chance to win, and the one-in-five chance happened. 20% is a plausible outcome."

He's always hedging like that when he feels cornered. "I'm not really wrong because I said the big underdog had an underdog's chance to win". BFD, Nate.

 

[Wulfpack Legend]

'Seinfeld's' Newman accuses Trump of 'premeditated assault on the US mail' in new Democratic ad

Actor Wayne Knight, who played the malicious mailman Newman on "Seinfeld," is starring in a new ad by a Democratic super PAC slamming what he calls President Trump's "systematic, premeditated assault on the U.S.

thehill.com

 

[Gehenna]

Of course he did. That's why the never ending attempt weasel out of being wrong. He said something like "I gave Trump a 20% chance to win, and the one-in-five chance happened. 20% is a plausible outcome."

He's always hedging like that when he feels cornered. "I'm not really wrong because I said the big underdog had an underdog's chance to win". BFD, Nate.

While probability does work like that, I am tired of them pretending they mean it like that.

Addendum: Political science time. It annoys me that they treat it like its a probability. its not. Figuring out the election would be about looking at hard numbers, considering likely voting patterns, and making as prediction with a degree of certainty. It works better as a nominal measurement, more or less likely, rather than interval, hard numbers. "I am mostly sure that X, Y, and Z states will go to Candidate A. Where as I believe that U, V, W, states will go to candidate B."

That they frame it as a percentage is pure sensationalism, giving the feel of betting odds rather than hard scientific breakdowns of trends.

 

[RockPaper]

While probability does work like that, I am tired of them pretending they mean it like that.

Especially because if Hillary had won, he would have also said "I was right." He's right no matter what, which is his M.O.

 

[Gehenna]

Especially because if Hillary had won, he would have also said "I was right." He's right no matter what, which is his M.O.

See my addendum for my irritation.