Last year I explained the difference between a normal Republican/conservative voter and a Trumpanzee – the shit-flinging, frothing, simians, who have no concept of policy, objectivity, or common sense, and who simply toss turds at anyone who voices disagreement, concern, or even doesn’t display enough love and adoration for the President.
…not the normal Trump supporters, or those who voted for him merely to keep the C-Hag out of the White House – but the smirking, shit-flinging chimps who think Trump can do no wrong, claim that any criticism of their deity means you’re a Hillary supporter, and insist on doing their smarmy little happy dance by rubbing their “victory” in the faces of the #nevertrumpers (those who chose not to vote for Trump), chortling about us eating crow or gnashing our teeth in bitter angst.
These are the same puerile shit swaddlers who called those of us who are ostensibly ideological allies “idiots” and “tacit Hillary supporters,” due to our refusal to worship at the altar of Trump. Any criticism or refusal to cast a vote in his direction was met with derision and the math-challenged claim that a vote for anyone other than Trump meant a vote for Hillary.
Today’s Trumpanzees are no different. Much like the hysterical left that shits its diapers at every single word 45 utters and refuses to acknowledge the positive things he’s done so far or simply misinterprets and outright lies about every act he takes, the Trumpanzee is the creature that creams its diapers at every single assertion the President makes – whether true, partially true, or false – swings its schadenboner around like a drunken frat boy, jumps into defensive mode every time it perceives an attack on its deity, has no concept of policy, and merely supports any and all policies 45 advances, because he happens to be the one who advanced them.
These are the people who have no actual knowledge of events, they have no comprehension of economics, foreign affairs, military affairs, or diplomacy. They toss their allegedly “conservative” values aside and twist like a yogi on meth in their frothing zeal to mold policies they would have never supported before Trump came along into something they can claim is a “victory” or a “conservative” value. They are also the ones who hurl ad hominems at their opponents, who answer every challenge with “Oh, you must be a liberal/Oh, you must have voted for Hillary,” and who accuse their interlocutors of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, because they had the unmitigated gall to be critical of the President.
Right Wisconsin editor Charlie Sykes recently penned a column in the New York Times, discussing anti-anti-Trumpism. If you don’t want to give the NYT a click, the meat of the piece is here. What is anti-anti-Trumpism? Well, to me, it’s a nicer way of describing the Trumpanzee.
Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”
So I figured I’d give you my handy list about how to recognize a Trumpanzee – the frothing, dick-swinging, “WINNING!” lunatics who gleefully promote 45 merely because they “WON!” and despite the fact that the policies they may be promoting are the very antithesis of those they claim to espouse. To do this, I’m going to borrow Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck if…” format for some of these, but if you recognize yourself in this list, you might want to engage in some introspection before engaging with others.
1. If your instinctive reaction to any criticism of the President is to hurl the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) accusation, you might be a Trumpanzee.
2. If your loathing of the left and your schadenboner at WINNING overshadow your belief in liberty and limited government, you might be a Trumpanzee.
3. If your first response to a criticism of 45’s policies is to accuse your interlocutor of being a Democrat/Hillary supporter, you might be a Trumpanzee.
4. If you rationalize outrageous conduct and defend policies that clearly fly in the face of the conservative values you purport to uphold…
5. If watching the left’s heads “go splodey” is more important to you than advancing the principles of limited government and liberty…
6. If your reaction to opposition to Trump’s policies is an immediate attack on the person who voices said opposition or even death threats…
7. If everything except for Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Conservative Treehouse, Conservative Tribune, Young Cons, *insert any other “conservative” site here* is FAKE NEWS…
…you might be a Trumpanzee.
8. If you accuse the “deep state” of trying to sabotage the President by presenting misinformation, outright lies, or completely inaccurate/uninformed analysis by one of the above sites, you might be a Trumpanzee.
9. If you share positive “news” about the President without checking sources, merely because it strokes your turgid confirmation bias…
10. And if you refuse to read anything that might challenge your perceptions regarding the President, because it happens to be published in the Washington Post/NYT/*insert EEEVIL mainstream media source here*, and swear off any media – conservative, liberal, or otherwise – as soon as they publish anything critical of the President, but will gleefully share memes that don’t actually mean a thing…
…You might be a Trumpanzee.
11. If you cannot defend specific actions by the President, but choose instead to revert to the tried and true “Well, Obama…” or “Hillary would have been worse…” you might be a Trumpanzee.
12. If the liberals hate one of the President’s policies, and you automatically love and ardently defend it, merely because the liberals oppose it, regardless of whether or not it upholds the principles of conservatism, you might be a Trumpanzee.
13. If instead of defending conservative policies, you find yourself only saying things like…
“Trump is doing fine as the political weapon I voted for against the Washington Establishment!”
“While The Republican Congress is playing checkers, Trump is playing Chess!”
“FAKE NEWS!” in response to everything.
“…still infinitely better than Hillary,” in response to everything.
“…you would rather have Hillary…”
“You lost get over it and move on.”
“…your [sic.] bitter and upset that Trump won.”
“You have no clue what the art of the deal is.”
“Your [sic.] cluesless [sic.] how negotiation and leverage works [sic.]”
“Feels good to win. We won, you lost. Now sit down and shut up.”
“I don’t care. I voted for Trump because I didn’t want to lose the Supreme Court for the next 50 years. I didn’t count on him keeping any promises except for the promise to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court which he will follow.”
“Would anyone want Hillary Clinton in office instead? Hillary would have been the death knell for us all.”
“They’re trying a coup! Obama Administration and Obama Loyalists still in the NSA, DNI and FBI didn’t get the memo about the American Tradition of ‘Peaceful Transition of Power.’ They were using their power for political ends, in conjunction with the MSM.”
But he’s draining the swamp!
…you might be a Trumpanzee.
14. If you accuse anyone who disagrees with the President of being a “leftard,” “leftist,” or of hating America, you might be a Trumpanzee.
None of these are plausible reasons to support bad policies, and yet, these turd bombs are what I see the Trumpanzees hurling when they can’t defend the President’s decisions.
And to be sure, there have been some good decisions so far. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court is, in my opinion, fantastic. Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster make up a competent, intelligent, informed national security team. Steven Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury is an informed, engaged, sharp principal. I applaud those appointments.
But I’m not giving him a pass on the “we’ll build a big, beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it” promise – a wall which he now expects the American taxpayers to fund.
I’m not giving him a pass on the ObamaCare repeal or the reversal on ExIm Bank.
I’m certainly not giving him a pass on appointing Flynn as National Security Advisor and then blaming Obama for giving him a clearance, even though he had been out of government service for more than two years, and done a lot of engagement with the Russians, among others, as a civilian when he accepted the position.
Look, people, there’s not a single President who deserves your blind devotion. Not. A. Single. One. They are human, and they are hardly perfect.
And yet, we see rabid Trumpanzees hysterically attacking anyone who has the temerity to voice a critical opinion of the President – without any knowledge of economics, politics, military doctrine, or understanding of intelligence – just because WE WON, AND YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
If you find yourself blindly supporting the policies of the President merely because they piss off the left, you are not doing yourself, your country, or your conservative principles any favors. By refusing to acknowledge when one of your own screws up or goes back on a promise, or making excuses for his actions, you’re doing harm. Real harm – both to the conservative movement, and to America. And if you’re defending actions that a year ago you found indefensible due to your conservative principles, you’re doing harm. Real harm.
We should hold all our elected officials accountable to the people, holding their feet to the fire for broken promises or policies that contradict the principles on which they were elected, and that is what should be important, rather than basing our judgments on whether or not the left is unhappy. If you fail to be objective because you’re so busy swinging your dick around about WINNING, you don’t deserve to win.
Allowing the left to dictate right and wrong based on their histrionic screeching is not particularly bright, and it reflects poorly on conservatives writ large.
We have a duty to be objective when it comes to our leaders. We have an obligation to question them when warranted. We have a responsibility to be informed.
I realize it’s a whole lot easier to just pop some popcorn and defend the indefensible just to watch the left’s heads explode. It’s certainly more fun than doing some research and actually admitting that your guy isn’t even close to perfect. I get it. You voted for him. You would feel responsible.
It’s much easier to deflect attention for a President’s failures to his enemies, and it’s certainly a lot more entertaining to simply ridicule the unhinged left than to face possible failures in the people for whom we cast votes.
And it’s certainly much more superficially satisfying to shove your fist down the “enemy’s” throat, while loudly proclaiming your WINNING! while pouring dirt on those who take the time to research and understand the policies involved, because they’re not jubilantly proclaiming the greatness of the leader you worship.
That’s not conservatism. The fact that the Trumpanzees are in the process of transforming conservatism into the turds they eventually fling at their perceived enemies is disturbing.
Cue flood of Trumpanzees engaging in some or all of the above behavior in 3…2…1…
“Fake news” has been all over the Interwebz lately. Fake news websites deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation. They twist and manipulate headlines and use social media to drive web traffic to their sites.
Most of my conservative friends immediately point to the mainstream media (CNN, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, and the New York Times) as an example of “fake news,” while venting their outrageary at their favorite clickbait garbage (see: Zerohedge, Conservative Treehouse, Breitbart, and others) being named to the list. There’s no doubt the mainstream media leans left. I mean, really – Donna Brazile feeding the Clinton campaign debate questions? Democrats significantly outnumbering Republicans in newsrooms? That’s nothing new.
But there’s a difference between obvious manipulation of reporting, fake news, and slanted editorializing and coverage.
It makes a difference in the larger scheme of things to point out those differences, because right now, what I’m seeing is everyone jacking off to their own confirmation biases, based on some pretty spurious “reporting.” And it’s coming from both sides. Liberals immediately point out that they don’t trust Fox News or the Washington Times, while conservatives spit on the New York Times and other mainstream media, while worshiping the likes of Breitbart as gospel. Libertarians won’t trust any corporate media outlet, and prefer anything “reported” by Zerohedge, the Kremlin’s propaganda arm RT, and the conspiritards at InfoWars, if you can even call it that.
Outright manipulation is what media outlets like Zerohedge and Breitbart engage in on a regular basis, with misleading headlines meant to foment outrage, and legitimate news stories spun into utter excrement. I wouldn’t call them clickbait, but the manipulation is so clear and so intentional and transparent, that one has to wonder how stupid these outlets think their audience is.
Unfortunately, given the number of people I know who share these stories with froth-flecked zeal without doing further research, I may already have an answer to that question.
Biased reporting is generally true and verifiable, but manipulates and shapes public opinion by the information it omits, or how it shapes the story.
Clickbait is just that. Stupid, completely worthless, many times old news, marked by a lack of due diligence, research, or background.
For example, Zerohedge report recently hysterically and conspiratorially claimed “Obama Quietly Signs The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into Law.”
Oh noez! EVERYBODY PANIC! OBAMA IS GOING TO TOSS THE FIRST AMENDMENT OUT THE WINDOW!!
Not quite, boys and girls. What Zerohedge intentionally left out of the title of its panic-fomenting piece and the name of the legislation itself was the word “Foreign.” It sounds much better to imply that your evil government will control communications, doesn’t it? Just eliminate one little world, and your story becomes much more odious than it actually is.
Also, if you look at the Act itself, it’s a lot less nefarious than the Big-Brother-Truth-Ministry-Control-Your-Freedom agency this ass monkey Tyler Durden, writing for Zerohedge, makes it sound. It was part of the National Defense Authorization Act, and is appropriate in a national defense context.
Information warfare is a real thing. Russia has been buying media outlets abroad to help shape a pro-Russia message, even as it threatens the stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of its neighbors. Foreign propaganda, outright false reporting (see: little green men or the downing of MH-17) is a problem that could threaten national security, especially when barely informed conspiritards take to the streets and demand foreign policy action about issues they barely comprehend based on little more than outrage and a refusal to research and analyze information. It makes all the sense in the world to have a panel to evaluate its effects and come up with messaging to counter outright lies, and that’s really what this legislation does. It doesn’t threaten free press in the United States. Hell, it doesn’t even threaten foreign press! It simply creates (sigh) yet another bureaucracy, which will analyze information and come up with appropriate strategies to counter adversarial propaganda efforts.
(a) Establishment.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response (in this section referred to as the “Center”). The purposes of the Center are—
(1) to coordinate the sharing among government agencies of information on foreign government information warfare efforts, including information provided by recipients of information access fund grants awarded using funds made available under subsection (e) and from other sources, subject to the appropriate classification guidelines;
(2) to establish a process for integrating information on foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts into national strategy; and
(3) to develop, plan, and synchronize interagency activities to expose and counter foreign information operations directed against United States national security interests and advance narratives that support United States allies and interests.
(1) Integrating interagency efforts to track and evaluate counterfactual narratives abroad that threaten the national security interests of the United States and United States allies, subject to appropriate regulations governing the dissemination of classified information and programs.
(2) Analyzing relevant information from United States Government agencies, allied nations, think-tanks, academic institutions, civil society groups, and other nongovernmental organizations.
(3) Developing and disseminating thematic narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at United States allies and partners in order to safeguard United States allies and interests.
(4) Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States.
(5) Facilitating the use of a wide range of information-related technologies and techniques to counter foreign disinformation by sharing expertise among agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices.
(6) Identifying gaps in United States capabilities in areas relevant to the Center’s mission and recommending necessary enhancements or changes.
(7) Identifying the countries and populations most susceptible to foreign government propaganda and disinformation.
(8) Administering and expending funds made available pursuant to subsection (e).
(9) Coordinating with allied and partner nations, particularly those frequently targeted by foreign disinformation operations, and international organizations and entities such as the NATO Center of Excellence on Strategic Communications, the European Endowment for Democracy, and the European External Action Service Task Force on Strategic Communications, in order to amplify the Center’s efforts and avoid duplication.
And while, I’m not a fan of additional bureaucracy, Russian propaganda, is a real issue – especially when it comes to our allies – as the Russians buy up foreign media outlets, establish hubs in major countries, while restricting foreign ownership of media outlets at home.
Unfortunately, those who believe this crap simply grab the story and help propagate it, rather than doing research to see what it’s really about. Another conspiritard grabs it, then another, and another, and another. Before you know it, the manipulated story goes viral, and people are citing it as the gospel truth.
Another recent example is a story in the Washington Examiner – a snoozer of a website aimed at ignorant conservatives that in late December claimed that national newsrooms were “sanitizing” the Ivanka Trump harassment story, after the daughter of the President-elect was harassed by an unhinged, hysterical passenger on a JetBlue flight.
What’s really remarkable here is that even though media’s coverage of the incident has centered almost entirely on Lasner’s say-so, many headlines have omitted any sort of allusion to his own use of the word “harass.”
A little research would have revealed the Examiner bullshitting its readers by pointing to these outlets’ Twitter feeds as proof of some kind of censorship conspiracy. But each story very specifically mentions the harassment of Ivanka as the reason why the unhinged individual was removed, and the Examiner’s own headline manipulates facts.
If you actually CLICK on the stories linked in these Twitter feeds, as I did, here is what you will find.
Reuters: Lasner tweeted earlier that his husband was chasing the couple down in the terminal “to harass them.”
Yahoo: “Ivanka and Jared at JFK T5, flying commercial,” Matthew Lasner, a professor at Hunter College, tweeted. “My husband chasing them down to harass them.”
AJC: “My husband (is) chasing them down to harass them,” Lasner wrote in one of the since-deleted tweets.
Washington Post: In since deleted tweets, Lasner, who specializes in urban housing policy, wrote that he and his husband were “kicked off the plane” after his husband “expressed displeasure in a calm tone.” In a previous tweet Lasner wrote that the couple had spotted Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner and that his husband “was chasing them down to harass them.”
CNN in story highlights: Someone allegedly harassed Trump’s eldest daughter and her husband onboard a flight
CNN in a full version of the story: Another now-deleted tweet posted to Lasner’s account at 8:29 a.m. ET said, “Ivanka and Jared at JFK TF, flying commercial. My husband chasing them down to harass them. #banalityofevil”
The Washington Examiner was obviously relying on its readers indolence and unwillingness to do their own research, but merely read the stories cited in hopes of fomenting misplaced outrage at this particular case of media bias.
And then there’s
Breitbart Trumpbart, which ranks right alongside Salon, MotherJones, and Occupy Democrats Social Regressive Retards on the scale of utter douchebaggery, and that has provided today’s Internet stupid! Not satisfied with merely biased reporting, these shitslurping fuck goblins went a step further to disseminate an absolute lie of a headline that was not only factually inaccurate, but so quite obviously meant to foment unhinged batshittery among its readers, that one glance ought to tell you to run, not walk to your nearest research facility – virtual or brick!
Warner Todd Huston, who wrote this particularly opprobrious turd, apparently didn’t even bother to do research on what the medal is, and if he did, he chose to leave out the facts, choosing instead to highlight the unhinged Twitter rage by hysterical ignorami and try to pass it off as journalism.
It isn’t. It’s simply batshit crap. Trust me, there’s plenty of issues on which the current POTUS can be criticized, without manufacturing outrage that’s so stupid, it feeds into the left’s confirmation bias about conservative media. Like that’s needed!
The Distinguished Public Service Medal is not given by the President. It’s given by the Secretary of Defense. There’s no basis to assess that Obama somehow ordered Ash Carter to give him a medal, other than the right’s deranged hatred of the current POTUS. A little bit of research would have also revealed that two Presidents in recent times have received the Distinguished Public Service Medal: George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, both awarded toward the end of their presidencies. Is Trumpbart really going to claim that Bush and Clinton both ordered their respective SECDEFs to award them medals? Or does that dubious honor only apply to Democrats? Apparently the rights’ disdainboner only gets turgid for Democrats – to such a degree, that publishing obviously misleading information is not frowned upon.
If we are going to criticize the mainstream media for obviously biased reporting, shouldn’t we at least make a nominal effort to look in the mirror first?
Otherwise, all we’re doing is giving the left ammunition in showing that conservative media is exactly what they claim it is.
Cue screeches of “BUT CNN, NYT, WAPO, ETC. ARE FAKE NEWS!” in 3… 2… 1…