• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Derangement Syndrome - Is It Real?

That's quite the generalization. I wonder what the discrimination metrics are for people named "Star", "Sunbeam" etc. and whether employers thought those folks would spend their day smoking pot and kicking hacky sacks around.

Admittedly "Star" or "Sunbeam" do not conjure up images of people who I see as being a good fit in my business. Experience and skill sets being equal, I would probably go for the Dick or Harry or Jane or Wanda if I was selecting names to call from a list of potential applicants.

Parents, when you name your kids, think about things like that.
 
Admittedly "Star" or "Sunbeam" do not conjure up images of people who I see as being a good fit in my business. Experience and skill sets being equal, I would probably go for the Dick or Harry or Jane or Wanda if I was selecting names to call from a list of potential applicants.

Parents, when you name your kids, think about things like that.

That's sad to hear. Basing what a person is potentially like on just a name is a pretty unreliable way to determine whether that person is a good fit or not. From a hiring perspective, it's the interview that gives you a better sense of how good of a fit that individual might (or might not) be.
 
That's sad to hear. Basing what a person is potentially like on just a name is a pretty unreliable way to determine whether that person is a good fit or not. From a hiring perspective, it's the interview that gives you a better sense of how good of a fit that individual might (or might not) be.

99% of employers, myself included, don't give a flying fig what race, ethnicity, religion, etc. etc. etc. is. We just want to find good people who will give an honest and competent effort for their wages and who won't be a headache or a pain in the butt for the boss and/or other employees.

So if we pick names that sound like they would fit and skip over those that sound like they possibly wouldn't, you'll just have to sue us. Just like I am much more likely to hire the gal or guy who comes in with his/her face washed, hair combed, dressed appropriately, and presents with professional demeanor in appearance and speech. I have friends, relatives, acquaintances who I love dearly and enjoy a great deal who have weird haircuts, are tattooed all over, have piercings everywhere, wear unusual clothing etc., and who speak like they look. I don't judge them and I accept them as they are. But I haven't ever been inspired to hire somebody like that.
 
One real question is:

Will this pervasive [TDS] condition be covered by insurance?
Only if it results in the death of the afflicted. Surviving beneficiary members may qualify for a life-insurance settlement depending on the terms of the policy. Most life insurance policies preclude any settlement in the event of suicide, but have a provision for TDS sufferers.

(not to be taken seriously)
 
99% of employers, myself included, don't give a flying fig what race, ethnicity, religion, etc. etc. etc. is. We just want to find good people who will give an honest and competent effort for their wages and who won't be a headache or a pain in the butt for the boss and/or other employees.

So if we pick names that sound like they would fit and skip over those that sound like they possibly wouldn't, you'll just have to sue us. Just like I am much more likely to hire the gal or guy who comes in with his/her face washed, hair combed, dressed appropriately, and presents with professional demeanor in appearance and speech. I have friends, relatives, acquaintances who I love dearly and enjoy a great deal who have weird haircuts, are tattooed all over, have piercings everywhere, wear unusual clothing etc., and who speak like they look. I don't judge them and I accept them as they are. But I haven't ever been inspired to hire somebody like that.

I have been a hiring manager for over 20 years, and if I had applied the criteria you described to determine who is a good fit or not I would have passed up on many of the talented people I've hired over the years. Of course the industry you're in will define what is acceptable in terms of personal presentation, but the point I don't agree with at all is using a name as an indicator of a person's potential fit. Names are generally given at birth and don't necessarily reflect a person's beliefs or ideology; people with religious names may be atheists and so on. I just think it's an immensely flawed and superficial way to assume anything about a person. Personal appearance is one that is more indicative because it is how an individual chooses to present themselves.
 
I'm not a Michael Savage fan as I find him too often really over the top in some of his theories, but he wrote a best seller some years ago titled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. I have only seen some excerpts from it, but those laid out a good case for how some people are able to switch off logic, reason, common sense, and honesty in order to further a sociopolitical point of view. They argue talking points, propaganda, spin, and rationalization as if those are facts and come to believe them to the exclusion of what is actually real. This creates a kind of delusion that is akin to a mental disorder.

It seems that the blind hatred of President Trump creates the same sort of syndrome. I think some honestly mentally block out any evidence contrary to the themes they desperately want to be true just as we all resist seeing anything good in those we hate. But TDS seems to go a second and third mile into intellectual dishonesty to the point that they will use the most vile and hateful characterizations of the President and anybody who supports him.

Is that a mental condition? I don't know. But it sure mimics one.

You mean Michael Weiner? The guy is an asshole. Manages to make good money off idiots and fools.
 
Not many have called Mueller a liar, overzealous but not a liar. Comey was caught red handed lying about his press contacts. He is a liar.

He may have lied. But who hasn't? Trump? lol!
 
He may have lied. But who hasn't? Trump? lol!

Ah yes, the TDS crowd peaking in to in order to prove they don't know what the **** the context of the conversation was about.

You may go now.
 
The animosity doesn't stem from the slogan alone; it's a response to the animosity Trump creates toward most things his finds disagreeable. Had Reagan used similar campaign rhetoric it would be a fairer comparison.

Reagan's campaign rhetoric was very similar, in that he placed the problem at government's feet. One of his favorite jokes was, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" The only thing Reagan didn't do that Trump does regularly is attack the press. Reagan charmed the press, to great effect. They still went after him, naturally, because Reagan was a Republican and the press wasn't and still isn't. Just not to the same level that the press attacks Trump.

Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the way Trump is treated by the media. He is asking for it 90% of the time, and the remaining 20% the media heaps upon him whether he deserves it or not. ;)
 
I have been a hiring manager for over 20 years, and if I had applied the criteria you described to determine who is a good fit or not I would have passed up on many of the talented people I've hired over the years. Of course the industry you're in will define what is acceptable in terms of personal presentation, but the point I don't agree with at all is using a name as an indicator of a person's potential fit. Names are generally given at birth and don't necessarily reflect a person's beliefs or ideology; people with religious names may be atheists and so on. I just think it's an immensely flawed and superficial way to assume anything about a person. Personal appearance is one that is more indicative because it is how an individual chooses to present themselves.

Well I made my argument. And in all my years I hired people, I've only had to fire two.. Pretty good track record I think. But we don't have to agree.
 
You mean Michael Weiner? The guy is an asshole. Manages to make good money off idiots and fools.

He isn't my cup of tea. But I can disagree with him and/or not appreciate his style without being nasty about it. Or insulting to people.
 
Well I made my argument. And in all my years I hired people, I've only had to fire two.. Pretty good track record I think. But we don't have to agree.

Oddly enough the few people I had to let go had "regular" names and weren't "outsiders". Pretty good track record there as well. The point being how people communicate and interact with each other has little relevance to their names.
 
He isn't my cup of tea. But I can disagree with him and/or not appreciate his style without being nasty about it. Or insulting to people.
You said you agree with Weiner and just described his radio personality. A real scumbag. I had the displeasure of listening to him on the radio enough to know.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
In most cases, people of color are not treated unequally these days and sometimes get treated better by an employer who wants to be seen as race friendly and not discriminatory, etc. etc. etc. A kind of mental affirmative action kind of thing.

If you can provide a high quality study that supports this, I'll be willing to read it. I linked a study that says that there is a significant penalty in response rate to job applications when your name implies a certain racial background. While your opinion that this isn't an issue is possibly correct, I'd need to see the study that backs up the assertion. Right now the only "hard data" that I have seen shows otherwise.
 
Oddly enough the few people I had to let go had "regular" names and weren't "outsiders". Pretty good track record there as well. The point being how people communicate and interact with each other has little relevance to their names.

You are making a much bigger deal out of an observation than is warranted. The issue was people being passed over who had names that made them sound 'black'. And whether that makes the employer racist. My argument is that the employer might be racist, but it cannot be automatically assumed that he/she is.

You kind of expect somebody with the surname Washington or Brown or Williams is likely to be black, especially in some parts of the country. And those people are easily called in for interviews. They might be as much of a pain in the butt as any, but with a name like Bob or Joe or Mike or Sandra or Bellinda, they don't sound like they would be.

But when you have a name that only a black person will have, the employer or HR person is more likely to inadvertently have a little warning flag pop up--possible activist, chip on shoulder, hyper sensitive, takes offense at everything, general trouble maker, likely to accuse us of racism if we don't hire or promote or correct him/her, etc.' The interviewer knows the odds are that the person is not like that too, but when there are a lot of resumes of potentially qualified people, it is just human nature to pick the ones that sounds less likely he/she will be a pain in the butt to interview. It likely has nothing to do with the employer being racist. It has everything to do with the employer being practical and not looking for problems and trying to find a compatible fit for the organization.

And yes, almost certainly some very good people don't get an interview. Almost certainly some very good people don't get an interview who are not African Americans too. In a buyers market for labor, most folks who send in resumes don't get an interview.

We currently have a strong seller's market for labor. Which is good for everybody and the more subtle subjective response to resumes is probably not as much of an issue.
 
Last edited:
You said you agree with Weiner and just described his radio personality. A real scumbag. I had the displeasure of listening to him on the radio enough to know.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I almost certainly agree on at least something with everybody on the planet, even you. I commented on one book, pertinent to the thread topic. I think Savage has written 20 or so books total as well as having a long running syndicated radio show.

You might want to think about how reasonable, logical, and smart you are to demand that somebody has to disagree with or denounce EVERYTHING a person thinks, says, writes, or supports or else you support or agree with that person. Conversely do you believe somebody has to agree with EVERYTHING a person thinks, says, writes, or supports or else you don't support the person?

To somebody like me, that is really dumb.
 
If you can provide a high quality study that supports this, I'll be willing to read it. I linked a study that says that there is a significant penalty in response rate to job applications when your name implies a certain racial background. While your opinion that this isn't an issue is possibly correct, I'd need to see the study that backs up the assertion. Right now the only "hard data" that I have seen shows otherwise.

The 'hard data' you cited does not include all the many possibilities that could be involved. Which was my point.

I just get tired of one segment of our society using the race card whenever black people are a factor in just about everything when as often as not racism has nothing to do with a person's choice or decision or point of view.

Just like numerous studies have shown that a majority or plurality of folks don't share President Trump's initiative on a given subject. That is 'hard data' assuming the study was competently done.

It does NOT mean however, that all the people who don't share his ideas on that one thing oppose him on everything. They might still back him on most of his agenda and fully intend to vote for him.

The TDS people hold those studies up as evidence his popularity is fading.

And that is dumb.
 
Last edited:
Fact of the matter is, the only person suffering from Trump's Derangement Syndrome is Trump himself as has been noted and commented about by numerous highly trained human profilers and psychiatrists.
 
I almost certainly agree on at least something with everybody on the planet, even you. I commented on one book, pertinent to the thread topic. I think Savage has written 20 or so books total as well as having a long running syndicated radio show.

You might want to think about how reasonable, logical, and smart you are to demand that somebody has to disagree with or denounce EVERYTHING a person thinks, says, writes, or supports or else you support or agree with that person. Conversely do you believe somebody has to agree with EVERYTHING a person thinks, says, writes, or supports or else you don't support the person?

To somebody like me, that is really dumb.

I'm beginning to think that women should be denied the vote. Their hormones rage; they are too emotional.

The white Christian heterosexual married male is the epitome of everything right with America!

I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.'


We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy.



I do so love me that Michael Weiner. BTW, extreme anything including liberalism, religion, radio commentators, authors, etc. can be deemed to be or have a mental disorder.
 
Trump Derangement Syndrome - Is It Real?

Define real....

is it a real MEDICAL SCIENCE condition? no

Do super extremists loony toon, bat **** insane, dishonest, blind supporters of trump exist? Absolutely, theres some in this thread posting right now I think the one has the most posts in it

and then theres their counter parts, the loony toon, blind detractors that blame trump for everything including the whether . . those nut bags exist too

so it depends on what you mean by exist . . in medical science, no. Extremist like the one in this thread obviously yes.
 
But when you have a name that only a black person will have, the employer or HR person is more likely to inadvertently have a little warning flag pop up--possible activist, chip on shoulder, hyper sensitive, takes offense at everything, general trouble maker, likely to accuse us of racism if we don't hire or promote or correct him/her, etc.' The interviewer knows the odds are that the person is not like that too, but when there are a lot of resumes of potentially qualified people, it is just human nature to pick the ones that sounds less likely he/she will be a pain in the butt to interview. It likely has nothing to do with the employer being racist. It has everything to do with the employer being practical and not looking for problems and trying to find a compatible fit for the organization.

This is pretty much a textbook example of the unintentional but systematic racism that people of color face.

As to the studies and hard data, I’ve provided the best that I’ve found. You have so far provided only opinion and a statement (per the quote above) that institutional racism exists.

Maybe what I’ve been able to find isn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything else I’ve found, so I’m going with that until a better body of evidence is out there. I’m fine changing my mind if that’s what high-quality evidence supports. But I’m not going to be swayed by personal opinions and anecdotes.

It’s super easy to change my mind on a subject - show me better evidence of a contrary view and it’s done. I’d hope that everyone here would act similarly.
 
I'm beginning to think that women should be denied the vote. Their hormones rage; they are too emotional.

The white Christian heterosexual married male is the epitome of everything right with America!

I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.'


We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy.



I do so love me that Michael Weiner. BTW, extreme anything including liberalism, religion, radio commentators, authors, etc. can be deemed to be or have a mental disorder.

Okay. This posts confirms that pretty much everything I have observed about leftists is accurate. Do have a pleasant day.
 
Okay. This posts confirms that pretty much everything I have observed about leftists is accurate. Do have a pleasant day.

What's the matter? You don't like quotes from Michael Weiner? I plan to have a pleasant day. Its sunny and 60's. You as well.
 
This is pretty much a textbook example of the unintentional but systematic racism that people of color face.

As to the studies and hard data, I’ve provided the best that I’ve found. You have so far provided only opinion and a statement (per the quote above) that institutional racism exists.

Maybe what I’ve been able to find isn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything else I’ve found, so I’m going with that until a better body of evidence is out there. I’m fine changing my mind if that’s what high-quality evidence supports. But I’m not going to be swayed by personal opinions and anecdotes.

It’s super easy to change my mind on a subject - show me better evidence of a contrary view and it’s done. I’d hope that everyone here would act similarly.

You see my intention was not to convince you and this thread is not about racism so I have little interest in spending a lot of time researching it.

But in my opinion, from what I have observed, experienced first hand, and heard and read, yes there is a residual racism that lingers in this country. There are people who do consider black people to to be <<insert whatever characterization here>> and that is almost always because that is what they have been taught and/or what they have experienced with black people.

Those who have worked and laughed and played and shared positive experiences with black people almost always have a much different attitude and that would be most of us.

But after you have hired a militant activist type with a chip on his/her shoulder and experienced how demoralizing such a person is to your other employees and what a problem it is to supervise such a person, it is human nature to not want to repeat that experience. Maybe you need some study or hard statistics to prove that. I understand it just using reason, logic, and one time providing experience. I wouldn't have needed the experience to understand it though.

My friends and colleagues close enough to have the discussion with me tell me that they have not been handicapped or disadvantaged professionally because they are black. But they come to hate the perception that because they are black they can't be treated like everybody else. They have to be a 'credit to their race' or 'sensitive to stereotypes' or are asked to 'express the point of view from a black person's perspective'. They are aware that when they are present, people struggle to find ways to word things or make a point that won't offend or be interpreted as racist. And there is always the underlying perception that they got their educations and positions or were promoted because of Affirmative Action or to fill some quota or whatever. In their opinion, it is that kind of thing plus the race baiters who use racism for political or financial advantage that bothers them the most. They get really tired of having to think, speak, behave, i.e. be what others demand that black people be.

Now fast forward to the thread topic and the TDS crowd. They hate President Trump first and foremost because he wasn't supposed to win. It was Hillary's turn. But also he doesn't speak as they demand he speak, he doesn't react to things they way they demand he react, he is politically incorrect, he doesn't do things the way they have always been done, he steps way out of the box to find solutions for problems, and he is willing to break a few eggs to make a good omelet which most President won't do. He is required to be what THEY say he should be in order for him to be acceptable.

Pretty much the same kind of thing.
 
What's the matter? You don't like quotes from Michael Weiner? I plan to have a pleasant day. Its sunny and 60's. You as well.

What I don't like is things taken out of context and presented as something they are not. And most especially when they are used in a way that is entirely non sequitur to the discussion in progress.
 
Back
Top Bottom