I never thought I would post something defending Donald Trump.

[DetlefK]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/01/donald_trump_eats_kfc_fried_chicken_with_silverware_obviously.html

Headline: "Donald Trump Eats Fried Chicken Like a Sociopath (With a Knife and Fork)"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/760299757206208512/photo/1



And THAT is a prime example of derangement-syndrome.
It's the medium-rare Kobe-beef filet-steak of Trump-derangement-syndrome.

Because (surprise!) there is a way to eat fried chicken with knife and fork if you know how to use them and don't want to get grease on your fingers.
But obviously prefering to use knife and fork for greasy food is an invitation to ridicule.

[grossproffit]

2. I love me some Popeyes.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. When Trump publicly met with Sarah Palin for the first time a few years back,

he took her out for pizza in NYC where he ate his slice with a fork and knife. I'm wondering if this dining habit has something to do with his wellknown phobia for germs, like an assumption that utensils are sterile but not his fingers.

[monmouth4]

4. Maybe he thinks he's like Howard Hughes, maybe Howard is/was his idol..lol..n/t

[Lucinda]

7. I think his fingers may just be too small to hold pizza...

[GulfCoast66]

16. Don't make me go all trump on you😏

I eat pizza with a fork and knife after seeing it done in Italy. It is by far the superior method if actually dining in an establishment.

But fried chicken? Eating it with a fork and knife is a sign of being the 1%!

And dipping food in ranch dressing is worship of the antichrist!

[GummyBearz]

25. Its weird to me but some people just prefer to eat like that

My wife will eat a turkey sandwich with a fork and knife. She would probably try to eat skittles like that too if they were slightly bigger.

[Demsrule86]

5. Are you kidding?

Never defend racist sicko Trump for any reason.

[DetlefK]

6. Why not?

[MyNameGoesHere]

8. If you feel the need to defend him

Facebook or Twitter would be a better vehicle. Doing it here is just odd. I have to question your motives.

[DetlefK]

9. Because he is "the enemy"?

Criticizing his words and deeds is one thing. But desperately jumping on everything that could be construed ever-so-slightly to drag his character into doubt, I hope DU is better than that.

I remember the hysteria and the derangement-syndrome here on DU in the GWB-years. GWB got blamed and smeared for all sorts of stuff that had nothing to do with him or that was innocent circumstance. But some people on DU were hysterical in their hatred for GWB and no opportunity to think ill of him was left squandered.




Trump is a narcisstic asshole who picked up the bad habit of telling casual lies because nobody has ever had the guts to stand up to him and call him out.
But weaving elaborate arguments why this or that non-controversial thing is actually bad, that's just cheap. If I wanted to read manufactured outrage, I would read Fox News or Russia Today.

[auntpurl]

12. He is the enemy to the country and the world.

No excuses for that psychopath.

He is NOTHING like GWB. I would vote for GWB in a HEARTBEAT over Trump if those were my choices. And previous to this election cycle, there was NO ONE I hated more than GWB.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. You've mistaken a casual swipe at Trump for being fussy with 'derangement'

and then decided to started attacking DUers just for laughs. You're looking more unreasonable here than the DUers you call 'hysterical'.

[LanternWaste]

17. Then take issue with the editors of those particular journals for their unfair treatment

"If I wanted to read manufactured outrage, I would read Fox News or Russia Today..."

Then take issue with the editors of those particular journals for their unfair treatment rather than "hoping DU is better than that...", as the two have little in common other than your carefully culled anecdotal memories about DU during the GWB days.

I do however, find it intriguing you post an "elaborate argument" irrelevant to DU to better chide DU for its alleged elaborate arguments.

[DetlefK]

31. I was responding to post #5.

I'm taking issue with his notion that it's not okay to defend a person if that person has been declared "the enemy" by the community. I prefer to judge issues on a case-by-case basis, rather than on blanket declarations of hatred.

I'm taking issue with the notion that you should hate because the community tells you to hate.

I'm taking issue with the author of post #5 adopting the same sweeping generalization, the same us-vs-them thinking, the same post-evidence hatred that the right-wing media and the GOP are using.

[BobbyDrake]

18. "I hope DU is better than that" YOU brought this up.

Did anyone on DU mention this before you? I couldn't find any other threads on this subject, so all you did was become the very thing you claimed to be complaining about.

Congratulations on your YUUGE fail, Trump supporter.

[anoNY42]

26. "Trump Supporter" is pretty insulting... nt

[BobbyDrake]

32. Then maybe DeflefK should take down their "LEAVE DONALD TRUMP ALONE!!" thread?

If someone doesn't want to be seen as a Trump supporter, they should stop openly supporting Trump. And wrapping their Trump defense up in "Shouldn't we be better than this?" isn't fooling anyone, so they should really just quit while they're behind.

[anoNY42]

35. Listen, saying that Slate shouldn't bother itself with an article about Trump's use of a fork and

knife is not the same thing as being generally supportive of Trump.

Slate is known for click-baity crap, so this story was right up their alley. However, if actual Democrats were to start arguing about this as if it were important, then it would just make us Dems look stupid.

Also, the Slate article just feeds Trump's claims about how the media is out to get him.

[BobbyDrake]

37. That's the point: NOWHERE on DU features anything like what you and DetflefK are complaining about.

It's ONLY because of this OP that it is a topic of discussion here today. Stop citing non-existant behavior as an excuse for boosting Trump here.

[anoNY42]

40. I never said DU was talking about this

I said Slate was. I also made the point that this stuff makes it look like "the media" is going after Donald Trump. I said if Dems "were" to start talking about this, it could harm us in the eyes of the voting public. My other point is that pointing this out is in no way "supporting" Donald Trump.

I cited no "non-existant" behavior.

As to you, specifically, I said calling the OP a Trump Supporter was an insult, which is not allowed on DU.

[DetlefK]

43. Yet.

Elsewhere in this thread I have brough up examples of a derangement-syndrome that happened on DU during GWB-times.

Can it happen again?
Well, I'm taking flak right now for daring to post something that is not hostile towards Trump. You tell me.

[BobbyDrake]

48. Quoting you:

if actual Democrats were to start arguing about this as if it were important, then it would just make us Dems look stupid.

Despite all your posts about it, it's still not happening. We're arguing about efforts by people, including you, to defend a sexist racist demagogue from mild snark.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. "IF actual Democrats were to start ..."

Yeah, IF Trump wasn't an asshole running for president, we wouldn't be having this conversation. What's the point of starting a thread based on a hypothetical use of mild snark over Trump's prissiness? The OP and replies from the thread starter ooze concern. So do your replies, for that matter. Do you really think it should be off-limits to casually note that Trump looks out-of-touch with normal people, when he spends a lot a time accusing Hillary of that?

If some of the media isn't out to get him, they're not doing their job. The "all the media must never take sides between arguments" claim is complete bullshit.

[anoNY42]

46. Fine

It just feeds a narrative that I would prefer not to be true (the media being out to get him). This is a tactical consideration, if you want to label it "concern trolling" then fine.

I remember the right-wing making fun of John Kerry for windsurfing. It did not strike me as a good argument for his supposedly being "out of touch", considering all of the windsurfers I see down here in FL.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. It didn't strike me as a good idea either, but several people thought it worked anyway.

I doubt the windsurfing pictures picked up extra votes for Kerry, so I can see why those opposing him would try it out to see what happened.

But the thing is that Kerry wasn't attacking Bush for being out-of-touch; it's Trump's hypocrisy that is being alluded to. Most importantly, Kerry was not someone who needed to be stopped. Trump is. If someone sees a way to make him look bad, however trivial, then let them. If the media is out to get him, then that's good. Any decent human is out to stop Trump.

[BobbyDrake]

50. The media SHOULD be out to get him! He's dangerous, and yet somehow close to becoming POTUS!

Seriously, how do you not understand that it's their job to hold people accountable? Why do you think Donald Trump should get an exception? Just to avoid the accusation of bias from Trump supporters?

[anoNY42]

52. I understand holding him accountable

I do not understand how stories about how he eats fried chicken accomplish that.

[BobbyDrake]

53. It's my opinion that you just don't WANT to understand, and are making every effort not to.

Your motives here today are suspicious, to say the least.

[anoNY42]

58. Your opinion is mistaken

Once again, I want Donald Trump held accountable for his lies, evasions, and whatnot. I do not want him "held accountable" for his method of eating fried chicken.

Your comment about motives is weird. Do you think I am some sort of subversive Trump supporter eagerly defending the God Emperor's eating habits or something? Why would I need to be any less than a progressive liberal in order to criticize a news outlet (yes, Slate peddles news too) for a stupid joke story that, in my opinion, does not help the liberal cause?

[BobbyDrake]

61. Your line of thinking seems to be more concerned with looking morally superior than anything else.

Sorry, I just don't have a horse that high to get up on to see things from your perspective.

[anoNY42]

63. I think you and I agree on the important stuff, the media looking

closely at Trump and pointing out his warts. The jokes about pizza or windsurfing are piddling in comparison to that, I admit.

[DetlefK]

38. Or maybe...

Maybe DetlefK is one of Trump's lizard-people and his "Shouldn't we be better than this?"-OP was a desperate plot to defang the liberal movement by denying them the same brainless "Lock her up!"-hatred that propelled the GOP and Trump to success.

Curses! Foiled again! I will retreat to my lair but you shall read more posts of mine in the future! MUHAHAHA!

[BobbyDrake]

47. Funny how you can wield the same snark you're complaining about.

Too bad hypocrisy can't be defanged so easily, right?

[DetlefK]

30. I was responding to post #5.

I'm taking issue with his notion that it's not okay to defend a person if that person has been declared "the enemy" by the community. I prefer to judge issues on a case-by-case basis, rather than on blanket declarations of hatred.

I'm taking issue with the notion that you should hate because the community tells you to hate.

I'm taking issue with the author of post #5 adopting the same sweeping generalization, the same us-vs-them thinking, the same post-evidence hatred that the right-wing media and the GOP are using.

[BobbyDrake]

34. You're defending Donald Trump from a mild joke. That reflects poorly on you.

Slate's article is nothing but snark. The only people it could possibly offend are Trump supporters. It offended you, based on your response.

Therefore.........

[MyNameGoesHere]

23. You brought it here, you could have shown your support

Of him on another forum yet you chose to do it here. Yes he is an enemy to mankind, and I will treat him as such. I feel no need to defend him here or anywhere,. I question your motives.

[DetlefK]

29. I was responding to post #5.

I'm taking issue with his notion that it's not okay to defend a person if that person has been declared "the enemy" by the community. I prefer to judge issues on a case-by-case basis, rather than on blanket declarations of hatred.

I'm taking issue with the notion that you should hate because the community tells you to hate.

I'm taking issue with the author of post #5 adopting the same sweeping generalization, the same us-vs-them thinking, the same post-evidence hatred that the right-wing media and the GOP are using.

[MyNameGoesHere]

42. I don't need someone to tell me when to hate someone

I have instinct and intelligence that let's me know he is a man deserving of hate and not one who deserves protection of his honor. I question your motives

[Demsrule86]

56. Any criticism is fine with me...I have no undertanding why you need to defend this monster. nt

[Demsrule86]

57. Donald Trump is a monster.

I doubt this country could survive him...and I question those who defend him for any reason.

[SheriffBob]

60. because

he is the anti-christ!

[peggysue2]

51. Exactly!

There is no defending the Indefensible One named Trump. This is less Trump Derangement Syndrome than satirical payback for The Donald's comments on the eating habits of others. Remember the shout out over Kasich eating pizza?? Trump said the man's table manners were disgusting, mentioned how he was shoving the food in his mouth.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's about time Donald Trump was put under the ridicule microscope. Let him taste his own bitter medicine.

Of course, he's doing a fine job of sabotaging himself with his loose lips and recklessness. May the games proceed!

[SheriffBob]

62. yep

payback's a bitch.

[MrScorpio]

10. Actually, nothing to defend here

That IS a psycho way to eat fried chicken.

[Cha]

70. lol

[auntpurl]

11. Don't worry, he never ate that swill.

He posed for the photo and they cleared the peasant food away and brought in the fois gras.

[Shrike47]

27. Doubt it. Trump likes his basic McFood. Didn't he send Christie out for burgers?

[athena]

13. You should be careful.

Some people love to attack others on DU, and they especially love to lock people out of their own threads by getting one of their posts hidden.

IMO, some people are taking this light-hearted OP way too seriously.

ETA: Europeans, and the Monkish among us, use knife and fork to eat everything. Indeed, if you're ever in France or Switzerland, and you eat a hamburger or a pizza with your hands, people will look at you funny and conclude that you're just an American with no manners.

Let's not sink to the level of the right-wing nutcases and try to bring candidates down by arguing that they have European habits. There are plenty of legitimate ways to go after Trump. His eating habits and his weight are not among them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. I don't see post #9 as 'light-hearted'; it calls DUers 'hysterical'

That's the 'attack' in this thread.

[DetlefK]

19. What would you call this:

About 10 years ago, people on DU blamed GWB for the gun-violence in the US, for the gun-culture. Because the US never had a problem with guns until GWB rolled into town.

Shortly before the 2008-election, there were numerous threads here on DU with some wild speculation that GWB would first postpone and then call off the elections and install himself as the dictator of the US.



These unfounded accusations and speculations were made with deepest conviction. Here on DU. By DUers.
I call such behaviour hysterical.
What word would you use?

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. I would say you are being "insulting"

And it's certainly not "light-hearted".

Why you think that a short Slate piece taking the piss out of Trump for a stupid PR stunt that backfired on him gives you the excuse to start a thread on DU complaining that DUers are "hysterical", when you're talking about something that some DUers said 10 year ago, I don't know. You seem to be really stretching for a way to say "lay off Trump" to DU.

[DetlefK]

36. Let's take a look at the timeline:

1. I post an OP, complaining that Trump is attacked for doing something completely normal. I call this a derangement-syndrome.

2. In post #5, I get informed that defending Trump for any reason is a major faux-pas. (The author of post #8 concurs.)

3. I complain, in post#9, that this behaviour of unthinking hatred is unbefitting of DU. As an example, to bolster my point, I brought up that a similar mindset was pervasive here on DU 10 years ago, during GWB-times. I listed examples of topics that were brought up back then and I called the behaviour surrounding said topics hysterical.





Which people did I refer to when using "hysterical"?
The people who brought up this bullshit on DU 10 years ago.

What have I written in defence of Donald Trump?
That one better have a good reason before attacking someone.

If you are taking issue with what I have written, what should I have written instead? Would you prefer me to attack Trump for "any reason"? Whom else is it okay to attack for "any reason" and whom is it not okay to attack for "any reason"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. (a) You referred to DUers as "hysterical"

(b) You wrote your OP in defence of Donald Trump. You didn't need to; no-one was acting "deranged" (the Slate blog entry was a light-hearted piss-take of a silly Trump publicity photo), and DU hadn't commented on it at all.

You should not have started this thread at all. It was a pointless swipe at left wing people for sometimes being 'deranged', a complaint you seem to have been nursing for 10 years and thought you saw an excuse to bring out.

Your OP and your replies are inappropriate for polite society. Trump is a wanker who does not need pre-emptive defence on DU, or anywhere. If you can't say anything bad about him, then don't say anything at all.

It's not OK to attack DUers for "any reason". That's in the site Terms of Service. Your OP was an attempt to be divisive.

[DetlefK]

65. Dang. Have you seen my ass somewhere? I seem to have laughed it off.

a) I didn't refer to DUers in general as hysterical. I refered to those few people who wrote that bullshit 10 years ago as hysterical.

b) I started this thread because I had a feeling that the times would return where not having blanket hatred for a certain person would be considered a crime here on DU. And... Take a look at the replies I got.





"If you can't say anything bad about him, then don't say anything at all."

And this mindset is exactly the reason why political conventions in the US have chants like "Lock her up."

You are one of them now. Congratulations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. So now you're calling me hysterical - for saying you shouldn't post a pro-Trump thread

That's what I've said - that you shouldn't have posted a "lay off Trump" thread. You started the thread by magnifying a casual Slate blog entry noting that Trump is a prissy eater who uses a knife and fork for a KFC photo op into 'derangement'.

No, it's not 'derangement'. It's not blaming him for anything. And it's not out of proportion to counter a PR photo for Trump with a comment about it. It's just taking the piss. No, it wasn't done by DUers. It was done by a Slate writer.

Your mindset - that Trump should be treated politely at all times, and the moment a media writer doesn't, you can bring up your beefs with DUers from a decade ago - is absurd. I'd laugh at it if I saw it on Discussionist. Why you are here on DU attacking people for laughing at Trump (before they'd actually done it), I just cannot tell. I've never seen you say politicians are sacred objects who must not be laughed at before. I've never seen you desperate to defend a bigoted egomaniac before. I've never seen you start a thread just to get obvious arguments against you before. I've never seen you say "see? this proves it - I call DUers hysterical, and when someone objects, that proves my point!!!!!" before.

Maybe your account has been hijacked?

[DetlefK]

68. I didn't say what you claim that I said.

This is getting tedious. I'm out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Great. You getting out of your crappy thread has been the point.

You could do us all a favour and self-delete it.

[DetlefK]

76. Nah.

It's better to not delete it. It's better to leave this thought-crime around as a monument and warning to all those who dare to slight the DU-community by refusing to march in lockstep.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. No, you slight the DU community by calling us 'hysterical'. The thread is a monument to your respect

for Donald Trump and his dignity, that you felt Slate had besmirched. I don't think what you've done is 'thought-crime'; it's just trolling. You started a pro-Trump thread for no other reason than to draw responses which you could then denounce as insufficiently respectful of Trump.

[Demsrule86]

59. No reason to write anything that calls any DU member hysterical or

defends Trump who is the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Have you said that to the person who wrote the Slate article?

Rather than to DU readers, who didn't?

Have you even bothered to consider that the Slate article was "light-hearted", where this OP is not?

[Dem2]

20. God Damn it!

Now I feel compelled to go get Popeye's at lunch. I will wash the grease off my hands afterward, there is no enjoyment in not picking up the pieces to get all the flavor off using one's mouth as intended.

[NurseJackie]

21. But can he wrap his lips around a corn-dog-on-a-stick?

Or can he deep-throat an ice cream cone...

[anoNY42]

33. I love that Santorum pic...

[NurseJackie]

39. I'm sure there's a Photoshopped "NSFW" version of that...

... floating around the internet. It's a pose that's just begging to be digitally manipulated in the most obvious ways.

[anoNY42]

41. I wish he were running for President now!

[stonecutter357]

28. knife and fork for fried chicken because his hands are to small.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. exactly.

[lapucelle]

54. Your concerns over Slate's light-hearted piece,

Donald Trump's possibly hurt feelings, and your reasons for posting them here are all duly noted.

[nolabear]

55. "It's knife and fork lickin' good!"

I don't care either but it's practically an invitation for abuse.

[SheriffBob]

64. trump loves Wimpy burgers

https://www.google.com/search?q=wimpy&tbm=isch&imgil=yPqGiGzqz07s1M%253A%253B1_L-oS-2d6BwRM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Finsidescoopsf.sfgate.com%25252Fblog%25252F2012%25252F10%25252F10%25252Fwimpy-wednesday-boxing-room-hamburger%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=yPqGiGzqz07s1M%253A%252C1_L-oS-2d6BwRM%252C_&usg=__C5CAr-yaRXmGE8PQnCZzB3P0mio%3D&biw=852&bih=457&ved=0ahUKEwi6x8PhjqPOAhWEVz4KHS9SAKcQyjcIWg&ei=aMWgV7rzCoSv-QGvpIG4Cg#imgrc=yPqGiGzqz07s1M%3A

[Buns_of_Fire]

71. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

Did Wimpy ever actually pay for any of those hamburgers? I sense a kindred spirit there. (Except I don't recall Wimpy ever whining that they hurt his feelings, so he not only refuses to pay, but is filing a million-dollar lawsuit for defamation of character.)

[pinboy3niner]

67. That's nothing. I hear Trump likes his fried chicken...

...breaded with CORN FLAKES!!!

[Buns_of_Fire]

69. Should fried chicken be eaten with the fingers?

No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

[SheriffBob]

74. lol

good one.

[GaYellowDawg]

75. It's a ridiculous pose.

Trump: Look at me! I'm one of the regular people! Eating KFC!

Regular people: You're eating KFC in a fancy leather seat in your own jet with a knife and fork, so... NO.

And as far as the OP goes - it is obviously satire. Republicans have leaped on so many "gaffes" in their time that it's got to be fun to poke them like that. The difference is, they're serious, we're not. If it had been President Obama eating KFC in a private jet with a knife and fork, Republicans would have been calling him an elitist socialist Kenyan for it, and would have thrown in some sort of racist comment while at it. They would have been dead serious. This is satire.

[Worktodo]

77. funny article on the guardian

It's maybe a bit mean spirited (but clearly intended to be funny.) Compares Trump to Beldar Conehead and asks whether he'll ever convincingly appear human while eating Earth Food....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/02/donald-trump-eats-kfc-knife-fork

[rug]

78. "Why Won't Donald Trump Touch Food With His Hands?"

Trump obviously doesn't want be photographed holding food because it will further highlight his very tiny hands.

http://www.eater.com/2016/5/6/11606514/donald-trump-eating-tiny-hands