Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Adelaide]

What I find interesting is that it is a term only applied to liberals, yet no one applies it to those on the right who can only defend every action by the President as a masterpiece, with no ability to objectively view actions, behaviors, agenda items, policies, etc.. It seems to me that if we're going to apply the term indiscriminately to members who disagree with one thing, it ought to surely be applied to those who can't do less than celebrate when the President takes a shit.

It seems like derangement is apparent on both sides, for those who excessively criticize with no objectivity or rational reasoning, and for those that do the opposite and excessively praise him with no objectivity or rational reasoning. Either way, it is a ridiculous, counterproductive exercise of name calling and infantile behavior, but let's be fair here and acknowledge that it is not just some on the left that are completely fucking "deranged" about Trump and that it is a two-way street.

Go ahead - accuse me of TDS. I recently disagreed with him once and got the label rather than a responsive post to the issue I was discussing. I have defended him with regards to Mueller and the "witchhunt", sometimes on aspects of the Stormy Daniels crap, or when I think people are just being dumb about Trump. I have openly said on some occasions that he needs someone to manage his Twitter account and that his words often harm his agenda because they become the focus. But... I have TDS. It's funny, coming from people who certainly should qualify for the "diagnosis" over me.

Let's see if we can have an adult conversation about it. I give it... 2 posts.

[The Xl]

It's not that Trump doesn't do retarded things, he does, it's that the left and the media only attack him on the meaningless, inane crap.

[Peter1469]

I think it applies to people of any party who go ballistic over anything Trump does.

[Chris]

TDS is Polly's recent poll @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/99314-Poll-What-s-Your-Opinion-of-Trump

Read through the comments. The left, but for one or two posts, attacks Trump personally. That hatred is TDS. The right, including libertarians, but for one or two posts, while voting on balance approval of Trump, expressed mixed reviews of policies they liked and those they disliked. I don't recall anyone expresssing undying love for the man.

[Tahuyaman]

I think it applies to people of any party who go ballistic over anything Trump does.


It's an affliction suffered by establishment loyalists regardless of part affiliation. TDD is real. There's no denying that.

[Mister D]

TDS is Polly's recent poll @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/99314-Poll-What-s-Your-Opinion-of-Trump

Read through the comments. The left, but for one or two posts, attacks Trump personally. That hatred is TDS. The right, including libertarians, but for one or two posts, while voting on balance approval of Trump, expressed mixed reviews of policies they liked and those they disliked. I don't recall anyone expresssing undying love for the man.

Exactly. The term is used in reference to those for whom Donald Trump can do nothing right and those who believe everything he says is crazy and/or stupid. The latter is odd considering Trump is smarter than 90% of our membership.

[Common]

What I find interesting is that it is a term only applied to liberals, yet no one applies it to those on the right who can only defend every action by the President as a masterpiece, with no ability to objectively view actions, behaviors, agenda items, policies, etc.. It seems to me that if we're going to apply the term indiscriminately to members who disagree with one thing, it ought to surely be applied to those who can't do less than celebrate when the President takes a shit.

It seems like derangement is apparent on both sides, for those who excessively criticize with no objectivity or rational reasoning, and for those that do the opposite and excessively praise him with no objectivity or rational reasoning. Either way, it is a ridiculous, counterproductive exercise of name calling and infantile behavior, but let's be fair here and acknowledge that it is not just some on the left that are completely fucking "deranged" about Trump and that it is a two-way street.

Go ahead - accuse me of TDS. I recently disagreed with him once and got the label rather than a responsive post to the issue I was discussing. I have defended him with regards to Mueller and the "witchhunt", sometimes on aspects of the Stormy Daniels crap, or when I think people are just being dumb about Trump. I have openly said on some occasions that he needs someone to manage his Twitter account and that his words often harm his agenda because they become the focus. But... I have TDS. It's funny, coming from people who certainly should qualify for the "diagnosis" over me.

Let's see if we can have an adult conversation about it. I give it... 2 posts.
Youre misunderstanding the term and the rights reaction to it. First Trump Derangement Syndrome applies to ALL liberals who denigrate everything trump does, some lie, most exaggerate and cant bring themselves to utter one syllable that isnt a hate on trump.

The trumpsters response to that is undying support just to prod those liberals with Trump Derangement to possibly go over the edge and never return :) In simpler terms there isnt a trump supporter that supports everything he does nor should we, we just wont admit that to liberals that refuse to admit Trump can even possibly do anything right when in reality hes been a grand success

[Chris]

TDS is an emotional reaction. It was first seen when Hillary's sure win turned into a devastating loss to Trump. There was much weeping and wailing on the left. And there still is as few have recovered.

[Dr. Who]

What I find interesting is that it is a term only applied to liberals, yet no one applies it to those on the right who can only defend every action by the President as a masterpiece, with no ability to objectively view actions, behaviors, agenda items, policies, etc.. It seems to me that if we're going to apply the term indiscriminately to members who disagree with one thing, it ought to surely be applied to those who can't do less than celebrate when the President takes a shit.

It seems like derangement is apparent on both sides, for those who excessively criticize with no objectivity or rational reasoning, and for those that do the opposite and excessively praise him with no objectivity or rational reasoning. Either way, it is a ridiculous, counterproductive exercise of name calling and infantile behavior, but let's be fair here and acknowledge that it is not just some on the left that are completely fucking "deranged" about Trump and that it is a two-way street.

Go ahead - accuse me of TDS. I recently disagreed with him once and got the label rather than a responsive post to the issue I was discussing. I have defended him with regards to Mueller and the "witchhunt", sometimes on aspects of the Stormy Daniels crap, or when I think people are just being dumb about Trump. I have openly said on some occasions that he needs someone to manage his Twitter account and that his words often harm his agenda because they become the focus. But... I have TDS. It's funny, coming from people who certainly should qualify for the "diagnosis" over me.

Let's see if we can have an adult conversation about it. I give it... 2 posts.
I just came to that same conclusion last night (elsewhere). There is nothing inherent about the term that would exclude the cult-like adoration that he enjoys from many of his acolytes even in the face of behavior that is objectively improper for a President.

[Lummy]

TDS is an emotional reaction. It was first seen when Hillary's sure win turned into a devastating loss to Trump. There was much weeping and wailing on the left. And there still is as few have recovered.
Trump plays Democrats like a cheap ukulele -- quite the entertainment since Democrats are so far out of tune and he can't play the ukulele. LOL.

[Dr. Who]

Youre misunderstanding the term and the rights reaction to it. First Trump Derangement Syndrome applies to ALL liberals who denigrate everything trump does, some lie, most exaggerate and cant bring themselves to utter one syllable that isnt a hate on trump.

The trumpsters response to that is undying support just to prod those liberals with Trump Derangement to possibly go over the edge and never return :) In simpler terms there isnt a trump supporter that supports everything he does nor should we, we just wont admit that to liberals that refuse to admit Trump can even possibly do anything right when in reality hes been a grand success
I'd say there are plenty of conservatives suffering from a form of Trump Derangement Syndrome who view his actions through the distorted lens of wishful thinking.

[Chris]

I'd say there are plenty of conservatives suffering from a form of Trump Derangement Syndrome who view his actions through the distorted lens of wishful thinking.

There are always those partisans who will support their party. True now as it was under Obama, under Bush, on down the line.

TDS is something else. Polly's poll demonstrates it.

[Chris]

Trump plays Democrats like a cheap ukulele -- quite the entertainment since Democrats are so far out of tune and he can't play the ukulele. LOL.

That's what I enjoy, from election night on, they're being played and overreacting.

[Captdon]

I have pointed out things Trump has done that I oppose. Yet, every leftist here will still accuse me of blind adoration. It doesn't matter if I agree with him. I will be told I do. Sometimes I get that in response to a criticism of him. I expect the same for this.

The left never gives him credit for anything but expect us to bad mouth Trump. See, liberals think they should win even when they lose.

[Captdon]

I'd say there are plenty of conservatives suffering from a form of Trump Derangement Syndrome who view his actions through the distorted lens of wishful thinking.

And you see him through the lens that is painted black. You have TDS in it's purest form.

[Major Lambda]

What I find interesting is that it is a term only applied to liberals, yet no one applies it to those on the right who can only defend every action by the President as a masterpiece, with no ability to objectively view actions, behaviors, agenda items, policies, etc.. It seems to me that if we're going to apply the term indiscriminately to members who disagree with one thing, it ought to surely be applied to those who can't do less than celebrate when the President takes a $#@!.

It seems like derangement is apparent on both sides, for those who excessively criticize with no objectivity or rational reasoning, and for those that do the opposite and excessively praise him with no objectivity or rational reasoning. Either way, it is a ridiculous, counterproductive exercise of name calling and infantile behavior, but let's be fair here and acknowledge that it is not just some on the left that are completely $#@!ing "deranged" about Trump and that it is a two-way street.

Go ahead - accuse me of TDS. I recently disagreed with him once and got the label rather than a responsive post to the issue I was discussing. I have defended him with regards to Mueller and the "witchhunt", sometimes on aspects of the Stormy Daniels crap, or when I think people are just being dumb about Trump. I have openly said on some occasions that he needs someone to manage his Twitter account and that his words often harm his agenda because they become the focus. But... I have TDS. It's funny, coming from people who certainly should qualify for the "diagnosis" over me.

Let's see if we can have an adult conversation about it. I give it... 2 posts.



Adelaide, fact. There are moderate liberals and moderate conservatives. Both sway left and right in the political arena.

There are hard corp liberals who stay left and hard corp conservatives who stay right. Election time, you try to get the independants and moderates. Nonsense trying to spend time or money on the hard corp opposites, its worthless.

In the end the death and destruction is everyone's fault. Because there are lousy liberals and conservatives whom would stab their own mother in the back, its politics. And in politics all that counts in the end is the votes as evident by the two faced backstabbers and cutthroats that worked in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Damn, how I miss the earlier eras of politics where everything was simplified.

There was so much gaming and throat slashing in the last Presidential election, it makes World War Two look like a camping convention. President Trump in the end, found out whom his true friends were, and Hillary was not as liked as she thought she was.

Well, you can't have throat slashing and backstabbing without a moderate amount of jealousy coupled with excessive spoonfuls of coveting now can we? Two teaspoons of jealousy with five heaping tablespoons of coveting and you have the chemical equation T(1) D(1) S(1) .


Thievery , deception , and massive amounts of perjury caused one to lose a Presidential Election, so you blame it on the Russians and get the MSM to believe it.

For being a lawyer, Hillary sure is stupid.



Major Lambda

[Mister D]

There are always those partisans who will support their party. True now as it was under Obama, under Bush, on down the line.

TDS is something else. Polly's poll demonstrates it.

Right. She seeks to redraw the ideological battle lines along opinions of Trump the man. It's very personal and very weird.

[Hoosier8]

I'd say there are plenty of conservatives suffering from a form of Trump Derangement Syndrome who view his actions through the distorted lens of wishful thinking.
You mean the low unemployment, more money in my pocket, trying to control the border, high business confidence, rising wages, growing consumer confidence, trying to work for peace, etc..

No wonder you can’t imagine we are not furious.

[Dr. Who]

And you see him through the lens that is painted black. You have TDS in it's purest form.
Sorry, but when someone who in my view is a criminal, is elected to office, there is no other way to see him. It's not even political - the man is an anathema to anyone who knows his history and believes in principles. If it's possible to like him less than I did before the election, then I like him even less now. One day you will regret your vote.

[Mister D]

If Trump is "anathema" you have TDS.

[Chris]

Sorry, but when someone who in my view is a criminal, is elected to office, there is no other way to see him. It's not even political - the man is an anathema to anyone who knows his history and believes in principles. If it's possible to like him less than I did before the election, then I like him even less now. One day you will regret your vote.


You do realize that's all entirely based upon your feelings. It's emotional, about the man, and not empirical, about his policies. That is precisely what TDS is.

[Chris]

Right. She seeks to redraw the ideological battle lines along opinions of Trump the man. It's very personal and very weird.

In her last post to me she seems able to divide the left into progressives and socialist, but leave the right monolithic.

[Tahuyaman]

Sorry, but when someone who in my view is a criminal, is elected to office, there is no other way to see him. It's not even political - the man is an anathema to anyone who knows his history and believes in principles. If it's possible to like him less than I did before the election, then I like him even less now. One day you will regret your vote.


To be viewed as a criminal, one must have first committed a criminal act or acts. Your view is indeed political. Partisan in nature. Hate is also guiding your views. That should bother you, because if you can't get that under control it's going to get progressively worse.

[Mister D]

In her last post to me she seems able to divide the left into progressives and socialist, but leave the right monolithic.
A few weeks back she was praising neoliberalism and universal market society. The left is useless and I have no idea what to make of Polly's musings at this point.

[AZ Jim]

Exactly. The term is used in reference to those for whom Donald Trump can do nothing right and those who believe everything he says is crazy and/or stupid. The latter is odd considering Trump is smarter than 90% of our membership.Can you show evidence of his great intelligence other than his own statement: "I'm a stable genius" ????

[Mister D]

Can you show evidence of his great intelligence other than his own statement: "I'm a stable genius" ????

He's POTUS. You're a dying man whining on an obscure message board. Any more questions?

[Dr. Who]

You do realize that's all entirely based upon your feelings. It's emotional, about the man, and not empirical, about his policies. That is precisely what TDS is.

The man is fundamentally dishonest and unscrupulous. How else should I see such a person? You cannot turn someone like that into a great leader. Perhaps that's why there are so many clouds over his head. He has surrounded himself with sketchy characters, even in office. His known associates are under investigation, some now facing criminal trials. His lack of principles has created this situation that he is facing. I don't have TDS. The man is unworthy of the office that he holds and eventually that will become all too evident and I won't pretend otherwise.

[Dr. Who]

To be viewed as a criminal, one must have first committed a criminal act or acts. Your view is indeed political. Partisan in nature. Hate is also guiding your views. That should bother you, because if you can't get that under control it's going to get progressively worse.
Hardly - I viewed him as a criminal many years before he ran for office. My opinion didn't change with the election. I was simply astounded that he wasn't prevented from running, given his sordid past.

[Tahuyaman]

Hardly - I viewed him as a criminal many years before he ran for office. My opinion didn't change with the election. I was simply astounded that he wasn't prevented from running, given his sordid past.
What crime(s)has he committed? I can show you one recent presidential candidate who actually did committ crimes, but was let off the hook for reasons no one else would receive.

[Dr. Who]

What crime(s)has he committed? I can show you one recent presidential candidate who actually did committ crimes, but was let off the hook for reasons no one else would receive.
He has avoided criminal charges by placing third parties between himself and criminal acts. The most recent however is Trump University, which was nothing but a fraud, yet Trump only faced civil sanctions. The criminal threshold is much more difficult to prove when an elaborate legal framework is erected to separate the controlling mind from the end product. Trump didn't employ a fixer for no reason. Using the law to rip off contractors who couldn't afford to pay legal fees indefinitely to force Trump to pay what he owed is also fraud, if not outright theft. Knowingly employing contractors that employ illegals is also criminal but unless the crime is reported and investigated, there will be no legal sanctions. There are also currently pending actions for sexual assault.

[Adelaide]

There are always those partisans who will support their party. True now as it was under Obama, under Bush, on down the line.

TDS is something else. Polly's poll demonstrates it.

No... I'm going to have to disagree. It is almost like a cult. Maybe that's how the right felt about Democrats and Obama, but I don't think Bush or Clinton ever had such die-hard supporters that couldn't even admit when they fucked something up. Seriously, based on the things that I read here, on conservative websites, and in conservative media, it is honestly a "cult"-like attitude. Trump could do something completely obscene, like punch Angela Merkel in the face and many of his supporters would just be like, "Hey, bitch deserved it." It's bizarre. Even Democrats could admit that Obama screwed up with how he put together the Affordable Care Act, or his use of drones, or any number of things - not all of them, but seems like more than the Trump fan club.

[Tahuyaman]

He has avoided criminal charges by placing third parties between himself and criminal acts. The most recent however is Trump University, which was nothing but a fraud, yet Trump only faced civil sanctions. The criminal threshold is much more difficult to prove when an elaborate legal framework is erected to separate the controlling mind from the end product. Trump didn't employ a fixer for no reason. Using the law to rip off contractors who couldn't afford to pay legal fees indefinitely to force Trump to pay what he owed is also fraud, if not outright theft. Knowingly employing contractors that employ illegals is also criminal but unless the crime is reported and investigated, there will be no legal sanctions. There are also currently pending actions for sexual assault.

Wow. Let’s rehash that which was dismissed long ago. It’s time for you to accept the election result.

[Hoosier8]

No... I'm going to have to disagree. It is almost like a cult. Maybe that's how the right felt about Democrats and Obama, but I don't think Bush or Clinton ever had such die-hard supporters that couldn't even admit when they $#@!ed something up. Seriously, based on the things that I read here, on conservative websites, and in conservative media, it is honestly a "cult"-like attitude. Trump could do something completely obscene, like punch Angela Merkel in the face and many of his supporters would just be like, "Hey, $#@! deserved it." It's bizarre. Even Democrats could admit that Obama screwed up with how he put together the Affordable Care Act, or his use of drones, or any number of things - not all of them, but seems like more than the Trump fan club.

LOL, yeah now after Obamacare was such a disaster. Before that anyone that pointed out its flaws were called racists.

[Adelaide]

LOL, yeah now after Obamacare was such a disaster. Before that anyone that pointed out its flaws were called racists.

No, I remember people disagreeing. I did. First, it wasn't anywhere close to what he promised (even if I disagreed with universal healthcare in the US). Second, parts of it didn't seem constitutional. Third, I felt like the good parts were going to be at risk because of the rest of it. Finally, I worried that it was giving too much to the insurance industry. And I am supposed to be a hardcore liberal. But I remember a lot of people, mostly those with common sense, having similar concerns. I think only die hard Democrats were unwilling to admit how flawed it was from the get-go. I know a lot of liberals defended it because at least it was something but for a lot of people who voted for him, it was also not the promise he was making when he was campaigning (meaning, not why they voted for him on the issue of healthcare).

[Adelaide]

Wow. Let’s rehash that which was dismissed long ago. It’s time for you to accept the election result.

This is part of the problem.

I jokingly said early into the election season that I supported Clinton because one member thought I could vote and I found it hilarious. Otherwise, if I could vote, I would have voted for Johnson or not at all. But I guarantee if I disagreed with Trump more, which I haven't previously, I would be accused of being a Clinton supporter.

I think most of the left-of-center members on this forum would not have voted for Clinton. I would include some of the libertarians into that group who tend to have more liberal social beliefs. But even Democrats... Some of Trump's voters (but not his fan club) voted for him because they couldn't vote for Clinton because of things she had done.

But why is it that everyone who criticizes Trump must have be having an existential crisis and mental meltdown because Clinton didn't win? That's simply not the case. It also doesn't make someone automatically a carrier of "TDS".

Edit: Also, I can think of at least two hard left members, who fall along where I tend to ideologically, who said they voted Jill Stein. We're all young and female. We didn't want Clinton. If a woman is going to break that "glass ceiling" it should probably be one that we can actually respect and someone who has integrity.

[Tahuyaman]

This is part of the problem.

I jokingly said early into the election season that I supported Clinton because one member thought I could vote and I found it hilarious. Otherwise, if I could vote, I would have voted for Johnson or not at all. But I guarantee if I disagreed with Trump more, which I haven't previously, I would be accused of being a Clinton supporter.

I think most of the left-of-center members on this forum would not have voted for Clinton. I would include some of the libertarians into that group who tend to have more liberal social beliefs. But even Democrats... Some of Trump's voters (but not his fan club) voted for him because they couldn't vote for Clinton because of things she had done.

But why is it that everyone who criticizes Trump must have be having an existential crisis and mental meltdown because Clinton didn't win? That's simply not the case. It also doesn't make someone automatically a carrier of "TDS".

Edit: Also, I can think of at least two hard left members, who fall along where I tend to ideologically, who said they voted Jill Stein. We're all young and female. We didn't want Clinton. If a woman is going to break that "glass ceiling" it should probably be one that we can actually respect and someone who has integrity.I watched the election results coming in on election night. I saw a complete emotional melt-down on CNN, MSNBC and the three major networks. I had never seen anything like it before.

That happened. It can’t be denied. Their reaction varied from fist pounding anger to tears. This was from the supposed objective political analysts. From there it got worse. So don’t try to tell me that TDD is not real.

You are insulting the intelligence of every rational thinking person.

[El Guapo]

I was extremely dubious of Trump during the primaries but not surprised when he earned the nomination. He worked hard for it.

Once he cleared that hurdle it was clear sailing because not only was he hitting it out of the park with a part of America that has been woefully ignored- Hillary was a robotic and a clear fraud.
Look how they used Bernie as a foil and got her ample ass handed to her by him. She had NO chance. Possession of a vagina was her platform.
Still, it was a nail biter and I was hilariously elated when Trump handed dat phat ass to her again...oh teh lulz that were had that night.
Since taking office I have to admit that Trump has been a pleasant surprise in how conservative a man he is. His kooky tweeting will go down in history as being much like the way Reagan bypassed the media by speech...Trump does it with his phone. Whether they love him or hate him; everybody knows exactly what he's thinking. This is a good thing...a new standard of communication with the American people.

History is going to remember him as a pivotal figure.

[Hoosier8]

I was extremely dubious of Trump during the primaries but not surprised when he earned the nomination. Once he cleared that hurdle it was clear sailing because not only was he hitting it out of the park with a part of America that has been woefully ignored- Hillary was a robotic and a clear fraud.
Look how they used Bernie as a foil and got her ample ass handed to her by him. She had NO chance. Possession of a vagina was her platform.
Still, it was a nail biter and I was hilariously elated when Trump handed dat phat ass to her again...oh teh lulz that were had that night.
Since taking office I have to admit that Trump has been a pleasant surprise in how conservative a man he is. His kooky tweeting will go down in history as being much like the way Reagan bypassed the media by speech...Trump does it with his phone. Whether they love him or hate him; everybody knows exactly what he's thinking. This is a good thing...a new standard of communication with the American people.

History is going to remember him as a pivotal figure.

The nutcases are still screeching traitor and impeachment and the country is doomed like they have since election night.

TDS is real.

[Lummy]

I watched the election results coming in on election night. I saw a complete emotional melt-down on CNN, MSNBC and the three major networks. I had never seen anything like it before.

That happened. It can’t be denied. Their reaction varied from fist pounding anger to tears. This was from the supposed objective political analysts. From there it got worse. So don’t try to tell me that TDD is not real.

You are insulting the intelligence of every rational thinking person.
Yes. Democrats turned rabid when Trump won, and they've grown sicker by the day ever since.

[El Guapo]

The nutcases are still screeching traitor and impeachment and the country is doomed like they have since election night.

TDS is real.
Without a doubt.

This thread is a manifestation of it.

[Mr.Soxes]

Yes. Democrats turned rabid when Trump won, and they've grown sicker by the day ever since.
That platform of tax raising and unrestricted immigration is surly a winner!:laughing3:

[Lummy]

I know I grew concerned when the hissy fits didn't subside after the first post-election month. It has been unprecedented and very ugly.

[Chris]

No... I'm going to have to disagree. It is almost like a cult. Maybe that's how the right felt about Democrats and Obama, but I don't think Bush or Clinton ever had such die-hard supporters that couldn't even admit when they fucked something up. Seriously, based on the things that I read here, on conservative websites, and in conservative media, it is honestly a "cult"-like attitude. Trump could do something completely obscene, like punch Angela Merkel in the face and many of his supporters would just be like, "Hey, bitch deserved it." It's bizarre. Even Democrats could admit that Obama screwed up with how he put together the Affordable Care Act, or his use of drones, or any number of things - not all of them, but seems like more than the Trump fan club.


Well, I've been arguing politics on forums for a long time and that's what I've seen even going back to Reagan, blind partisanship on the part of some, some people with nothing but praise and some with nothing but derision for the President at the time.

I won't argue that Trumps' behavior is worse, it is, I don't like him personally but I don't let it get inside my head the way the left does.

[Adelaide]

I watched the election results coming in on election night. I saw a complete emotional melt-down on CNN, MSNBC and the three major networks. I had never seen anything like it before.

That happened. It can’t be denied. Their reaction varied from fist pounding anger to tears. This was from the supposed objective political analysts. From there it got worse. So don’t try to tell me that TDD is not real. I’m

So... Fake news is now not Fake news?

But seriously, do you want me to post some videos of Fox reacting to Obama? Of Romney suppporters reacting to Obama? Lots of tears. How about McCain's loss to Obama? Want those tears? How about the Al Gore supporters crying?

Have you lived in a bubble for 20 years?

[El Guapo]

Yes. Democrats turned rabid when Trump won, and they've grown sicker by the day ever since.
Proving to all and sundry that the best man won

[Chris]

The man is fundamentally dishonest and unscrupulous. How else should I see such a person? You cannot turn someone like that into a great leader. Perhaps that's why there are so many clouds over his head. He has surrounded himself with sketchy characters, even in office. His known associates are under investigation, some now facing criminal trials. His lack of principles has created this situation that he is facing. I don't have TDS. The man is unworthy of the office that he holds and eventually that will become all too evident and I won't pretend otherwise.

You do realize that's all entirely based upon your feelings. It's emotional, about the man, and not empirical, about his policies. That is precisely what TDS is.

Oh, wait, I already said that, but then you're just repeating your histrionics known as TDS.

[Adelaide]

The nutcases are still screeching traitor and impeachment and the country is doomed like they have since election night.

TDS is real.

Only morons are screaching about impeachment.

A remarkable amount of them are Trump supporters complaining about the left.

[Adelaide]

Well, I've been arguing politics on forums for a long time and that's what I've seen even going back to Reagan, blind partisanship on the part of some, some people with nothing but praise and some with nothing but derision for the President at the time.

I won't argue that Trumps' behavior is worse, it is, I don't like him personally but I don't let it get inside my head the way the left does.

Madison warned about this. I think that Obama and Trump, in different ways, represented factions that couldn't be controlled. That's probably why Republicans fell apart over Obama, and Democrats over Trump. It's so divided. But there are plenty of us in the middle or slightly left of center or just simply have a brain who aren't blindly supporting or hating anyone. Why does every comment against Trump have to be "TDS"? Shouldn't it also apply to those that can't see the negatives of Trump?

[Adelaide]

I know I grew concerned when the hissy fits didn't subside after the first post-election month. It has been unprecedented and very ugly.
Unprecedented? Really?

[Chris]

Madison warned about this. I think that Obama and Trump, in different ways, represented factions that couldn't be controlled. That's probably why Republicans fell apart over Obama, and Democrats over Trump. It's so divided. But there are plenty of us in the middle or slightly left of center or just simply have a brain who aren't blindly supporting or hating anyone. Why does every comment against Trump have to be "TDS"? Shouldn't it also apply to those that can't see the negatives of Trump?


I recall the Obama Presidency as a time of the right criticising his policies and the left retorting you just hate him personally because he's black. That policy vs person pattern has been there for some time now.

[Tahuyaman]

So... Fake news is now not Fake news?

But seriously, do you want me to post some videos of Fox reacting to Obama? Of Romney suppporters reacting to Obama? Lots of tears. How about McCain's loss to Obama? Want those tears? How about the Al Gore supporters crying?

Have you lived in a bubble for 20 years?

Post any video which you think is appropriate. I have no idea what your fake news is now not fake news means.

I certainly don't recall any political analysts crying over McCain's defeat. I don’t recall anger by the by same people over Obama’s wins.

I don’t remember Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis attending a rally saying that they wanted to “blow up” the White House or assasinate a president.

[Tahuyaman]

I know I grew concerned when the hissy fits didn't subside after the first post-election month. It has been unprecedented and very ugly.

I didn’t get concerned until one deranged liberal opened fire at Republicans at a baseball practice.

[Hoosier8]

Only morons are screaching about impeachment.

A remarkable amount of them are Trump supporters complaining about the left.
Complaining about the lefts hysteria.

[Tahuyaman]

Unprecedented? Really?
Yes. The partisan left’s reaction to the last presidential is unprecedented. This is undeniable.

[Tahuyaman]

Only morons are screaching about impeachment.

A remarkable amount of them are Trump supporters complaining about the left.
That’s becoming the mainstream position of the Democratic Party. Your second sentence is a figment of your imagination.

[El Guapo]

Your second sentence is a figment of your imagination.
Amen to that. Anyone who would try and compare anything to the 2 year (and counting)24/7/365 daily drumbeat of dripping venomous fucktardry emanating from every single news outlet...every 'comedy' (and I use that term loosely) show, every utterance from every dummycrat politician...every award show...everything out of Hollywood...the list is endless... aimed at Trump is unprecedented in the history of man....anyone who would try and make that comparison is unworthy of being taken seriously at all.

[El Guapo]

It's never ending. Don't you people on the left ever get tired of it? Srs q.

[Tahuyaman]

Without a doubt.

This thread is a manifestation of it.
It’s also a demonstration as to how it is getting worse. It gets worse just by engaging the infected people in a discussion.

[Adelaide]

That’s becoming the mainstream position of the Democratic Party. Your second sentence is a figment of your imagination.

Did you know that upwards of 40% of voters as of 2012 identify as independent? As they leave both parties, what remains is an extreme form. The vast majority of people fall between the two extremes of the major parties, and most of them have no consistent, infallible party allegiance. On both sides, a lot of people vote differently in every election and not blindly based on who they are registered with. This is true of former Republicans and Democrats. So, sure, the extreme portion of the Democratic party is fucking batshit crazy with their Russia and impeachment shit. Most of them hadn't even thought about what would happen if Trump were impeached, which would be someone even more conservative. That's amazing. But it simply doesn't represent most of the people on the left. Many may not approve of the job that Trump is doing but that doesn't make them deranged. You are gauging the left in a peculiar way; if I viewed all Republicans as versions of Sean Hannity, I would probably have the same problem. It's not realistic.

I have to write a fucking paper on Federalist No. 8 and 9 now. Back later.

[Tahuyaman]

Did you know that upwards of 40% of voters as of 2012 identify as independent? As they leave both parties, what remains is an extreme form. The vast majority of people fall between the two extremes of the major parties, and most of them have no consistent, infallible party allegiance. On both sides, a lot of people vote differently in every election and not blindly based on who they are registered with. This is true of former Republicans and Democrats. So, sure, the extreme portion of the Democratic party is $#@!ing bat$#@! crazy with their Russia and impeachment $#@!. Most of them hadn't even thought about what would happen if Trump were impeached, which would be someone even more conservative. That's amazing. But it simply doesn't represent most of the people on the left. Many may not approve of the job that Trump is doing but that doesn't make them deranged. You are gauging the left in a peculiar way; if I viewed all Republicans as versions of Sean Hannity, I would probably have the same problem. It's not realistic.

I have to write a $#@!ing paper on Federalist No. 8 and 9 now. Back later.


What does any of that have to do with my comment which you quoted?

[Dr. Who]

I didn’t get concerned until one deranged liberal opened fire at Republicans at a baseball practice.

It didn't concern you when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head? Of course, she is a Democrat.

[El Guapo]

It didn't concern you when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head? Of course, she is a Democrat.
So was her shooter.

[Dr. Who]

So was her shooter.
She was shot over gun control, so the comparison is valid.

[Mister D]

She was shot over gun control, so the comparison is valid.
She was shot by a lunatic who was about as "right wing" as you are.

[Dr. Who]

She was shot by a lunatic who was about as "right wing" as you are.
He was a gun rights activist. More your team than mine.

[Mister D]

He was a gun rights activist. More your team than mine.

Besides shooting Giffords in the head what did this activism consist of?

[Dr. Who]

Besides shooting Giffords in the head what did this activism consist of?
Does it matter? Isn't shooting Giffords in the head enough of a commitment to the cause?

[El Guapo]

He was a gun rights activist. More your team than mine.

That's absurd. Making you absurd, by extension.

[Chris]

She was shot over gun control, so the comparison is valid.


He was a gun rights activist. More your team than mine.


Does it matter? Isn't shooting Giffords in the head enough of a commitment to the cause?


It does matter because you're making it up.

Loughner was a loner not an activist for any cause. The most immediate reasons for his shooting Giffords was a long-standing dislike of her, especially her views on women in society, and her not answering adequately a letter he'd written her. Medical exams diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia.

Giffords, at the time, was not an anti-gun advocate. She was arguing politicians needed to tone down there rhetoric and used a target post of Palin's as an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

[Captdon]

Sorry, but when someone who in my view is a criminal, is elected to office, there is no other way to see him. It's not even political - the man is an anathema to anyone who knows his history and believes in principles. If it's possible to like him less than I did before the election, then I like him even less now. One day you will regret your vote.

Your view duly noted.

It's based on nothing but pure hate. That's all you have...hate. I guess all the shit Obama did was just fine with you being as you're one of his sycophant's.

I guess you approved of Obama sending guns to drug cartels. Nothing wrong there?

No, it's all hate, all the time with you.

[Captdon]

Hardly - I viewed him as a criminal many years before he ran for office. My opinion didn't change with the election. I was simply astounded that he wasn't prevented from running, given his sordid past.

You're astounded he won. Hate 101.

[Captdon]

No... I'm going to have to disagree. It is almost like a cult. Maybe that's how the right felt about Democrats and Obama, but I don't think Bush or Clinton ever had such die-hard supporters that couldn't even admit when they $#@!ed something up. Seriously, based on the things that I read here, on conservative websites, and in conservative media, it is honestly a "cult"-like attitude. Trump could do something completely obscene, like punch Angela Merkel in the face and many of his supporters would just be like, "Hey, $#@! deserved it." It's bizarre. Even Democrats could admit that Obama screwed up with how he put together the Affordable Care Act, or his use of drones, or any number of things - not all of them, but seems like more than the Trump fan club.

Democrats fawned over Obama. They never disagreed with anything he said or did.

[Captdon]

No, I remember people disagreeing. I did. First, it wasn't anywhere close to what he promised (even if I disagreed with universal healthcare in the US). Second, parts of it didn't seem constitutional. Third, I felt like the good parts were going to be at risk because of the rest of it. Finally, I worried that it was giving too much to the insurance industry. And I am supposed to be a hardcore liberal. But I remember a lot of people, mostly those with common sense, having similar concerns. I think only die hard Democrats were unwilling to admit how flawed it was from the get-go. I know a lot of liberals defended it because at least it was something but for a lot of people who voted for him, it was also not the promise he was making when he was campaigning (meaning, not why they voted for him on the issue of healthcare).

The people disagreeing with it were the non-Dems.

[Captdon]

So... Fake news is now not Fake news?

But seriously, do you want me to post some videos of Fox reacting to Obama? Of Romney suppporters reacting to Obama? Lots of tears. How about McCain's loss to Obama? Want those tears? How about the Al Gore supporters crying?

Have you lived in a bubble for 20 years?

Yea, I'd like to see them. They don't exist but I'd like to see Fox hosts melting down.

[Captdon]

Madison warned about this. I think that Obama and Trump, in different ways, represented factions that couldn't be controlled. That's probably why Republicans fell apart over Obama, and Democrats over Trump. It's so divided. But there are plenty of us in the middle or slightly left of center or just simply have a brain who aren't blindly supporting or hating anyone. Why does every comment against Trump have to be "TDS"? Shouldn't it also apply to those that can't see the negatives of Trump?

Evenly divided? Are you joking? I've been watching Presidents since LBJ and I have never seen anything even close to the total breakdown of sanity as I've seen from the left. They didn't like Reagan and both Bushes but they were civil and not nuts. I watched Carter and Clinton and never saw the hate I see now.

[Captdon]

Did you know that upwards of 40% of voters as of 2012 identify as independent? As they leave both parties, what remains is an extreme form. The vast majority of people fall between the two extremes of the major parties, and most of them have no consistent, infallible party allegiance. On both sides, a lot of people vote differently in every election and not blindly based on who they are registered with. This is true of former Republicans and Democrats. So, sure, the extreme portion of the Democratic party is $#@!ing bat$#@! crazy with their Russia and impeachment $#@!. Most of them hadn't even thought about what would happen if Trump were impeached, which would be someone even more conservative. That's amazing. But it simply doesn't represent most of the people on the left. Many may not approve of the job that Trump is doing but that doesn't make them deranged. You are gauging the left in a peculiar way; if I viewed all Republicans as versions of Sean Hannity, I would probably have the same problem. It's not realistic.

I have to write a $#@!ing paper on Federalist No. 8 and 9 now. Back later.

Every elected Dem who gets in front of a camera does it. That's it. That's all I need to judge what the left thinks.

[Common Sense]

Evenly divided? Are you joking? I've been watching Presidents since LBJ and I have never seen anything even close to the total breakdown of sanity as I've seen from the left. They didn't like Reagan and both Bushes but they were civil and not nuts. I watched Carter and Clinton and never saw the hate I see now.

So you were in a coma during Obama's presidency.

[Hoosier8]

Hardly - I viewed him as a criminal many years before he ran for office. My opinion didn't change with the election. I was simply astounded that he wasn't prevented from running, given his sordid past.

Translation, anyone that is successful in business is a crook. Liberal logic 101.

[MisterVeritis]

Sorry, but when someone who in my view is a criminal, is elected to office, there is no other way to see him. It's not even political - the man is an anathema to anyone who knows his history and believes in principles. If it's possible to like him less than I did before the election, then I like him even less now. One day you will regret your vote.
Why would I do that?

[Hoosier8]

Why would I do that?

Because Trump is pursuing a sane policy towards Russia in relation to our bigger threat, China.

[MisterVeritis]

Because Trump is pursuing a sane policy towards Russia in relation to our bigger threat, China.
Your given reason is not a reason I would one day regret my vote. I think Who is very concerned that the economy is doing very well. What President Trump is doing is good for America and Americans. Anything good for Americans is bad for Democrats/socialists.

[Dr. Who]

Translation, anyone that is successful in business is a crook. Liberal logic 101.
No - him in particular. Most other successful people don't have pasts as colorful as Trump's or put themselves in the public eye as much as he has done. If others are dirty, I don't know their history because they don't crave media attention and frankly given that they did not become POTUS, they are not political subject matter.

[Chris]

So you were in a coma during Obama's presidency.

That was the stance liberals took. When the right criticized Obama's policies, the left, in order to avoid discussion of policy, reframed it as the right being against Obama because of race. The left has been taking and making politics personal for a long time.

[Hoosier8]

Your given reason is not a reason I would one day regret my vote. I think Who is very concerned that the economy is doing very well. What President Trump is doing is good for America and Americans. Anything good for Americans is bad for Democrats/socialists.

Well, I am using the bizarro language of TDS where everything is the opposite.

[Hoosier8]

No - him in particular. Most other successful people don't have pasts as colorful as Trump's or put themselves in the public eye as much as he has done. If others are dirty, I don't know their history because they don't crave media attention and frankly given that they did not become POTUS, they are not political subject matter.

Yet, still nothing.

[Cletus]

I just came to that same conclusion last night (elsewhere). There is nothing inherent about the term that would exclude the cult-like adoration that he enjoys from many of his acolytes even in the face of behavior that is objectively improper for a President.

Give us an example of that "cult like adoration".

I haven't witnessed it anywhere, but if you say it exists, I'll take your word for it. Show us.

[El Guapo]

So... Fake news is now not Fake news?

But seriously, do you want me to post some videos of Fox reacting to Obama? Of Romney suppporters reacting to Obama? Lots of tears. How about McCain's loss to Obama? Want those tears? How about the Al Gore supporters crying?

Have you lived in a bubble for 20 years?

Al Gore? hahahaha



You seem a tad...confused

[Cletus]

She was shot over gun control, so the comparison is valid.

That is absolutely false.

Did you make that up?

[Cletus]

He was a gun rights activist. More your team than mine.

Another falsehood.

[Captdon]

So you were in a coma during Obama's presidency.

No and I didn't see the hate you people have. It isn't even close. I didn't see anyone trying to get rid of him; I didn't see him called a traitor and a dictator.. You lefties always use this excuse and it doesn't wash.I didn't see a criticism of everything about him. No one called for his impeachment.

[Tahuyaman]

No - him in particular. Most other successful people don't have pasts as colorful as Trump's or put themselves in the public eye as much as he has done...

That generally makes one more careful about ensuring their business activities are legal.

[Mister D]

Does it matter? Isn't shooting Giffords in the head enough of a commitment to the cause?
So, nothing? That is, there was no activism to speak of.

[mamooth]

That was the stance liberals took. When the right criticized Obama's policies, the left, in order to avoid discussion of policy, reframed it as the right being against Obama because of race.

No, you're making up that ficitonal version of reality to justify the right's rank intellectual cowardice. Squealing about being called a racist is how the right runs from debate. Conversations would go like this.

L: Obama made a good recovery from Bush's recession.

C: YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!

L: What?

C: SEE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!

L: You're a loony.

C: WAAAAAH! YOU LIBERALS ARE SO HATEFUL!

[mamooth]

No and I didn't see the hate you people have.

Those who can debate, do.

Those who can't, they just whimper how the other side is hateful.

You're clearly in the latter category. I can't remember ever seeing you debate any issue.

[Tahuyaman]

She was shot over gun control, so the comparison is valid.
Actually it's a comparison, but it's like comparing apples to radishes.

[Tahuyaman]

No, you're making up that ficitonal version of reality to justify the right's rank intellectual cowardice. Squealing about being called a racist is how the right runs from debate. Conversations would go like this.

L: Obama made a good recovery from Bush's recession.

C: YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!

L: What?

C: SEE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!

L: You're a loony.

C: WAAAAAH! YOU LIBERALS ARE SO HATEFUL!

How do you think up these goofy comments?

[Tahuyaman]

He was a gun rights activist. More your team than mine.

Except he wasn't.

[Tahuyaman]

It does matter because you're making it up.

Loughner was a loner not an activist for any cause. The most immediate reasons for his shooting Giffords was a long-standing dislike of her, especially her views on women in society, and her not answering adequately a letter he'd written her. Medical exams diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia.

Giffords, at the time, was not an anti-gun advocate. She was arguing politicians needed to tone down there rhetoric and used a target post of Palin's as an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner


@Dr Who abandoned the subject after that one.

[Hoosier8]

Those who can debate, do.

Those who can't, they just whimper how the other side is hateful.

You're clearly in the latter category. I can't remember ever seeing you debate any issue.

Oh the irony.

[Hoosier8]

No, you're making up that ficitonal version of reality to justify the right's rank intellectual cowardice. Squealing about being called a racist is how the right runs from debate. Conversations would go like this.

L: Obama made a good recovery from Bush's recession.

C: YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!

L: What?

C: SEE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!

L: You're a loony.

C: WAAAAAH! YOU LIBERALS ARE SO HATEFUL!

See post #94

[mamooth]

See post #94

English not your strong point, or are you just lying out of butthurt?

[Chris]

No, you're making up that ficitonal version of reality to justify the right's rank intellectual cowardice. Squealing about being called a racist is how the right runs from debate. Conversations would go like this.

L: Obama made a good recovery from Bush's recession.

C: YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!

L: What?

C: SEE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!

L: You're a loony.

C: WAAAAAH! YOU LIBERALS ARE SO HATEFUL!



What on earth are you babbling about?

[Chris]

Those who can debate, do.

Those who can't, they just whimper how the other side is hateful.

You're clearly in the latter category. I can't remember ever seeing you debate any issue.



"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." --Someone


You, mamooth, discuss people.

[Hoosier8]

English not your strong point, or are you just lying out of butthurt?

Your hypocrisy is legend. You never debate but constantly resort to ad Homs.

[MisterVeritis]

No, you're making up that ficitonal version of reality to justify the right's rank intellectual cowardice. Squealing about being called a racist is how the right runs from debate. Conversations would go like this.
L: Obama made a good recovery from Bush's recession.
C: YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!

L: What?
C: SEE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!

L: You're a loony.
C: WAAAAAH! YOU LIBERALS ARE SO HATEFUL!
I bet if you went to see a medical professional they would be willing to help you.

[Cletus]

@Dr Who abandoned the subject after that one.

I think sometimes they just throw stuff out there, thinking (hoping) no one will bother to verify it. It took all of 10 seconds to confirm that her posts about Loughner were completely false.

[Tahuyaman]

I think sometimes they just throw stuff out there, thinking (hoping) no one will bother to verify it. It took all of 10 seconds to confirm that her posts about Loughner were completely false.

Then they just run away. There are a couple of people famous for that.

[Tahuyaman]

I bet if you went to see a medical professional they would be willing to help you.

They might be able to give him a referal to the proper mental health provider.

[Chris]

I think sometimes they just throw stuff out there, thinking (hoping) no one will bother to verify it. It took all of 10 seconds to confirm that her posts about Loughner were completely false.


Yes, but to liberals it just feels right, so it must be right, there's no questioning, and won't be from other liberals. From this Giffords/Loughner thing to recently a declaration human genes on their own learn, plan and act purposely. All with the straightest of faces.

[Peter1469]

No, you're making up that ficitonal version of reality to justify the right's rank intellectual cowardice. Squealing about being called a racist is how the right runs from debate. Conversations would go like this.

L: Obama made a good recovery from Bush's recession.

C: YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!

L: What?

C: SEE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!

L: You're a loony.

C: WAAAAAH! YOU LIBERALS ARE SO HATEFUL!
Obama had no economic recovery.

[ripmeister]

Obama had no economic recovery.

Sure he did. Perhaps not at the pace desired but it was a recovery nonetheless

[Chris]

Sure he did. Perhaps not at the pace desired but it was a recovery nonetheless

He prolonged the Great Recession.

[Peter1469]

Sure he did. Perhaps not at the pace desired but it was a recovery nonetheless
That is a sick joke.


His recovery was flaccid.

[Chris]

Victor Davis Hanson, Just How Far Will the Left Go? (https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/23/just-how-far-will-the-left-go/)


...The Roots of Trump Derangement

Is the anger, then, that we are in a depression, war, or plague?

Actually, no....

Why then the hate, the furor, the sheer mania?

The Left lost what it thought was a sure-thing election. There is now no assured 16-year Obama-Clinton regnum that would complete what the Obamas had called the final “fundamental transformation” of the United States. It cannot accept that it blew certain victory....

...Trump is not a George H.W. Bush or Mitt Romney. He knows no etiquette. He is no gentleman. He is a bruiser, brawler, exaggerator, and performer. What created President Trump was not just “The Apprentice” or the Manhattan real estate market (such a resume only honed his pugilist skills).

Rather, half the country was tired of Republicans grimacing as they were portrayed as throwing grandmothers off cliffs....

...Given the growing furor over half the country as demonized clingers, deplorables, and crazies, if Trump did not exist, a don’t-tread-on-me street fighter would have had to be invented. Progressives have gone ballistic that any opponent would reply to them in kind....

...The Left did not just lose the 2016 election, it lost the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. And it lost them all to a rash, uncouth Queens-accented Manhattan billionaire reality TV star, who systematically planned to dismantle eight years of Obama Administration executive-orders. And unlike almost all prior politicians Trump when in office kept his promises and systematically went about to halt the supposed progressive future. Think of a liberal nightmare something akin to Sarah Palin as president in 2012.

The Obama apparat and the proverbial deep state never imagined Trump could win and thus to ensure that he would not just be defeated but humiliated, vied to use the power of government to destroy the Trump candidacy....

The progressive hysteria reveals the lack of an idea....

[ripmeister]

He prolonged the Great Recession.
Nonsense

[ripmeister]

That is a sick joke.


His recovery was flaccid.
Kinda like your argument.

[Ransom]

Sure he did. Perhaps not at the pace desired but it was a recovery nonetheless

You pass stimulus spending, shovel ready omnibus spending bills, and hand out 15 trillion over 8 years. That's not economic recovery.

[Dr. Who]

https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/171130161102-unemployment-16-year-low-780x439.jpg
https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/171130161047-smaller-workforce-780x439.jpg
https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/171130161148-earning-more-than-ever-780x439.jpg

https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/171130160951-household-net-worth-not-recovered-780x439.jpg

https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/171130160804-homeownership-out-of-reach-780x439.jpg

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/01/news/economy/recession-anniversary/index.html

[Captdon]

What does this prove. Obama did less in 8 years than Trump has in 1 and 1/2.

Good to see you coming around to the truth.

[Ransom]

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/federal-tax-revenues-set-record-through-may-feds-still-running-436b

Put away your graphs. Where the rubber hits the road is how much money is funneled to the federal government in tax receipts. This is proof positive the US economy is steaming.

[Dr. Who]

What does this prove. Obama did less in 8 years than Trump has in 1 and 1/2.

Good to see you coming around to the truth.
You can't get blood from a stone. Any real recovery in America was dependent on global recovery. Don't forget that America has become a different nation economically since most large manufacturing deserted for the third world. It is far more reliant on smaller business trade with the rest of the west. Since Europe was in general recession until 2013 it took time for business to resume the level of trade they enjoyed before the crash. Stimulus can only do so much.

Then there was the unprecedented level of personal debt held by so many American citizens - many who lost their homes in the process and the crash of the real estate market. People lost massive amounts of equity in their homes and real estate holdings and investments. That is only really coming back now. No one can wave a magic wand and undo the financial damage that was wrought by allowing people to financially bite off far more than they can chew. We are talking about massive numbers of personal bankruptcies and as a result of a withdrawal of credit, business bankruptcies. Banks weren't lending, so where did you expect the recovery to come from? It took time for people to start over again, for the newly unemployed to obtain employment, for new business to grow out of the ashes and for markets to be found, not just in America but in Europe.

At the time of the first great depression, America was primarily a protectionist and far more rural society and yet even then, it took WWII to really pull the US out of depression. In 2008, it was anything but protectionist or rural.

[donttread]

What I find interesting is that it is a term only applied to liberals, yet no one applies it to those on the right who can only defend every action by the President as a masterpiece, with no ability to objectively view actions, behaviors, agenda items, policies, etc.. It seems to me that if we're going to apply the term indiscriminately to members who disagree with one thing, it ought to surely be applied to those who can't do less than celebrate when the President takes a shit.

It seems like derangement is apparent on both sides, for those who excessively criticize with no objectivity or rational reasoning, and for those that do the opposite and excessively praise him with no objectivity or rational reasoning. Either way, it is a ridiculous, counterproductive exercise of name calling and infantile behavior, but let's be fair here and acknowledge that it is not just some on the left that are completely fucking "deranged" about Trump and that it is a two-way street.

Go ahead - accuse me of TDS. I recently disagreed with him once and got the label rather than a responsive post to the issue I was discussing. I have defended him with regards to Mueller and the "witchhunt", sometimes on aspects of the Stormy Daniels crap, or when I think people are just being dumb about Trump. I have openly said on some occasions that he needs someone to manage his Twitter account and that his words often harm his agenda because they become the focus. But... I have TDS. It's funny, coming from people who certainly should qualify for the "diagnosis" over me.

Let's see if we can have an adult conversation about it. I give it... 2 posts.

The ability of the donkephant to create a sports team mentality among the people where their "side" can only do good and the other side "only bad" is all that keeps them in power. Well that and money and corruption of course .
It's an amazingly successful psychology , almost mind control , experiment .
They collectively fail in most ways most of the time, at least in terms of the their stated goals to the people and can't even balance a budget despite the largest revenue stream in the world. . But despite that they get 95% of the votes cast and no one ever seems to ask them to collectively do their damned job or hold them collectively accountable for not doing so.
The scariest part is that this tactic seems to work pretty well on otherwise intelligent people to! Take Bush and Obama. Rhetoric as different as night and day. Yet overall the things that happened under their reigns were very , very similar.
People literally defended actions of Bush's and then wailed about Obama taking the SAME action! And vice versa! Until the voters regain the capacity to translate free thought into votes we are screwed.

[Captdon]

@Dr Who abandoned the subject after that one.

That's what she always does. Then she tries to get a helper.

[Captdon]

Mamooth:


No, you're making up that ficitonal version of reality to justify the right's rank intellectual cowardice. Squealing about being called a racist is how the right runs from debate. Conversations would go like this.L: Obama made a good recovery from Bush's recession.C: YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!L: What?C: SEE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!L: You're a loony.C: WAAAAAH! YOU LIBERALS ARE SO HATEFUL!



I bet if you went to see a medical professional they would be willing to help you.

For free as part of a study

[MisterVeritis]

The ability of the donkephant ...
I stopped reading after this bit of goofiness. Good job.

[Captdon]

You can't get blood from a stone. Any real recovery in America was dependent on global recovery. Don't forget that America has become a different nation economically since most large manufacturing deserted for the third world. It is far more reliant on smaller business trade with the rest of the west. Since Europe was in general recession until 2013 it took time for business to resume the level of trade they enjoyed before the crash. Stimulus can only do so much.

Then there was the unprecedented level of personal debt held by so many American citizens - many who lost their homes in the process and the crash of the real estate market. People lost massive amounts of equity in their homes and real estate holdings and investments. That is only really coming back now. No one can wave a magic wand and undo the financial damage that was wrought by allowing people to financially bite off far more than they can chew. We are talking about massive numbers of personal bankruptcies and as a result of a withdrawal of credit, business bankruptcies. Banks weren't lending, so where did you expect the recovery to come from? It took time for people to start over again, for the newly unemployed to obtain employment, for new business to grow out of the ashes and for markets to be found, not just in America but in Europe.

At the time of the first great depression, America was primarily a protectionist and far more rural society and yet even then, it took WWII to really pull the US out of depression. In 2008, it was anything but protectionist or rural.

Obama and the Federal Reserve threw 15 trillion dollars into the economy to create low wage jobs.Manufacturers were leaving in droves.

Now some of them are coming back. The Market took off with Trump's election.

What I said stands.

[Tahuyaman]

I stopped reading after this bit of goofiness. Good job. Once he uses that word I disregard his comment.

[Ransom]

The ability of the donkephant to create a sports team mentality among the people where their "side" can only do good and the other side "only bad" is all that keeps them in power. Well that and money and corruption of course .
It's an amazingly successful psychology , almost mind control , experiment .

You're so wrong and erred here, donttread, let's see if I can explain this to you again. Cause.....dam. The 'Donkephant' voted for a Bush, Hillary, Ted Cruz, or party establishment person. Many others voted for Bernie and Trump. It's not a sports mentality. It's Conservatism....understanding that compromise and platform must be carved out....thus resulting in a majority on election day. Many don't sway with every political breeze or receive talking points from the media, if so, Trump never would have won the Republican Primary much less the Presidency.

They collectively fail in most ways most of the time, at least in terms of the their stated goals to the people and can't even balance a budget despite the largest revenue stream in the world. . But despite that they get 95% of the votes cast and no one ever seems to ask them to collectively do their damned job or hold them collectively accountable for not doing so.

Trump didn't come as a surprise to you?


The scariest part is that this tactic seems to work pretty well on otherwise intelligent people to! Take Bush and Obama. Rhetoric as different as night and day. Yet overall the things that happened under their reigns were very , very similar.

Actually quite different but whatever.


People literally defended actions of Bush's and then wailed about Obama taking the SAME action! And vice versa! Until the voters regain the capacity to translate free thought into votes we are screwed.
Translate free thought into votes...like you do, huh donttread? :rolleyes:

[Tahuyaman]

You can't get blood from a stone. Any real recovery in America was dependent on global recovery....

Actually you have that backwards. The US has the strongest economy in the world. Once we start a solid recovery, the rest of the world can benefit.

[Dr. Who]

Actually you have that backwards. The US has the strongest economy in the world. Once we start a solid recovery, the rest of the world can benefit.
I think you are living in the past. The US may have the strongest economy, but it's not the only game in town. The world isn't only trading with the US and the US is now equally dependent on the success of other markets.

[Tahuyaman]

I think you are living in the past. The US may have the strongest economy, but it's not the only game in town. The world isn't only trading with the US and the US is now equally dependent on the success of other markets.The US has the most influential economy in the world. Period. That was the same situation when Obama was the POTUS too.

[ripmeister]

The US has the most influential economy in the world. Period. That was the same situation when Obama was the POTUS too.
This is true but that influence may be waning. TPP is a perfect example. All those other countries are continuing sans the US and "Giiina" is stepping into the void created but Trumps misguided withdrawal.

[Dr. Who]

The US has the most influential economy in the world. Period. That was the same situation when Obama was the POTUS too.
There are 7.44 billion people in the world and 300 million in the US. Do the math. The entire world is not utterly dependent on trade with America. Industries have been growing around the world that compete with American industries. Furthermore, many of the industries that you claim as American are actually now global industries. They will just move production to other factories in the world and continue to fulfil their contracts. It's the little guys and mid-sized businesses that are going to take the hit. I'm sure that there are production facilities in Europe, Canada, South America, Mexico and China that can pick up the slack if this nonsense is protracted. Those US industries hit by tariffs that are primarily dependent on sales outside of America may not survive a protracted trade war.

[Tahuyaman]

There are 7.44 billion people in the world and 300 million in the US. Do the math. The entire world is not utterly dependent on trade with America. Industries have been growing around the world that compete with American industries. Furthermore, many of the industries that you claim as American are actually now global industries. They will just move production to other factories in the world and continue to fulfil their contracts. It's the little guys and mid-sized businesses that are going to take the hit. I'm sure that there are production facilities in Europe, Canada, South America, Mexico and China that can pick up the slack if this nonsense is protracted. Those US industries hit by tariffs that are primarily dependent on sales outside of America may not survive a protracted trade war.

You do not understand how economics works. You have no idea how the US economy influences the rest of the world.

[Tahuyaman]

This is true but that influence may be waning. TPP is a perfect example. All those other countries are continuing sans the US and "Giiina" is stepping into the void created but Trumps misguided withdrawal.
Our economic influence is not waning. In fact it’s strengthening.

[Dr. Who]

You do not understand how economics works. You have no idea how the US economy influences the rest of the world.
That's why the farmers are in a bad way. That's why all manner of industries including the auto industry are very worried. Unlike you, they know that they are sourcing parts outside of America and that is going to increase the cost of their products and result in reduced sales.

[Tahuyaman]

That's why the farmers are in a bad way. That's why all manner of industries including the auto industry are very worried. Unlike you, they know that they are sourcing parts outside of America and that is going to increase the cost of their products and result in reduced sales.
Having the most powerful and influential economy in the world doesn’t mean everything is butterflies and unicorns in every sector of the American economy.

[Dr. Who]

Having the most powerful and influential economy in the world doesn’t mean everything is butterflies and unicorns in every sector of the American economy.

Given that 50% of the U.S government's enormous public debt is held by foreign countries and with globalization rapidly advancing growth among developing nations, how credible is it that a country with less than 5% of the world population will indefinitely retain its economic primacy in the world? We are speeding into an era of multipolarity in terms of economic influence. The wrong move could set a chain of events in motion that could bring about the future sooner than later.

[Tahuyaman]

Oh brother. UNCLE. I give up.

If one refuses to acknowledge that the US has the most powerful and influential economy in the world, there nothing left to discus.

[Dr. Who]

Oh brother. UNCLE. I give up.

If one refuses to acknowledge that the US has the most powerful and influential economy in the world, there nothing left to discus.
As the Brits discovered in the 1930's, these things can change very rapidly and suddenly there is a new top dog in town. The world is a very different place than it used to be and change is happening much faster than it did in the past. Arrogance is a mistake.

[rcfieldz]

And the show goes on...

[rcfieldz]

24013
bros...

[El Guapo]

TDS Road map:



























https://i.imgur.com/7FheHab.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

As the Brits discovered in the 1930's, these things can change very rapidly and suddenly there is a new top dog in town. The world is a very different place than it used to be and change is happening much faster than it did in the past. Arrogance is a mistake.

Well, it hasn't changed since the 1930's. The US economy has been the economic engine of the world for several generations. That's not arrogance, that's reality.

[MisterVeritis]

As the Brits discovered in the 1930's, these things can change very rapidly and suddenly there is a new top dog in town. The world is a very different place than it used to be and change is happening much faster than it did in the past. Arrogance is a mistake.
The British embraced socialism during WWI. In my opinion socialism doomed them.

[Tahuyaman]

24013
bros...

I'm not sure why the partisan Democrat types continue with this meme. Based on Trump's actions as POTUS there's no evidence that Trump is in Putin's corner. In fact it's just the opposite.

[Hoosier8]

I'm not sure why the partisan Democrat types continue with this meme. Based on Trump's actions as POTUS there's no evidence that Trump is in Putin's corner. In fact it's just the opposite.

Hey, sanity need not apply at the door of TDS.

[Tahuyaman]

Hey, sanity need not apply at the door of TDS.

A lack of sanity is as good of an explanation as any.

[Green Arrow]

You do realize that's all entirely based upon your feelings. It's emotional, about the man, and not empirical, about his policies. That is precisely what TDS is.
Character matters to some of us. I don’t care if a candidate agrees with me 100%, if they have shitty character I won’t support them.

[Chris]

Character matters to some of us. I don’t care if a candidate agrees with me 100%, if they have shitty character I won’t support them.

Sure it does. I don't like the man but focus on his policies. But here, for those with TDS, character, or, rather, personality is the only thing, and it's not based on knowing anything about the man, but imagining it, feeling it must be true.

[Green Arrow]

Sure it does. I don't like the man but focus on his policies. But here, for those with TDS, character, or, rather, personality is the only thing, and it's not based on knowing anything about the man, but imagining it, feeling it must be true.

Nah man, character is way more important than policies. Take Hillary, for example. If she told you that she would do everything you want her to do, but she had a terrible character, how could you trust her to make good on her promises? I’d vote for someone I disagreed with 100% but had good character a hundred times before I voted for someone that agreed with me 100% but had bad character.

You just can’t separate the two. Bad character makes policy irrelevant.

[Chris]

Nah man, character is way more important than policies. Take Hillary, for example. If she told you that she would do everything you want her to do, but she had a terrible character, how could you trust her to make good on her promises? I’d vote for someone I disagreed with 100% but had good character a hundred times before I voted for someone that agreed with me 100% but had bad character.

You just can’t separate the two. Bad character makes policy irrelevant.


I appreciate that that's your way of deciding. It's not mine. Why? Because you don't see Trump, you see what his handlers present to you. Ditto Hillary, whom I dislike for the policy promises she made.

[Green Arrow]

I appreciate that that's your way of deciding. It's not mine. Why? Because you don't see Trump, you see what his handlers present to you. Ditto Hillary, whom I dislike for the policy promises she made.
I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t think his or her handlers can be divorced from them. If his handlers make him seem like a lying, cheating scuzzball, he needs to fire those handlers and get new ones. Ditto for Hellary. The problem is Trump himself is saying and doing this stuff often against the advise of his own people, how can I turn around and blame that on anyone other than Trump himself?

[Chris]

I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t think his or her handlers can be divorced from them. If his handlers make him seem like a lying, cheating scuzzball, he needs to fire those handlers and get new ones. Ditto for Hellary. The problem is Trump himself is saying and doing this stuff often against the advise of his own people, how can I turn around and blame that on anyone other than Trump himself?

Ah, well, my dislike of him personally is not for those reasons. It's mainly for the way he presents himself talking and tweeting. It's not the dignified manner most expect of a President. I can understand it to an extend, it throws people off, throws people into a tizzy, triggers people, and in effect distracts them.

Not sure how you would know in the case of any President if it's what his advisors and handlers want or not. All you see is presentation talking and tweeting.

Anyway, to me his personality matters much less than his policies, some of which I like, some of which I don't.

[ripmeister]

Our economic influence is not waning. In fact it’s strengthening.
If you say so.

[ripmeister]

Oh brother. UNCLE. I give up.

If one refuses to acknowledge that the US has the most powerful and influential economy in the world, there nothing left to discus.
I don't think anyone is arguing that, certainly not me. The point is the future and what it portends based on world demographics, emerging economies and the tack that the POTUS has taken with regard to a potential trade war.

[ripmeister]

24013
bros...
Now that's funny.

[ripmeister]

TDS Road map:
LOL! Good one too.


























https://i.imgur.com/7FheHab.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

If you say so.
The facts say so.

[ripmeister]

Sure it does. I don't like the man but focus on his policies. But here, for those with TDS, character, or, rather, personality is the only thing, and it's not based on knowing anything about the man, but imagining it, feeling it must be true.
Actually its based on the totality of his actions and words over many years. Focusing just on his policies seems to me be an end justifies the means position. I can't agree with that.

[Chris]

Actually its based on the totality of his actions and words over many years. Focusing just on his policies seems to me be an end justifies the means position. I can't agree with that.

I've never seen anyone who hates him cite those words and actions, perhaps interpretations of those, but not the actual words and actions.

[spunkloaf]

The facts say so.

What do you know about facts?

___Nothing.

[ripmeister]

I've never seen anyone who hates him cite those words and actions, perhaps interpretations of those, but not the actual words and actions.
Well I don't hate Trump. Hate is a very strong word. I do think he is fully incapable of being a good POTUS for the country. One example among many that told me all I needed to know about the man was that moment during the campaign when he was mocking the journalist who had the disability. Was it MS? I don't remember. That said a lot about the man (Trump) to me. There is a litany of other examples straight from the horses mouth that show a consistency for this type of behavior.

[Chris]

Well I don't hate Trump. Hate is a very strong word. I do think he is fully incapable of being a good POTUS for the country. One example among many that told me all I needed to know about the man was that moment during the campaign when he was mocking the journalist who had the disability. Was it MS? I don't remember. That said a lot about the man (Trump) to me. There is a litany of other examples straight from the horses mouth that show a consistency for this type of behavior.

Yea, he's uncouth, undignified--or I can imagine supporters saying spontaneous, off-the-cuff, triggering reactions.

I don't like him but don't think about it much.

Not all liberals suffer TDS, though many do.

[Hoosier8]

Well I don't hate Trump. Hate is a very strong word. I do think he is fully incapable of being a good POTUS for the country. One example among many that told me all I needed to know about the man was that moment during the campaign when he was mocking the journalist who had the disability. Was it MS? I don't remember. That said a lot about the man (Trump) to me. There is a litany of other examples straight from the horses mouth that show a consistency for this type of behavior.
Problem is he wasn't mocking him since there are videos of him doing the same motion for others. Again, another left wing creation for the hate factor.

[spunkloaf]

TDS is for conservatives, not liberals.:rollseyes:

[Chris]

TDS is for conservatives, not liberals.:rollseyes:

That has a name, it's called partisanship. It's been around for a long time, those who praise politicians simply because they're in the party they're partisan to. That was discussed many pages ago. Catch up!

[Chris]

Problem is he wasn't mocking him since there are videos of him doing the same motion for others. Again, another left wing creation for the hate factor.

So again, the words and actions are one thing, the liberal (media) interpretation another.

[Hoosier8]

So again, the words and actions are one thing, the liberal (media) interpretation another.
Oh, absolutely and one incident sticks in my mind back when Buchanan was running. CSPAN covered the whole lead up to a speech he was to give. The media covered only part of the speech.

That day Buchanan clearly had a severe cold which also led to some mannerisms during the speech.

The media claims that Buchanan choked on a question leading the audience to believe that he had trouble answering it when in fact it was his cold.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Well I don't hate Trump. Hate is a very strong word. I do think he is fully incapable of being a good POTUS for the country. One example among many that told me all I needed to know about the man was that moment during the campaign when he was mocking the journalist who had the disability. Was it MS? I don't remember. That said a lot about the man (Trump) to me. There is a litany of other examples straight from the horses mouth that show a consistency for this type of behavior.

You are wrong. This episode is out of context. It would be like holding Hillary unfit for office merely because she called half of the nation Deplorables.

[Tahuyaman]

What do you know about facts?

___Nothing.
Do you have any facts to offer in rebuttal?

[Tahuyaman]

Yea, he's uncouth, undignified--or I can imagine supporters saying spontaneous, off-the-cuff, triggering reactions.

I don't like him but don't think about it much.

Not all liberals suffer TDS, though many do.
He is all of those things, but his actions don’t mimick his words.

[Green Arrow]

Ah, well, my dislike of him personally is not for those reasons. It's mainly for the way he presents himself talking and tweeting. It's not the dignified manner most expect of a President. I can understand it to an extend, it throws people off, throws people into a tizzy, triggers people, and in effect distracts them.

Not sure how you would know in the case of any President if it's what his advisors and handlers want or not. All you see is presentation talking and tweeting.

Anyway, to me his personality matters much less than his policies, some of which I like, some of which I don't.

Fair enough. Your argument is sound.

[Green Arrow]

He is all of those things, but his actions don’t mimick his words.

So far they absolutely have.

[Chris]

He is all of those things, but his actions don’t mimick his words.

Right, his person/personality doesn't affect me the way his policies do.

[Tahuyaman]

Right, his person/personality doesn't affect me the way his policies do.
I often cringe at the things he says. Sometimes I laugh. I can only think of two of his actions off the top of my head that I opposed. The spending bill and the attack upon Syria. I also understand the reasoning behind both.

[Tahuyaman]

So far they absolutely have.
They have only in that he is keeping his campaign promises better than any recent president.


His actions are not as rash and off the cuff as his rhetoric.

[ripmeister]

Yea, he's uncouth, undignified--or I can imagine supporters saying spontaneous, off-the-cuff, triggering reactions.

I don't like him but don't think about it much.

Not all liberals suffer TDS, though many do.
Its more than being uncouth and/or undignified.

[ripmeister]

Problem is he wasn't mocking him since there are videos of him doing the same motion for others. Again, another left wing creation for the hate factor.

Huh? That's BS. The only creator regarding that event was Trump himself.

[ripmeister]

So again, the words and actions are one thing, the liberal (media) interpretation another.
I don't know about you but I certainly needed no media interpretation regarding that event. It was self-evident.

[ripmeister]

You are wrong. This episode is out of context. It would be like holding Hillary unfit for office merely because she called half of the nation Deplorables.
No, I'm not wrong. That incident was clear as day and I think Clinton suffered immensely for her comment, as she should have.

[Green Arrow]

They have only in that he is keeping his campaign promises better than any recent president.
That’s a load of horsepuckey.

His actions are not as rash and off the cuff as his rhetoric.
Also a load of horsepuckey.

[ripmeister]

They have only in that he is keeping his campaign promises better than any recent president.


His actions are not as rash and off the cuff as his rhetoric.
I doubt the young immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents would agree with that. That was an action that was rash, off the cuff and not very well thought out.

[Hoosier8]

Huh? That's BS. The only creator regarding that event was Trump himself.
I take it you believe all fake news.

[Hoosier8]

I doubt the young immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents would agree with that. That was an action that was rash, off the cuff and not very well thought out.

And started by Obama.

[Hoosier8]

No, I'm not wrong. That incident was clear as day and I think Clinton suffered immensely for her comment, as she should have.

Clinton insulted half the country. Trump only upsets the TDS.

[Tahuyaman]

I doubt the young immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents would agree with that. That was an action that was rash, off the cuff and not very well thought out.

I love how you cherry pick something which has been happening in past administration, but somehow ignore that. That's what blind hacks do.

[Tahuyaman]

And started by Obama.


I believe it happened during the Bush administration too.

[Tahuyaman]

That’s a load of horsepuckey.

Also a load of horsepuckey.


Of course you cite no facts to support that stupidity.

[ripmeister]

I take it you believe all fake news.
Nope, but I do believe what I see with my own eyes. Are you seriously denying the reality of the event that I mentioned? If so you are the one living in an alternative world, I guess one with those alternative facts the Kelly Anne mentioned.

[Green Arrow]

And started by Obama.

Actually, no, the specific problem in this instance was a directive issued by the Trump admin. It was based on a directive written during the Obama administration that Obama opted not to go further with. Trump resurrected it and rightly received backlash for it.

[ripmeister]

I love how you cherry pick something which has been happening in past administration, but somehow ignore that. That's what blind hacks do.
Not sure what you mean. If I understand you I chose one incident among many regarding Trump. That's not cherry picking.

[ripmeister]

And started by Obama.
Really? Dude, I've come to the conclusion that you live in La La land.

[ripmeister]

I believe it happened during the Bush administration too.
Cite something where Bush or Obama did forcible family separations like these done by Trump.

[Tahuyaman]

Cite something where Bush or Obama did forcible family separations like these done by Trump.. OK........
How you spin this will be humorous.


https://www.apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f

Origins of family separation issue stretch back many years

[Tahuyaman]

It's easy to destroy the liberal view.

[Green Arrow]

Clinton insulted half the country. Trump only upsets the TDS.

Trump insults anyone and everyone that even SLIGHTLY disagrees with him. That’s childish behavior.

[spunkloaf]

That has a name, it's called partisanship. It's been around for a long time, those who praise politicians simply because they're in the party they're partisan to. That was discussed many pages ago. Catch up!

Nope. TDS is a conservative thing.
And it is no longer "partisanship." That is like calling a nuclear explosion a camp fire. This is fucking tribalism. And it is totally derranged. People are willing to deny and protect and defend Trump no matter what comes out about him. And that is so fucked up.

[Tahuyaman]

Actually, no, the specific problem in this instance was a directive issued by the Trump admin. It was based on a directive written during the Obama administration that Obama opted not to go further with. Trump resurrected it and rightly received backlash for it.


Please get informed on the issues before you provide comment.

[Green Arrow]

Please get informed on the issues before you provide comment.

I am, but thanks for your input.

[Tahuyaman]

Nope. TDS is a conservative thing.
And it is no longer "partisanship." That is like calling a nuclear explosion a camp fire. This is $#@!ing tribalism. And it is totally derranged. People are willing to deny and protect and defend Trump no matter what comes out about him. And that is so $#@!ed up.Other than exo, are there any liberals out there who take the spunkster seriously?

[Tahuyaman]

I am, but thanks for your input.

Obviously you are completely uninformed on this subject. I posted a link which detailed the facts.

[ripmeister]

. OK........
How you spin this will be humorous.


https://www.apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f

Origins of family separation issue stretch back many years
Who implemented it? Who considered it but thought better?

[Hoosier8]

Nope. TDS is a conservative thing.
And it is no longer "partisanship." That is like calling a nuclear explosion a camp fire. This is $#@!ing tribalism. And it is totally derranged. People are willing to deny and protect and defend Trump no matter what comes out about him. And that is so $#@!ed up.

Ah, the ole Alinsky rule. Accuse your opponent of what you do.

[Tahuyaman]

Who implemented it? Who considered it but thought better?
You asked for a citation for when this happened during the Bush administration. I showed you that it happened during the previous two administration's.


Don't be a blind hack. Just admit that I was right.

[Green Arrow]

Obviously you are completely uninformed on this subject. I posted a link which detailed the facts.

Yes, and those facts agree with what I said. Did you read more than halfway through the article?

[Tahuyaman]

Yes, and those facts agree with what I said. Did you read more than halfway through the article? I have no idea what you said, because generally it isn't based on facts.

If you are claiming family separations did not hapoen during the previous two administrations, you have lost any remaining shred of credibilty you had left.

[Green Arrow]

I have no idea what you said, because generally it isn't based on facts.

If you are claiming family separations did not hapoen during the previous two administrations, you have lost any remaining shred of credibilty you had left.
I did not say that. I said that Trump’s admin instituted changes to existing policy that caused the current family separation crisis that everyone has been complaining about. A fact your own source confirms.

[Tahuyaman]

I did not say that. I said that Trump’s admin instituted changes to existing policy that caused the current family separation crisis that everyone has been complaining about. A fact your own source confirms.


There is a distinct difference between policy and law. Policy is not supposed to defy the law.

[Green Arrow]

There is a distinct difference between policy and law. Policy is not supposed to defy the law.

Actually, as far as implementation goes...not so much. Trump’s policy change was unnecessary and malicious, and leaving it the way it was did not defy law.

[MisterVeritis]

One example among many that told me all I needed to know about the man was that moment during the campaign when he was mocking the journalist who had the disability.
You were lied to about that. By now you should realize it.

[Tahuyaman]

Actually, as far as implementation goes...not so much. Trump’s policy change was unnecessary and malicious, and leaving it the way it was did not defy law.. Complying with the law is not malicious. If you don't approve of the law, advocate to change the law.

The Trump administration was complying to a federal court order.

[MisterVeritis]

Huh? That's BS. The only creator regarding that event was Trump himself.
You err.

[MisterVeritis]

No, I'm not wrong. That incident was clear as day...
Yes. You are wrong.

[MisterVeritis]

I doubt the young immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents would agree with that. That was an action that was rash, off the cuff and not very well thought out.
When American parents break the law, are captured and jailed do we send their children to jail with them?

[MisterVeritis]

Actually, no, the specific problem in this instance was a directive issued by the Trump admin. It was based on a directive written during the Obama administration that Obama opted not to go further with. Trump resurrected it and rightly received backlash for it.
Actually, yes. Sessions said we would follow the law as written.

[MisterVeritis]

Who implemented it? Who considered it but thought better?
I see you believe the Executive Branch should decide which laws it will enforce. Cool.

[MisterVeritis]

I did not say that. I said that Trump’s admin instituted changes to existing policy that caused the current family separation crisis that everyone has been complaining about. A fact your own source confirms.
The only change to policy was the change to following the law rather than ignoring it.

[Green Arrow]

The only change to policy was the change to following the law rather than ignoring it.
Incorrect. Read Tahuyaman’s article.

[Green Arrow]

Actually, yes. Sessions said we would follow the law as written.

No, he didn’t. Read Tahuyaman’s article.

[Green Arrow]

. Complying with the law is not malicious. If you don't approve of the law, advocate to change the law.

The Trump administration was complying to a federal court order.

Incorrect. Read your article. The policy directive changed the enforcement of that law in a way that was not demanded by that law.

[Tahuyaman]

Obviously someone doesn’t know the difference between policy and law.

[Green Arrow]

Obviously someone doesn’t know the difference between policy and law.
Just take your own advice earlier and admit you screwed up, save us both some time.

[Hoosier8]

Nope, but I do believe what I see with my own eyes. Are you seriously denying the reality of the event that I mentioned? If so you are the one living in an alternative world, I guess one with those alternative facts the Kelly Anne mentioned.

Like I said there is proof the it is a common gesture he uses so yes, you buy into the manufactured news.

[Hoosier8]

Actually, no, the specific problem in this instance was a directive issued by the Trump admin. It was based on a directive written during the Obama administration that Obama opted not to go further with. Trump resurrected it and rightly received backlash for it.
You mean following the laws dems voted for in Congress.

[Hoosier8]

Cite something where Bush or Obama did forcible family separations like these done by Trump.
LOL, you don’t remember the photos of kids in cages attributed to Trump but were taken in 2014?

[Hoosier8]

Trump insults anyone and everyone that even SLIGHTLY disagrees with him. That’s childish behavior.
Like I said, the TDS sufferers.

[spunkloaf]

Other than exo, are there any liberals out there who take the spunkster seriously?

Get on topic, please.

[Green Arrow]

You mean following the laws dems voted for in Congress.

Nope.

[Hoosier8]

Nope.

Oh, you mean the Obama admin didn’t administer the law which is the administration job.

[Green Arrow]

Oh, you mean the Obama admin didn’t administer the law which is the administration job.

Nope. I’ve been very clear about what I’m talking about.

[ripmeister]

You asked for a citation for when this happened during the Bush administration. I showed you that it happened during the previous two administration's.


Don't be a blind hack. Just admit that I was right.

Neither the Bush administration or the Obama administration separated families.

[ripmeister]

When American parents break the law, are captured and jailed do we send their children to jail with them?

False equivalency

[spunkloaf]

False equivalency
Exactly. Thank you.

[MisterVeritis]

When American parents break the law, are captured and jailed do we send their children to jail with them?

False equivalency
LOL. No, it isn't. The adult perp breaks our laws by invading our country. He or she is detained waiting for a hearing before a judge.

[Tahuyaman]

Neither the Bush administration or the Obama administration separated families.
So everyone is lying except for you.

[Tahuyaman]

Get on topic, please.
Shhh...

[spunkloaf]

Shhh...

You really ought to try a different role besides "troll."

[Tahuyaman]

Just take your own advice earlier and admit you screwed up, save us both some time.

Seriously, do you understand the difference between a law and a policy? That's not a trick question.

[Tahuyaman]

You really ought to try a different role besides "troll."

Really? Show me the last time you added something other than idiotic snark to any thread.

Now report that.

[spunkloaf]

Really? Show me the last time you added something other than idiotic snark to any thread.

Now report that.

Plenty. I started a non-political thread about space exploration. It got one reply.

Admit it. You love me when I'm bad.. When I'm good, nobody talks to me. So, this is how it's got to be, I guess.

[Tahuyaman]

Plenty. I started a non-political thread about space exploration. It got one reply.

Admit it. You love me when I'm bad.. When I'm good, nobody talks to me. So, this is how it's got to be, I guess.

so, you started a thread which everyone ignored and that's your example of adding substance to a discussion.

Okeedokee....

[nathanbforrest45]

Plenty. I started a non-political thread about space exploration. It got one reply.

Admit it. You love me when I'm bad.. When I'm good, nobody talks to me. So, this is how it's got to be, I guess.

It probably wasn't very interesting or accurate

[Tahuyaman]

It probably wasn't very interesting or accurate

It was probably a discussion on his favorite episode of Star Trek, Trouble with Tribbles.

[nathanbforrest45]

Another alternative explanation is bear in mind he said "space exploration", not out space exploration. Perhaps he was talking about the space found in most liberals brains.

[Hoosier8]

Nope. I’ve been very clear about what I’m talking about.

Yep, pretty clear you don’t know what you are talking about.

[Green Arrow]

Seriously, do you understand the difference between a law and a policy? That's not a trick question.

Yes, I do.

[Green Arrow]

Yep, pretty clear you don’t know what you are talking about.

Now if you could form that into a coherent argument instead of a pigeon flyby, we might get somewhere.

[Hoosier8]

Now if you could form that into a coherent argument instead of a pigeon flyby, we might get somewhere.

More projection.

[Tahuyaman]

More projection.


But it is kind of funny to watch him do that.