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

BubbleButt said:
1aer15.jpg
Click to expand...
Fucking a, he looks more and more creepier as time moves forward, making me suspect that he’s a low-key rapist.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Lizard Pope, Army Burger and 1 other person
ComeoutandJULAY said:
Urban Dictionary, of all places on the Internet, is pretty salty.
Click to expand...
The current top definition claims the term is a "weapon of the alt right," another definition claims it's something among opponents, yet another claims it's among supporters (the last two are a rewording of eachother), and there's still roughly an equal amount of downvotes and upvotes for each, in the thousands.

I still wonder why Orange Man is so controversial. Even Bush Jr. wasn't this divisive.
 
  • Agree
  • Autistic
Reactions: Little Dude, BScCollateral and Kinkshamer
Just Some Other Guy said:
Well you're not guilty of anything, unless it's proven you've done it or in some cases extremely likely you've done it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Totally.

Let's say I get accused of murdering someone tomorrow.

I will be presumed innocent, but if I come out and say "I've been proven innocent!" people will be correct to say "Uhh... no you haven't". If I had been proven innocent the accusation wouldn't be valid anymore, there'd be some evidence showing I did not commit the murder. This is different from never finding any evidence that I committed the murder, although in both cases the outcome would (or should) be the same.

The difference being, if there was evidence that I didn't commit the murder (Let's say I was spotted in public by multiple cameras and police body cams at the time) nobody could ever realistically claim I was the murderer. There's a piece of proof to point to, and say "See, I have been proven not to have done that!".

In the second case, if there only wasn't evidence that I did commit the murder, then a piece of evidence could conceivably be discovered in the future that proves me guilty.

So, my question was, has the russian collusion by trump been actually disproven, as the quoted tweet claimed, or has it simply not been proven? Now, I'm of the opinion that it's practically impossible to be proven innocent in this case, there's always another theoretical avenue and the accusations are not very specific. However, I want to reiterate that just because I don't believe he's been proven innocent, I don't think the "Russian Collusion" witchhunt is reasonable, as it's based on extremely flimsy reasoning in the first place, and it's been going on for two goddamn years.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Jill Kews, ConSluttant and 5 others
ToroidalBoat said:
The current top definition claims the term is a "weapon of the alt right," another definition claims it's something among opponents, yet another claims it's among supporters (the last two are a rewording of eachother), and there's still roughly an equal amount of downvotes and upvotes for each, in the thousands.

I still wonder why Orange Man is so controversial. Even Bush Jr. wasn't this divisive.
Click to expand...

Because Bush Jr took it like a bitch and didnt fight back. Trump fights back and thats unacceptable to the left.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Jill Kews, Lizard Pope and 22 others
ToroidalBoat said:
I still wonder why Orange Man is so controversial. Even Bush Jr. wasn't this divisive.
Click to expand...

A lot of reasons. A big one is that he's specifically not a member of the political class, he didn't take the same route to it that's accepted as the "right" path. Despite being a billionaire he's otherwise a "normal" person and normal people aren't supposed to become President, lawyers who kiss the right ass and shake the right hands and make the right backroom deals are supposed to become President. Hell that's probably one of the reasons they seem so certain that he must have "colluded" with Russia to get in there... everyone else in living memory sold their soul to someone to become President, they figure he must have as well and they're trying to figure out who.

Mr. Professional said:
Because Bush Jr took it like a bitch and didnt fight back. Trump fights back and thats unacceptable to the left.
Click to expand...

That too. The leftist power structure is built on the idea that they write the rulebook, only they are allowed to read the rulebook, and they don't actually have to follow the rulebook, with the Republicans just hanging their heads and going "Okay." Trump just said "lol no way fag" and did the same shit with his personal rulebook, and not only is he not playing by the left's arbitrary rules, he's inspiring other Republicans to find their balls as well, which is just super dangerous to their control.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Jill Kews, Lizard Pope and 25 others
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
Yeah. Totally.

Let's say I get accused of murdering someone tomorrow.

I will be presumed innocent, but if I come out and say "I've been proven innocent!" people will be correct to say "Uhh... no you haven't". If I had been proven innocent the accusation wouldn't be valid anymore, there'd be some evidence showing I did not commit the murder. This is different from never finding any evidence that I committed the murder, although in both cases the outcome would (or should) be the same.

The difference being, if there was evidence that I didn't commit the murder (Let's say I was spotted in public by multiple cameras and police body cams at the time) nobody could ever realistically claim I was the murderer. There's a piece of proof to point to, and say "See, I have been proven not to have done that!".

In the second case, if there only wasn't evidence that I did commit the murder, then a piece of evidence could conceivably be discovered in the future that proves me guilty.

So, my question was, has the russian collusion by trump been actually disproven, as the quoted tweet claimed, or has it simply not been proven? Now, I'm of the opinion that it's practically impossible to be proven innocent in this case, there's always another theoretical avenue and the accusations are not very specific. However, I want to reiterate that just because I don't believe he's been proven innocent, I don't think the "Russian Collusion" witchhunt is reasonable, as it's based on extremely flimsy reasoning in the first place, and it's been going on for two goddamn years.
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from. Your example sounds like you were accused of it and now are being tried for it. This Russia stuff hasn't even made it that far, so there's no "guilty" yet because there's nothing to present. So really it's all just a bunch of gossip and shouldn't hold any value whatsoever. But hey, human nature and all, we can't resist jumping on the train early.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Ravelord, Kinkshamer and 1 other person
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
Yeah. Totally.

Let's say I get accused of murdering someone tomorrow.

I will be presumed innocent, but if I come out and say "I've been proven innocent!" people will be correct to say "Uhh... no you haven't". If I had been proven innocent the accusation wouldn't be valid anymore, there'd be some evidence showing I did not commit the murder. This is different from never finding any evidence that I committed the murder, although in both cases the outcome would (or should) be the same.

The difference being, if there was evidence that I didn't commit the murder (Let's say I was spotted in public by multiple cameras and police body cams at the time) nobody could ever realistically claim I was the murderer. There's a piece of proof to point to, and say "See, I have been proven not to have done that!".

In the second case, if there only wasn't evidence that I did commit the murder, then a piece of evidence could conceivably be discovered in the future that proves me guilty.

So, my question was, has the russian collusion by trump been actually disproven, as the quoted tweet claimed, or has it simply not been proven? Now, I'm of the opinion that it's practically impossible to be proven innocent in this case, there's always another theoretical avenue and the accusations are not very specific. However, I want to reiterate that just because I don't believe he's been proven innocent, I don't think the "Russian Collusion" witchhunt is reasonable, as it's based on extremely flimsy reasoning in the first place, and it's been going on for two goddamn years.
Click to expand...

The only real trial happening there is in the court of public opinion, and everyone's already made up their mind. Preponderance of evidence and reasonable doubt aren't taken into account.


Jigglyjogglers said:
A lot of reasons. A big one is that he's specifically not a member of the political class, he didn't take the same route to it that's accepted as the "right" path. Despite being a billionaire he's otherwise a "normal" person and normal people aren't supposed to become President, lawyers who kiss the right ass and shake the right hands and make the right backroom deals are supposed to become President. Hell that's probably one of the reasons they seem so certain that he must have "colluded" with Russia to get in there... everyone else in living memory sold their soul to someone to become President, they figure he must have as well and they're trying to figure out who.
Click to expand...

He's definitely proven himself to be a threat to the status quo--which includes CNN apparently. In and of itself, this isn't necessarily a bad thing or a good thing.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vorhtbame, AnotherPleb and 2 others
Scrotus said:
Why does the entirety of the the 1970s when radical lefties were domestically bombing the shit out of everything on a near daily basis always get memory-holed?
Click to expand...

Because they were doing it for the right reasons! Fuck Nixon! Fuck the war! Fuck whitey! Fuck America!

Also, and not in this thread but in general, we now have reporters who attended Ivy League and top liberal public universities who were in elementary school during 9/11. They never learned much (if anything) about the '70s in school, and they certainly don't want to label Antifa as domestic terrorists.

I would love for a professor who lived through that shit to assign a book like Days of Rage and watch millennial brains explode...though it might just give them ideas.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Jill Kews, Lizard Pope and 23 others
rocknrollmartian said:
I would love for a professor who lived through that shit to assign a book like Days of Rage and watch millennial brains explode...though it might just give them ideas.
Click to expand...

Sure it would give them ideas, but they're already full of those. What it wouldn't do is give them the balls needed to take half the steps those groups did. Look at the antifags, so far that's the best they've got in terms of "revolutionaries." Those scrawny kids thought they could run about beating the shit out of people and no one was going to turn one of them into a vegetable, and look how well that worked out. Personally, I'd love to see a bunch of Twitter larpers blowing up their parents houses because they're trying to build explosives from internet recipes and the Anarchist Cookbook.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vorhtbame, greengrilledcheese and 11 others
Godzilla@1989 said:
Yuck.

I’m curious to ask this though. How big of a scandal would it be if there were revelations that Obama raped women while in office? Would it be a national crisis that crippled the Democrats?
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t be made nearly as big of a deal as a woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault that supposedly happened a few decades ago and that she has trouble recalling, or even Trump’s terrible crime of being recorded talking about how women are easy around rich guys. The Dems would also have the built-in defense that you’re racist if you assume the BLACK president is some sort of criminal.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Jill Kews, Vorhtbame and 18 others
Godzilla@1989 said:
Yuck.

I’m curious to ask this though. How big of a scandal would it be if there were revelations that Obama raped women while in office? Would it be a national crisis that crippled the Democrats?
Click to expand...

Dems and the media would just ignore it, downplay it, or completely dismiss it, just like they've done with pictures of kids in cages circa 2014 and all the other shit that Obama either initiated or perpetuated well before Trump.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vorhtbame, ConSluttant and 10 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back