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

Going back to our roots as a TDS thread for a moment,

View attachment 858551

I'd really like him to explain exactly how "a bunch of rich white people [convincing] a bunch of poor white people that poor brown people are bad" has kept Trump from being impeached. Like, the exact, actual A-to-B chain of events.

I somehow expect the answer would be "You are blocked from following @Mikel_Jollett or viewing @Mikel_Jollet's tweets."
 
I was waiting for this.


Mueller says that after Trump leaves office we can indict him? That would take too long, so lets just make a new rule that lets us indict him now.

Hey idiots, do you know why Trump has appointed the most amount of judges in history? Because you killed the filibuster rules during Obama's term to slam through legislation. You were warned then that that was a bad idea, but you ignored the warnings. Now the courts have been packed by the Republicans who used the rules you put in place.

It's called establishing precedence. If you do this to Trump, it will be brought down upon his successors 100-fold. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
 
It's called establishing precedence. If you do this to Trump, it will be brought down upon his successors 100-fold. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Hohoho, you just don't get it, foolish subject who is on the wrong side of history. You see, once Democrats are back in power, it will be forever! This time, the stupid, idiot, moronic, worthless American public will see that the Democrats are what is best for them, and the Republicans will never get a single vote ever again! That's why it's fine to give offices that could theoretically, I guess, hypothetically, not that they ever will, but supposedly potentially occupied by Republicans some day vast amounts of unrestricted power with no checks and balances. Because this time, this time the Democrats will rule forever!
 
Hohoho, you just don't get it, foolish subject who is on the wrong side of history.

"Wrong side of history" has increasingly become my least favorite phrase. Were the Romans on the wrong side of history when their cities were sacked and destroyed by tribesmen from beyond civilization? Was the Song dynasty on the wrong side of history when the Great Wall failed and the Mongols took over, barbaric raiders from the wild steppe?

Who gets to decide what the wrong side of history is? (Note: This is all rhetorical, and if you could find one person on Twitter who knows the relevance of the Dacian tribes to the current immigration debate, I would be shocked.)

To abuse Santayana: "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it, and those that know this quote are doomed to hear it a thousand times."
 
Hey idiots, do you know why Trump has appointed the most amount of judges in history? Because you killed the filibuster rules during Obama's term to slam through legislation. You were warned then that that was a bad idea, but you ignored the warnings. Now the courts have been packed by the Republicans who used the rules you put in place.
Speaking of appointing judges, Cocaine Mitch is going off this morning. Check out @senatecloakroom.
 
I was waiting for this.


Mueller says that after Trump leaves office we can indict him? That would take too long, so lets just make a new rule that lets us indict him now.

Hey idiots, do you know why Trump has appointed the most amount of judges in history? Because you killed the filibuster rules during Obama's term to slam through legislation. You were warned then that that was a bad idea, but you ignored the warnings. Now the courts have been packed by the Republicans who used the rules you put in place.

It's called establishing precedence. If you do this to Trump, it will be brought down upon his successors 100-fold. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

The number of people on Twitter and Reddit(which I visit for programming shit but never log in so I get a blast of insanity if I don't go straight to the sub) who don't understand why being able to indict a sitting president would disaster is impressive. These are people who cannot think beyond tomorrow which is why they so consistently vote Dem.

No matter they're back to the taxes anyway. Why are the cultural references these people use always so fucking dated?

858690
 
"That's what the report says." is just Mueller's dodge when asked if X Y or Z is thrown his way. It allows Mueller to avoid saying, "This is from a New York Times story, so who knows?" If Mueller was honest he would have said, "We put quotes from a NYT/WaPo/Buzzfeed article based on anonymous sources who made shit up wholesale. My team and I never investigated or discovered who these anonymous sources were, so we never interviewed them. I cannot vouch for any of the claims."

Instead, Mueller was just repeatedly asked by the Democrats, "Isn't this in your report? Doesn't your report say this?" which allows him to say, "Yes, that is in the report." They didn't ask if it was true, they didn't ask if it was investigated or vetted or verified, they only asked him if it was included in his report.

It's an absolute fucking farce and the entire Mueller report is nothing but hundreds of anonymously-sourced, bullshit articles from severely TDS-afflicted mainstream media outlets that he and he team completely failed to investigate. They just took every single one of these articles as if they were the gospel truth and smacked them into the "report" however they fucking pleased. They can word the bullshit as cleverly as they want but it's not difficult to see through it if you can rub your brain cells together for two minutes.

The Mueller Report is a partisan hack's op-ed. At best.
I would not be surprised if Mueller didn't do the report himself and had a bunch of people with an axe to grind do it for him. He just slapped his name on it. Pdf of the report https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html . I am reading it myself and the whole thing feels like a there is no evidence, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen type bs.
 
"Wrong side of history" has increasingly become my least favorite phrase. Were the Romans on the wrong side of history when their cities were sacked and destroyed by tribesmen from beyond civilization? Was the Song dynasty on the wrong side of history when the Great Wall failed and the Mongols took over, barbaric raiders from the wild steppe?

Who gets to decide what the wrong side of history is? (Note: This is all rhetorical, and if you could find one person on Twitter who knows the relevance of the Dacian tribes to the current immigration debate, I would be shocked.)

To abuse Santayana: "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it, and those that know this quote are doomed to hear it a thousand times."
I think the worst part about "The Right Side of History" is how meaningless it truly is.
Everyone thinks that their on the side of the angels and The Other Side is wrong.
The Nazis, the real ones that is, thought what they were doing was right.
So did the Confederates.
Even the Mongols or Timurids probably thought that their enemies totally deserved to be wiped out.
There is no overarching force guiding humanity to some predetermined endpoint. That's pure Whig History and it was dumb in the 18th century and it was dumb when Francis Fukuyama dredged it up at the end of the Cold War.
If you do believe in something like that then you should just find religion like a normal person instead of believing in pseudo-historical nonsense.
Although lets be real. The Right Side of History as practiced by the Left is just a nice way of saying "Ends Justify the Means.
 
The "official story" on Mueller is going to change a lot. It will not be that he was a tenacious and tireless War Hero Superhero Deity, but rather Mueller was an old coot who had lost a step or 20 and "delegated" too much to other people. Mueller was lazy, not up to snuff, "delegated" responsibilities to people like Andrew Weissman and Aaron Zebley.

The same "we leak it to you, you leak to us" backwash/Mockingbird press outfit, The New York Times, who might as well be called a co-author of the "Mueller Report," especially of Volume II, is selling Mueller out big time, as an old guy in over his head. Aw, take pity on him!


"Mueller kept noticeably shorter hours."
"He ceded major responsibilities to top deputies."
"Aaron Zebley managed day-to-day operations and often reported on the investigation's progress up the chain in the Justice Department."
"Mr. Mueller took part less and less."
Mueller had a "hands-off style"
A discussion if Mueller "was too old" could now be "ignited"
Did he "delegate too much" and was he "reluctant to testify, perhaps because he was not up to it?"

The calendars of one of the team's top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, suggest that he met infrequently with Mr. Mueller, except for daily 5 p.m. meeting, which typically lasted 45 minutes. Instead, the calendars cite Mr. Zebley's initials 111 times, often next to "team leader" meetings, suggesting he may have led them.

Hmm, somebody we never heard of until he insisted at being at the hearing, Aaron Zebley, was a "team leader." Are there any other obscure or unknown "team leaders" we should know about in the influential vein of Aaron Zebley?

If only there was a paper of record that could have at least floated the idea that Mueller wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips but rather was just a front-man getting led around by "team leaders?"

It was only a matter of time until the knives came out for Mueller. They eat their own. One day you're Christ, the next you ain't even chopped liver!
 
Russian bot, Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc etc etc...

Make no mistake if you voice anything short of raging hate for Trump you are the enemy.

It's a natural corollary of We Are All Already Decided. If all good and decent people have agreed on an issue, the only reason that someone would ever take any other stance is because they are evil. When SocJus tries to come up with a reason why people seem to oppose their obviously, uncontroversially good ideas and intentions, the answer they come up with is because the opposing side is knowingly and willingly rejecting them. The enemy is making a conscious choice to do evil, therefore they do not deserve sympathy, and the good people will ultimate be vindicated by history.
 
It's a natural corollary of We Are All Already Decided. If all good and decent people have agreed on an issue, the only reason that someone would ever take any other stance is because they are evil. When SocJus tries to come up with a reason why people seem to oppose their obviously, uncontroversially good ideas and intentions, the answer they come up with is because the opposing side is knowingly and willingly rejecting them. The enemy is making a conscious choice to do evil, therefore they do not deserve sympathy, and the good people will ultimate be vindicated by history.



The whole Russia story needs to end at the point fusion GPS sets up the trump tower meeting. The story really ends at that point and anybody else talking collusion or meddling is a fucking idiot after that because the meeting was a complete setup.

Here is what happened. The FBI sent out a bunch of people pretending to be russian agents (mifsud,helper) and then fed the results of meetings to the mister steele while he was writing his gay dossier.

Nothing but a CIA hit job. This is the sort of shit we do to 3rd world countries to overthrow governments.
 
I don't know if this belongs here or in the leftist memes thread, but here's a gem from our own Kiwi Farms "The_Donald" community watch thread:

More The_Donald autism incoming!

https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/cfl784/vote_vote_vote_2020/

2bd4x0je6gb31.png


I'm sure your Southern fanbase love being categorized as a one dimensional caricature, partner.

https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/cffyh4/hes_right_you_know/

rxy7tz590db31.jpg


They, and A&H, love to point out that "Obama built the cages for the illegals!" but Trump is doing nothing to FIX it. So much for getting rid of every Obama-era regulation. Not to mention they seem okay with letting children die and locked in cages regardless.

kvxpu543jfb31.jpg

Venezuela should be an example of why socialism AS A WHOLE wouldn't work, especially in a third world country. I wonder how the_Donald would react that America incorporates SOME aspects of socialism, such as the post office, public parks and the police department to name a few?

It includes all the greatest hits. "Children die in cages", "America is already socialist", Pretending to care about caricatures of southern people...

I mean, it's a tough time for the TDS inflicted left, but apparently this is how they're coping. It's fucking hilarious.

Here's some more funny stuff:

858933

You'll see I doxed myself here by revealing that I rated this post dumb, and probably by some hilarious thing embedded in this picture. I'm sure there's a better way to quote a post with the embedded quotes included, but I haven't found it.

The tax cuts were terrible. The illegal immigrant "camps" are super fucked up. The tariffs are a terrible idea and are going to really fuck us over down the line. Fucking up the EPA is also stupid. Denying climate change is going to kill a ton of people.

These are not worthy of jail, but they're things he's done that are incompetent.

They can literally vote no or filibuster. That's less embarrassing than storming out and claiming fake oppression points. I accept democrats have done this before after seeing this, so don't strawman. You should note the snall "i" symbols I put on those posts.

Now, think back to what they said. Democrats... in texas. Not Oregon, not the same group of people, only thing shared among them is the national party label of democrat.

Also holy fuck how dense are you. "Send in bachelors" means he didn't want married men put into bodybags which indicates he's willing to have his Vanilla ISIS buddies smoke some pigs.



^ this speaks the truth.
If I had a meltdown at my job and fled state with a bunch of goons body-guarding me while I mutter violent threats the cops would go full SWAT on my ass and I'd probably deserve it.
How many cops did those senators end up murdering anyway?

Actually though, that thread is pretty good about half the time, I had to search pretty far to find the most egregious examples. When they get pushed out of hugbox territory it's like a more left wing version of this thread, which is cool.

Now someone has to make a "Trump derangement derangement syndrome" thread to make fun of this.
 
Last edited:
The "official story" on Mueller is going to change a lot. It will not be that he was a tenacious and tireless War Hero Superhero Deity, but rather Mueller was an old coot who had lost a step or 20 and "delegated" too much to other people. Mueller was lazy, not up to snuff, "delegated" responsibilities to people like Andrew Weissman and Aaron Zebley.

Oh fuck, I just realize, what if they use turning on Mueller and declaring him incompetent as an excuse to say they need to appoint another special prosecutor and start all over again?

Could we really be in for them going all the way back to step one? Please tell me this couldn't happen, people.
 
It includes all the greatest hits. "Children die in cages", "America is already socialist", Pretending to care about caricatures of southern people...

The “America is already socialist because roads and parks” meme is so brain dead. By that standard the ancient Romans were socialist. Taxing the population for infrastructure and public services in order to benefit the people equally and as a whole isn’t socialist, it’s as old as civilization and centralized government. The reason why socialism is so hated by all freedom-loving people is that it doesn’t serve the public. It serves a permanent underclass client group and disincentives entrepreneurial endeavors. Libraries and parks are for everyone to enjoy*, regardless of how much you earn. The fire department is there to protect people’s private property, whether it’s a mansion or a ghetto apartment. It’s disingenuous to call that socialism and indicates that they know they can’t sell it to people based on what it actually is (crushing the middle class bourgeoisie to benefit the inner party, with some scraps left over for bums and illegal immigrants)

* - except for leftist shitholes where bums sit inside libraries and watch porn all day, and junkies get to set up camp in parks and leave their heroin needles in playgrounds
 
The “America is already socialist because roads and parks” meme is so brain dead. By that standard the ancient Romans were socialist. Taxing the population for infrastructure and public services in order to benefit the people equally and as a whole isn’t socialist, it’s as old as civilization and centralized government.
That type of argument is known as a "motte and bailey". In this case, the socialist will argue for something absurd and extreme (nationalizing and fully funding trans surgeries, perhaps). When one objects, the socialist will reliably retreat to the motte of a very defensible stance: "I'm just talking about funding public goods like roads and fire departments! What are you, an extremist? Do you want us to burn in our beds?" When one demurs, they go right back to dancing in the bailey of free trans surgery.

I cannot see how these people think themselves honest. I don't think they care about that, actually. What they seem to want is power, the power to force their vision of the world upon others, and they don't care how they get it.

And then they wonder why they got Trump.
 
Back