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

Impeachment is set at two levels. For ex. The President. House can vote to impeach the President, which is essentially an indictment level process. It then moves on to the Senate, which actually tries the charges set forth by the House impeachment. Upon "conviction" which is 2/3s, it's then decided upon removal and or exclusion from running for office again. That's the basics.

That said, if the Dems impeach Trump in the House, it will be a purely political move, which is exactly the same thing that the Republicans did to Clinton when he was impeached. Never had a chance of being pushed through the Senate, but wanted to make a political statement by "impeaching the President". Which is funny, because if memory serves, Clinton's approval rating shot up to something absurd like 70% AFTER he was impeached. Will history follow the same course? Never can tell, but at least there is a precedent to follow.

Once it became apparent that Pelosi was self-aware to see that impeachment would HELP the Republicans/hurt the Democrats ala Clinton in 1998 and started stalling, the lunatic lefties who keep screeching "Impeach the motherfucker" started rewriting the narrative of the Clinton impeachment now that the old narrative long shilled by the lunatic left, was of no use to them and history rewritten to justify their evil.

1. The lunatic left now argue that Gingrich's losses in 1998 were not due to impeachment backlash but was a natural "course correction". IE the nation "had buyer's remorse" after 1994 brought about the GOP taking full control over Congress after decades in the minority; and that Gingrich's failure to solidify his super majority was a sign that "the nation was slowly wanting to restore Congress back to the Democrats"

2. That it didn't matter that impeachment blew up in Gingrich's face, because at the end of the day the GOP won the White House in 2000.

Of course, the later ignores the fact that the GOP cheated like motherfuckers to win THAT election complete with getting the Supreme Court to basically appoint Bush President. And the former is super fucking laughable, given how craven said revisionism is as one of the chief cornerstones of the left's version of the Clinton impeachment mythology is that Newt bet his entire career on impeachment giving him his fevered dream of a House and Senate super-majority which would have allowed him to pretty much run the country and launch his own dreams of a Presidential bid afterwords. And it backfiring on Newt to such a degree that the GOP ran him out of town on a rail and rendered him persona non grata for a decade.
 
Question, if someone doesn't like Trump but doesn't cave in to the TDS rabbit hole, does that make them a crypto-liberal?

I know some people would probably argue this, but I feel there's plenty of reasons for people not to like Trump other than TDS bullshit. Just curious about the userbase's opinion.

I mean, I'm a small-c conservative who typically votes Republican, and I don't "like" Trump. He's obnoxious and I can't pretend he doesn't say some stupid things sometimes.

Which doesn't mean I don't acknowledge he's done pretty well as president, given the confines of what the chimp house will let him do, judges all over the country blocking every move he makes, and an entire world media conspiracy trying to get him out of office.

I guess at the end of the day I'd rather have a president doing things I approve of and having some success, even if I dislike him as a person sometimes, than a president that seems ok as a person but is ineffective, or worse does things to the country I actively hate.

And all that having been said, I *dislike* Trump in some ways, but that doesn't mean I buy into the "Drumphf is a nawzee!" rhetoric. I don't think he's racist, either, or homophobic or anything else in particular. Mostly he's just a bit of a bombastic loudmouth, but I can't say that hasn't served him well over his life.
 
I mean, I'm a small-c conservative who typically votes Republican, and I don't "like" Trump. He's obnoxious and I can't pretend he doesn't say some stupid things sometimes.

Which doesn't mean I don't acknowledge he's done pretty well as president, given the confines of what the chimp house will let him do, judges all over the country blocking every move he makes, and an entire world media conspiracy trying to get him out of office.

I guess at the end of the day I'd rather have a president doing things I approve of and having some success, even if I dislike him as a person sometimes, than a president that seems ok as a person but is ineffective, or worse does things to the country I actively hate.

And all that having been said, I *dislike* Trump in some ways, but that doesn't mean I buy into the "Drumphf is a nawzee!" rhetoric. I don't think he's racist, either, or homophobic or anything else in particular. Mostly he's just a bit of a bombastic loudmouth, but I can't say that hasn't served him well over his life.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. People will just criticize you at the crack of a bat for not licking his dick at every moment.

I think he's a jackass and some will just go apeshit for me saying that.
 
112a69dea2440b07cc4ebad220a9d0f0.png


Oh my God he's actually going to get all of these people to defend West Baltimore. You guys didn't care when Bernie Sanders slammed on the placing during his 2016 bid, so I can only assume this newest outrage is every bit at hollow as the last. How the fuck does someone wake up every single day and go through the entire day angry at absolutely nothing? That has to be exhausting.
 
the GOP cheated like motherfuckers to win THAT election complete with getting the Supreme Court to basically appoint Bush President.

TIL stopping endless, illegal recounts of "oopsie accidentally missed ballots" using ever-shifting interpretation standards in a handful of blue counties until the Dems get the result they want = appointing a president.
 
TIL stopping endless, illegal recounts of "oopsie accidentally missed ballots" using ever-shifting interpretation standards in a handful of blue counties until the Dems get the result they want = appointing a president.
I'm amazed this still gets parroted so often.
Especially considering we just went through this again last year.
Anyone remember the endless Broward County nonsense in the Florida senate election? Or how about how many House races only went Dem after weeks of "recounting"?
Some of you have to recall considering how much discussion it got on here.
The same principle applies to the 2000 election.
Democrats have a real talent for "finding" new votes in recounts and therefore telling them to fuck off is the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Oh my God he's actually going to get all of these people to defend West Baltimore. You guys didn't care when Bernie Sanders slammed on the placing during his 2016 bid, so I can only assume this newest outrage is every bit at hollow as the last. How the fuck does someone wake up every single day and go through the entire day angry at absolutely nothing? That has to be exhausting.
This post got me curious, so I went looking for specific statistics about crime in Baltimore and comparing them to EU data. It's very interesting. Baltimore had 344 homicides in 2015 and 343 in 2017, which is roughly similar to Romania in 2012... Then you remember Baltimore has like 600 thousand people, while Romania is a 20 million nation which has since lowered its crime rates across the board. This homicide rate is on par with Venezuela.

I'm not sure how to make a comparison in terms of other categories of crime, because European stats as given by Eurostat are wildly divergent (for example, the robbery rate per 100.000 population is 166 in Belgium but only 8 in Hungary; is that really possible, or does it reflect a difference in classification methodology?), but either way the Baltimore numbers seem to go far beyond even the highest EU statistics (say, said robbery rate in Baltimore is 958 ). If there are many more places like that in the United States, I'm not sure if I want to know.

Edit:
oh yes please
 
Baltimore stands out even in the US as having a high crime rate.

I can't readily find crime rates specific to Elijah Cummings' district, but perhaps there is a reason for that,
And then one day, for no reason at all, the national spotlight was thrown over Baltimore. How many people honestly knew how bad it was there two days ago compared to how many people know today? They're about to get yet another long, hard demonstration of the Streisand Effect while they're leaping up onto their soap boxes to scream about the safety and diversity in a city utterly plagued with violence and political corruption.
 
Back