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

[Vorhtbame]

I've not seen a Trump hater acknowledging it yet.

Even when talking about that speech.
View attachment 879262

"Racist jihadis"

Mark, that's racist.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

The Obama era did make people start bashing white heterosexual men, so what’s your argument.

Seeing these retards sperg out to defend Obama makes me wonder if they actually knew that Obama was a worse president than Trump.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

"Obama didn't encourage violence"

Man just imagine what these fuckers would have done if Trump said "Punish your enemies" in a speech to a bunch of his supporters, they already claim to put Democrat House members on assassination watch every time he acknowledges their existence.

 

[It's HK-47]

I'm not particularly concerned about Red Flag laws. We already have people in this country who aren't allowed to own a gun or even think about owning a gun. We call them felons. Do you know why we don't allow them to own a gun? It's because they've demonstrably proven in the past that they can't be trusted with the responsibility and by arming them we're just guaranteeing that somewhere down the road, they're going to wind up hurting someone.

I remember in the 70's and 80's when hearing about a domestic assault turned fatal was a regular occurrence in the news, and most of the women involved were shot. Getting anti-stalking laws to pass took a long time, and most of the women waiting for a restraining order died before they received one, if the restraining order was even enforced against the boyfriend/husband/stalker once it had passed, anyways. There's nearly always plenty of evidence laying around where the deranged person is talking about hurting or killing someone. In the 70's and 80's they left notes, or ranted like a psychotic on answering machines, but now it's social media posts.

I can't begin tell you about how many times I'd read a story about some woman being stalked by a guy for years who stalked her around town, left notes detailing his obsession with her, and ranted on her answering machine about how he was going to kill her, how he'd just bought a gun, etc. When she turned up dead, it was never a mystery as to who did it. If someone has provided this mountain of "evidence" in audio recordings and social media posts detailing how fascinated he is with causing harm to someone else, why shouldn't that information be acted on? We already do it for felons, we already use that evidence for restraining orders, so why the fuck aren't we using it for Red Flag laws calling for a court hearing to see if this person should be allowed to carry a weapon?

Just look at the Parkland shooter. He was a clear-cut fucking psycho where the system repeatedly failed to bring a lunatic to heel who was all but screaming that he was going to kill someone, or the Sutherland Springs shooter, where the Air Force just never got around to notifying anyone that they'd dishonorably discharged him over severe mental issues. Neither of these people ever should have had the ability to purchase a firearm because it was as clear as crystal that someday they'd point that gun at innocent people and pull the trigger.

Trump also discussed mental health reform, but nobody paid any attention to that. They immediately latched onto the "Oh my God he's gonna' take my guns!" panic without stopping to think about what they were saying. We cannot continue to maintain the status quo. We have lunatics who are raising flag after flag after flag letting us know in absolutely undeniable terms that they are going to hurt someone, and we just continue to ignore it. Now that someone's stepped up onto the podium to start putting legitimate ideas forwards to present a solution to the problem, everyone suddenly gets cold feet.

Yet again: We already do this. We already restrict gun ownership to people who have been proven to be significantly violent in the past, so why aren't we restricting access to people who have demonstrated that they're willing to be significantly violent in the future, especially when they leave a massive trail of evidence in their wake that practically says word-for-word, "I am going to murder someone." We know they're going to hurt someone, they always do. They tell you that they're going to hurt someone.

We really need to start acting on people like the Parkland shooter before they become the Parkland shooter because it's not as though we don't receive ample warning ahead of time.

 

[thismanlies]

You know what I love about Poe's Law? You can't tell if they're joking or not.

Numerous fliers that say “death camps for Trump supporters now!!!” have been posted on street posts and parking meters in Patchogue, New York.
The fliers feature the threatening text in red and a stylized image of Trump’s face as a skeleton.
The fliers were “hanging across the street from Stanley’s Bedding Furniture on East Main Street, between Maple Avenue and North Ocean Avenue,” according to MSN News.

Ian Miles Cheong

✔@stillgray
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1158845018414522369

The Left wants to commit genocide on Trump supporters.


721
3:59 PM - Aug 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

650 people are talking about this




The photos were taken by a member of the Shock Theater collective, a group that lays on haunted house tours and horror scenarios, but the company said it was not responsible for creating or posting the fliers.
Suffolk County police said they weren’t alerted to the fliers, which now appear to have been removed.
Just remember; Love trumps hate!

 

[Vorhtbame]

I'm not particularly concerned about Red Flag laws. We already have people in this country who aren't allowed to own a gun or even think about owning a gun. We call them felons. Do you know why we don't allow them to own a gun? It's because they've demonstrably proven in the past that they can't be trusted with the responsibility and by arming them we're just guaranteeing that somewhere down the road, they're going to wind up hurting someone.

I remember in the 70's and 80's when hearing about a domestic assault turned fatal was a regular occurrence in the news, and most of the women involved were shot. Getting anti-stalking laws to pass took a long time, and most of the women waiting for a restraining order died before they received one, if the restraining order was even enforced against the boyfriend/husband/stalker once it had passed, anyways. There's nearly always plenty of evidence laying around where the deranged person is talking about hurting or killing someone. In the 70's and 80's they left notes, or ranted like a psychotic on answering machines, but now it's social media posts.

I can't begin tell you about how many times I'd read a story about some woman being stalked by a guy for years who stalked her around town, left notes detailing his obsession with her, and ranted on her answering machine about how he was going to kill her, how he'd just bought a gun, etc. When she turned up dead, it was never a mystery as to who did it. If someone has provided this mountain of "evidence" in audio recordings and social media posts detailing how fascinated he is with causing harm to someone else, why shouldn't that information be acted on? We already do it for felons, we already use that evidence for restraining orders, so why the fuck aren't we using it for Red Flag laws calling for a court hearing to see if this person should be allowed to carry a weapon?

Just look at the Parkland shooter. He was a clear-cut fucking psycho where the system repeatedly failed to bring a lunatic to heel who was all but screaming that he was going to kill someone, or the Sutherland Springs shooter, where the Air Force just never got around to notifying anyone that they'd dishonorably discharged him over severe mental issues. Neither of these people ever should have had the ability to purchase a firearm because it was as clear as crystal that someday they'd point that gun at innocent people and pull the trigger.

Trump also discussed mental health reform, but nobody paid any attention to that. They immediately latched onto the "Oh my God he's gonna' take my guns!" panic without stopping to think about what they were saying. We cannot continue to maintain the status quo. We have lunatics who are raising flag after flag after flag letting us know in absolutely undeniable terms that they are going to hurt someone, and we just continue to ignore it. Now that someone's stepped up onto the podium to start putting legitimate ideas forwards to present a solution to the problem, everyone suddenly gets cold feet.

Yet again: We already do this. We already restrict gun ownership to people who have been proven to be significantly violent in the past, so why aren't we restricting access to people who have demonstrated that they're willing to be significantly violent in the future, especially when they leave a massive trail of evidence in their wake that practically says word-for-word, "I am going to murder someone." We know they're going to hurt someone, they always do. They tell you that they're going to hurt someone.

We really need to start acting on people like the Parkland shooter before they become the Parkland shooter because it's not as though we don't receive ample warning ahead of time.

Talking about court action is great. The problem is that courts have to be asked to do something, and they have to be asked by someone who has a demonstrable interest in that something being done.

And then you have to abuse-proof it; otherwise, you're going to get a bunch of soft-shelled Tumblrinas trying to get people stripped of their Second Amendment rights because "he sent me an e-mail saying I deserved to be raped!" or "a person with creepy interests just followed me on all my social media". You know damn well they'd "innocently" use it to strong-arm people who upset them and force them into court proceedings for months--and meanwhile, the "defendant" has already been stripped temporarily of his rights because oh noes, he might be dangerous.

Oh, and don't forget that any time you give the government the power to do something, that "something" will always mutate until it only resembles the original something by accident.

Maybe it's just because I hate women and children, or because I'm a Nazi fascist who bitterly clings to her guns and Bible, that I oppose the idea of punishing people before they do something, but...I dunno, I think you should need something on the order of "this person lacks a legal threshold of agency" before you go and take away their fundamental rights.

 

[SmallTalk201]

You know what I love about Poe's Law? You can't tell if they 're joking or not

Either laugh at the world and tell jokes or have no sense of humor and become a joke

 

[Bad_Guys_are_Good4EVER]

Beto O'Rourke compares Trump rally to Nazi Germany in wake of El Paso shooting | Fox News

Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke compared President Trump's recent political rally in Greenville, N.C. to Nazi Germany Monday, and accused him of basking in hate and racism to instill fear in the American people.

www.foxnews.com

Here's Beto comparing Trump's El Paso rally to Hitler's Nazi Party. He of course is suffering from TDS and unfortunately there's no cure, except for common sense.

Which beg the question, who in the Democratic Party even has common sense?

 

[Ruin]

I'm always curious as to how Democrats think a forced confiscation on guns would go. There are plenty of liberal judges and police commissioners but statistically rank and file police officers and enlisted men and women tend to not be very friendly to leftist causes.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

I'm not particularly concerned about Red Flag laws. We already have people in this country who aren't allowed to own a gun or even think about owning a gun. We call them felons. Do you know why we don't allow them to own a gun? It's because they've demonstrably proven in the past that they can't be trusted with the responsibility and by arming them we're just guaranteeing that somewhere down the road, they're going to wind up hurting someone.

I remember in the 70's and 80's when hearing about a domestic assault turned fatal was a regular occurrence in the news, and most of the women involved were shot. Getting anti-stalking laws to pass took a long time, and most of the women waiting for a restraining order died before they received one, if the restraining order was even enforced against the boyfriend/husband/stalker once it had passed, anyways. There's nearly always plenty of evidence laying around where the deranged person is talking about hurting or killing someone. In the 70's and 80's they left notes, or ranted like a psychotic on answering machines, but now it's social media posts.

I can't begin tell you about how many times I'd read a story about some woman being stalked by a guy for years who stalked her around town, left notes detailing his obsession with her, and ranted on her answering machine about how he was going to kill her, how he'd just bought a gun, etc. When she turned up dead, it was never a mystery as to who did it. If someone has provided this mountain of "evidence" in audio recordings and social media posts detailing how fascinated he is with causing harm to someone else, why shouldn't that information be acted on? We already do it for felons, we already use that evidence for restraining orders, so why the fuck aren't we using it for Red Flag laws calling for a court hearing to see if this person should be allowed to carry a weapon?

Just look at the Parkland shooter. He was a clear-cut fucking psycho where the system repeatedly failed to bring a lunatic to heel who was all but screaming that he was going to kill someone, or the Sutherland Springs shooter, where the Air Force just never got around to notifying anyone that they'd dishonorably discharged him over severe mental issues. Neither of these people ever should have had the ability to purchase a firearm because it was as clear as crystal that someday they'd point that gun at innocent people and pull the trigger.

Trump also discussed mental health reform, but nobody paid any attention to that. They immediately latched onto the "Oh my God he's gonna' take my guns!" panic without stopping to think about what they were saying. We cannot continue to maintain the status quo. We have lunatics who are raising flag after flag after flag letting us know in absolutely undeniable terms that they are going to hurt someone, and we just continue to ignore it. Now that someone's stepped up onto the podium to start putting legitimate ideas forwards to present a solution to the problem, everyone suddenly gets cold feet.

Yet again: We already do this. We already restrict gun ownership to people who have been proven to be significantly violent in the past, so why aren't we restricting access to people who have demonstrated that they're willing to be significantly violent in the future, especially when they leave a massive trail of evidence in their wake that practically says word-for-word, "I am going to murder someone." We know they're going to hurt someone, they always do. They tell you that they're going to hurt someone.

We really need to start acting on people like the Parkland shooter before they become the Parkland shooter because it's not as though we don't receive ample warning ahead of time.

This is why the school system sucks right now. We have incompetent assholes who don’t take five minutes out of their time to listen to the potential dangers they might achieve.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

Beto O'Rourke compares Trump rally to Nazi Germany in wake of El Paso shooting | Fox News

Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke compared President Trump's recent political rally in Greenville, N.C. to Nazi Germany Monday, and accused him of basking in hate and racism to instill fear in the American people.

www.foxnews.com

Here's Beto comparing Trump's El Paso rally to Hitler's Nazi Party. He of course is suffering from TDS and unfortunately there's no cure, except for common sense.

Which beg the question, who in the Democratic Party even has common sense?

If they had common sense they'd have ditched the party and retired at this point.

 

[Vorhtbame]

I'm always curious as to how Democrats think a forced confiscation on guns would go. There are plenty of liberal judges and police commissioners but statistically rank and file police officers and enlisted men and women tend to not be very friendly to leftist causes.

Even if it doesn't result in the total disarmament of the population, it gives them an extra weapon to use against "problematic" people, like the fictional use of "resisting arrest" when someone says "But I'm innocent, you can't do this!"

 

[Nobunaga]

I'm always curious as to how Democrats think a forced confiscation on guns would go. There are plenty of liberal judges and police commissioners but statistically rank and file police officers and enlisted men and women tend to not be very friendly to leftist causes.

Waco 2.0: this time is personel

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

I'm not particularly concerned about Red Flag laws. We already have people in this country who aren't allowed to own a gun or even think about owning a gun. We call them felons. Do you know why we don't allow them to own a gun? It's because they've demonstrably proven in the past that they can't be trusted with the responsibility and by arming them we're just guaranteeing that somewhere down the road, they're going to wind up hurting someone.

I remember in the 70's and 80's when hearing about a domestic assault turned fatal was a regular occurrence in the news, and most of the women involved were shot. Getting anti-stalking laws to pass took a long time, and most of the women waiting for a restraining order died before they received one, if the restraining order was even enforced against the boyfriend/husband/stalker once it had passed, anyways. There's nearly always plenty of evidence laying around where the deranged person is talking about hurting or killing someone. In the 70's and 80's they left notes, or ranted like a psychotic on answering machines, but now it's social media posts.

I can't begin tell you about how many times I'd read a story about some woman being stalked by a guy for years who stalked her around town, left notes detailing his obsession with her, and ranted on her answering machine about how he was going to kill her, how he'd just bought a gun, etc. When she turned up dead, it was never a mystery as to who did it. If someone has provided this mountain of "evidence" in audio recordings and social media posts detailing how fascinated he is with causing harm to someone else, why shouldn't that information be acted on? We already do it for felons, we already use that evidence for restraining orders, so why the fuck aren't we using it for Red Flag laws calling for a court hearing to see if this person should be allowed to carry a weapon?

Just look at the Parkland shooter. He was a clear-cut fucking psycho where the system repeatedly failed to bring a lunatic to heel who was all but screaming that he was going to kill someone, or the Sutherland Springs shooter, where the Air Force just never got around to notifying anyone that they'd dishonorably discharged him over severe mental issues. Neither of these people ever should have had the ability to purchase a firearm because it was as clear as crystal that someday they'd point that gun at innocent people and pull the trigger.

Trump also discussed mental health reform, but nobody paid any attention to that. They immediately latched onto the "Oh my God he's gonna' take my guns!" panic without stopping to think about what they were saying. We cannot continue to maintain the status quo. We have lunatics who are raising flag after flag after flag letting us know in absolutely undeniable terms that they are going to hurt someone, and we just continue to ignore it. Now that someone's stepped up onto the podium to start putting legitimate ideas forwards to present a solution to the problem, everyone suddenly gets cold feet.

Yet again: We already do this. We already restrict gun ownership to people who have been proven to be significantly violent in the past, so why aren't we restricting access to people who have demonstrated that they're willing to be significantly violent in the future, especially when they leave a massive trail of evidence in their wake that practically says word-for-word, "I am going to murder someone." We know they're going to hurt someone, they always do. They tell you that they're going to hurt someone.

We really need to start acting on people like the Parkland shooter before they become the Parkland shooter because it's not as though we don't receive ample warning ahead of time.

I am going to say something controversial: I think those laws are wrong and are unconstitutional.
Someone already has died from the red flag law in Maryland because their house got raided at 5am and they had no idea what was going on.

I dunno, Trump has done a lot of good things such as Supreme Court picks and his efforts against Human trafficking, but I just can't support his efforts on gun control. I voted for Trump because I didn't want to even worry about gun control. And I know I am not the only one, if this does go forward there will be a lot of voters in places like the rust belt who might decide to just not vote after seeing they have no candidate that represents their interests on the second amendment.

Keep in mind I've always been a bit of a radical on the 2nd amendment, even when I was mostly a centrist years ago so take my words with a grain of salt.

 

[Flexo]

We cannot continue to maintain the status quo. We have lunatics who are raising flag after flag after flag letting us know in absolutely undeniable terms that they are going to hurt someone, and we just continue to ignore it. Now that someone's stepped up onto the podium to start putting legitimate ideas forwards to present a solution to the problem, everyone suddenly gets cold feet.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is holding up a lot of people is that the words you said right there are spoken by the left every day about a lot on the right. "He wants to cut taxes! He's going to lynch blacks!" (see: previous pages for examples)

Good idea? Sure, but how do we keep it from being abused and snatching up the innocent along with the guilty? How do we keep the Left from just declaring that someone having conservative beliefs are "letting us know in absolutely undeniable terms that they are going to hurt someone"?

Reminder: The Patriot act was an exactly similar effort to streamline interdepartment communication after the left hand failed to talk to the right hand about all the terrorism red flags it saw. How thrilled are we with it now? Will a similar effort to fix something mental health related work out just as "well"? I'd bet on a royal clusterfuck.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

If they had common sense they'd have ditched the party and retired at this point.

The Democrats are already eating each other apart with all of this in-fighting and growing left wing extremism within their own party. I don't know if we might be looking at a Whig situation with them down the road, but it's certainly a possibility with how they continue to snipe at each other and get more radical.

 

[It's HK-47]

Talking about court action is great. The problem is that courts have to be asked to do something, and they have to be asked by someone who has a demonstrable interest in that something being done.

And then you have to abuse-proof it; otherwise, you're going to get a bunch of soft-shelled Tumblrinas trying to get people stripped of their Second Amendment rights because "he sent me an e-mail saying I deserved to be raped!" or "a person with creepy interests just followed me on all my social media". You know damn well they'd "innocently" use it to strong-arm people who upset them and force them into court proceedings for months--and meanwhile, the "defendant" has already been stripped temporarily of his rights because oh noes, he might be dangerous.

Oh, and don't forget that any time you give the government the power to do something, that "something" will always mutate until it only resembles the original something by accident.

Maybe it's just because I hate women and children, or because I'm a Nazi fascist who bitterly clings to her guns and Bible, that I oppose the idea of punishing people before they do something, but...I dunno, I think you should need something on the order of "this person lacks a legal threshold of agency" before you go and take away their fundamental rights.

They already have the ability to legally fuck with you by making those same bogus claims in the courts, though. There are always going to be risks associated with enacting new laws, but a nationwide--Because some states already have them--Red Flag law would do nothing more than just add another layer to what already exists on background checks for purchasing firearms, or being allowed to own a firearm if it can be proven that you pose a significant threat to the safety of those around you. Every single mass shooter we've had for as far back as I can remember now could have easily been prevented had we the ability to restrain a clearly dangerous person before they did something violent.

When someone like these shooters demonstrably proves that they pose a significant risk to society--because they aren't just writing one email or posting one violence-alluding Tweet on social media--I have absolutely no qualms about pulling them into a court with the intent of proving the danger that they could pose, and restricting their access to firearms. I would love to hear an alternative, but as it stands I am not a fan of the current system where-in we can do nothing to put away a clearly psychotic person until after they've put a dozen people in the ground. There's the right to freedom and the right to bear arms, and then there's, "This person spent a decade telling us that he was going to kill people."

If someone came up to me day after day after day telling me about how they're going to rape people and skin them alive and kill them in an alley and crack their skull with a pipe and fill them full of buckshot, I wouldn't just shrug them off. I'd be taking that particularly seriously, and it's ridiculous that in our current legal system we have no way to meaningfully detain people like the Parkland shooter even after they've given us more than ample reason to believe that their endless, increasingly-hostile threats have merit.


We already revoke driver's licenses for drunk drivers based on the assumption that they will cause greater harm in the future, we already arrest people for specific threats of violence based on the assumption that they'll kill or injure that person in the future, so it's not as though a law exploring the options for removing firearms from people who make constant, increasingly-hostile threats wanders too far away from what we already do when it comes to preventing further harm by preempting a dangerous situation before that situation has a chance to occur.

I understand the concern, believe me, I hate the idea of sending any more power to the government than the government needs to have, but the status quo is not working when every single one of these mass shooters could have been readily and easily prevented had we been more preemptive in dealing with a person who is screaming about how much of a threat they pose to society, and any laws that want to be discussed concerning heading dangerous people off at the pass are laws that I'm very interested in hearing about, and that's assuming that he's even being serious about it in the first place and not just saying it to distract people.

Trump said he was going to crack down on violent videogames in the past, too. Can't help but notice that I can still play Mario Party without the FBI kicking my door in.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Attacking the voting public and endlessly harassing and insulting your constituents is not a winning strategy, and yet that's exactly what every single one of them has been doing every time they hop up onto a soap box and start hammering away at Trump, because what they've yet to understand is that by endlessly railing on Trump, they're also attacking every single person who ever voted for him or even considered voting for him.

To an extent couldn’t you say this about every opposition party to whoever the president is? I get that for Trump it sometimes goes a lot farther, but what do you expect them to do, say how great he’s doing (or Republicans to have said how great Obama was doing, Dems to say how great Bush was doing, etc). The opposition party has to oppose the elected president, that’s literally their job.

Granted, they’re doing a shit job of it, but still...

 

[AprilRains]

I'm not particularly concerned about Red Flag laws. We already have people in this country who aren't allowed to own a gun or even think about owning a gun.

It turns out it's harder than you'd think to stop them from getting one anyway.

Consider one of our cows, Ron Collins. He's been found guilty of buying a handgun when it was illegal for him to do so. This is because he had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital in the past. The thing is, they didn't put him in the database, so he passed the instant background check. (Part of his defense was that he thought this meant he was allowed to buy the gun.)

However, that was not all Ron had done. He had quite the checkered past!

• In 2006 he was indicted for assaulting a Federal officer and some other good folks from Veteran Affairs.
• In 2007 he was convicted of that stuff and also contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
• In 2013 he got busted for threatening a cop. That's when he got sent to the rubber Ramada.

Clearly it was illegal for this guy to buy a gun, and we had plenty of warning that he was a shitbird. Even so, it took the concerted efforts of several private citizens to convince the ATF to investigate Ron. They had to lobby the government to do its job, even though Ron put the evidence of his criminal purchase on goddamned YouTube.

I'm not contradicting you here, or at least that is not my intent. I agree that we need to enforce the laws we have before we imagine new ones into existence. If anything, I'm emphasizing that you're right, and that this requires actual effort and reform.

But why do that when we can make law-abiding gun owners eat shit?

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

To an extent couldn’t you say this about every opposition party to whoever the president is? I get that for Trump it sometimes goes a lot farther, but what do you expect them to do, say how great he’s doing (or Republicans to have said how great Obama was doing, Dems to say how great Bush was doing, etc). The opposition party has to oppose the elected president, that’s literally their job.

Granted, they’re doing a shit job of it, but still...

Republicans spent a lot of time during Obama's administration sitting down and shutting up. Now in my opinion they did entirely too much of that, but there is still a broad, broad range of options between "praising the opposition president constantly" and "sheer and utter derangement to the point that he can't even make a token statement of mourning without opposition representatives jumping down his throat and vagueposting that he's a Nazi".

Like, oh, I don't know... actually making distinct and elaborated-on criticisms of real policy? That could be a thing?