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

I mean its a step up from whats expected. I'm amazed that the blue checks aren't screaming something like "HOW CAN A DOCTOR HEAL SOMEONE THAT IS LITERALLY GOING TO KILL THOUSANDS! WHY ISN'T THE DOCTOR SMOTHERING TUMP WITH A PILLOW? REEEE #firethatdoctor #trumpbodydouble #coronafailedus"
I'm surprised that thry haven't gotten angry over Trump living because of high quality treatments that should "be for the people, and not for Orange Man".
 
I'm surprised that thry haven't gotten angry over Trump living because of high quality treatments that should "be for the people, and not for Orange Man".
Because they know that they'll get called out by their own privilege.

but don't pull this "buh duh Democrats who made duh KKK were really Republuhkuns" bullshit. Not when half the Democrats in congress were still there when the Democrats were voting against civil rights and demanding black kids trying to get into white schools have the dogs set on them.
I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying. I haven't claimed that the KKK were solely Republicans (not that it matters anyway, they're racist to begin with regardless of political affliction.)
You also claim you've been told all day that that Democrats were responsible for the Civil Rights act. That isn't true. You can look up the vote. Republicans supported it in Congress and democrats rejected it in congress.

You're absolutely right. As proven here.

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans. As the online Wall Street Journal so aptly subtitled Mr. Steele's article, "Trent Lott jeopardizes the very productive ideas his party stands for."

I said the Democrats TOOK CREDIT for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not that they were the ones to push it through alone. The credit alone was because Johnson, a Democrat, signed it into law with MLK's push for Blacks to vote him over Goldwater. That's partly the reason why Blacks always vote Democrat, and they know it. It's obviously more complicated than the barren explanation I'm given and I'm sure which can be interpreted a different way.

It breaks down every time you ask someone to define it, like here, where you've just spent multiple posts decrying the Republicans as the really real racists because party switch, but then just have to shrug and say "boomers" when I point out that none of the actual politicians switched.
But earlier you said:

Also pretty strange that somehow despite the "parties switching" supposedly via the voters "migrating", effectively none of the politicians actually switched. The only KKK members that left the Democratic party were the ones that died in office. So if the Democrats were the party of choice for racists, but then the racists were "courted" by the Republicans, seems like that still leaves all the old racist-appealing Democrats squarely in office. Like Biden.

It would be rather simple to just blame party affliction, and you'd have a valid point. But what you failed to mention is the voting demographic with baby boomers is substantially higher than any other age group in America. The baby boomer generation is old fashioned. Resistance to change in general, I'm not speaking for everybody in that demographic. The DNC is still trying to paint themselves as the moral guardian for minorities, while the RNC, while getting better, still has that fundamental religious group which was overshadowed by the war mongering past of Dubya and Jr.

It sounds like you're saying I'm denying the directions in which the Democrats are going today because I don't like Trump. That couldn't be further from the truth. History shouldn't be used as a crutch, but as a reference point of how and when things turned out the way they did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm surprised that thry haven't gotten angry over Trump living because of high quality treatments that should "be for the people, and not for Orange Man".
Well, you've earned your 🌈
EjcmgLjU8AALk0Z.jpeg
link / archive

Screenshot 2020-10-04 at 2.11.28 AM.png
 
Notice Nadine there isn't commenting on how the fucking Chinese went through every fucking store in America like goddamn locusts and shipped tons of PPE gear back to China before the flights were stopped, to the point where FB would suspend your account for taking a picture of some chain smoking Chinese bug-man at Lowes with EVERY FUCKING MASK IN THE STORE in his carts.

Oh, and I don't think she'd like Walter Reed as much as she thinks she would. Personally, I'd rather see the President go to a better hospital than Walter Reed, since it's still got a bad rep among people who have been sent there.

And I don't think she'd like experimental drugs as much as she thinks.
 
Not content to let a day go by without a SCANDAL, Internet sleuths inform us that Orange Man Black Sharpie is Bad.

Screenshot 2020-10-04 at 2.25.28 AM.pngScreenshot 2020-10-04 at 2.26.13 AM.png
Screenshot 2020-10-04 at 2.27.10 AM.pngScreenshot 2020-10-04 at 2.28.29 AM.png

I guess these zoom-and-enhance autists have never seen one of those famous meme images with Donald Trump holding up something he just signed with thick marker-like ink so that you can see it from far away.

trump sig 1.jpegTrump sig 2.jpg
trump sig 3.jpegtrump sig 4.jpeg

It's almost like he's got a background in media and professional wrestling, where you over-act and exaggerate everything you do so that people in the far seats can see what's going on.
 
The Rona is a prime example: his employees decided to change definition of COVID-19 deaths at the Federal so it would reach a higher mortality rate while also incentivizing hospitals and the general public to call any death COVID-19-related.

It would not shock me that 1)they purposely infected him and 2)had him take a treatment that was guaranteed to either incapacitate or kill him.
The idea someone purposefully tried making him sick is believable, that a team of doctors working together would all let a mistake through to kill him is less so. That seems like part of why they have a team of doctors at work, to prevent that kind of shit going down.

That's actually what I was looking for, the no-tie look. I figured he has two routes he could try: the "always formal I'm totally strong man" route to keep up appearances as if everything was 100% normal. Or a more low-key "OK I'm fighting it and it's tough but I'm still going" casual approach, something like Boris Johnson did, sitting down without his ever-present tie and talking straight.

That video shows he's going for the sympathetic, "all working through it" approach, which is good. Trying to bluff invincibility would be tempting fate, and it's a good image to put out after that debate.

In other TDS news, Orange Doctor Bad.

View attachment 1639418
View attachment 1639423

Here come those Unnamed Sources again!

View attachment 1639420
And appears Trump has the guy that prescribed him the HCQ that he'd heard good things about.

Given how much of a germaphobe Trump is they probably were taking things very seriously to keep Trump safe from any virus. There are stories of how people would fake a cough around Trump just so they'd be forced to leave the room, this isn't a man that would play games with a virus being called a horrific pandemic. So in the end, I'd guess there was a high chance someone at the White House purposefully tried infecting him and also that his doctors are loyal and trying to help him so he'll end up fine, especially since the dangers of the virus have been exaggerated. He probably wanted to go to the hospital to make sure if there was any sign of anything going wrong in the slightest that he'd be fine, versus Melania not being nearly as worried and being fine hanging back at home. Hell, the fact Melania held back probably is due to her viewing her husband as acting like a hypochondriac since if she thought he was really in danger of dying she'd likely want to be with him.
 
When and how did the Republican Party become simultaneously the most racist thing of existence AND the most cucked party system in America? I blame the precursors of the Religious Right and the racists that migrated after Johnson's victory.
It's a combination of Johnson sacrificing the South for the black vote via the passing the Civil Rights Act, combined with Nixon's big comeback and immediately demanding the GOP pivot FAST to steal the jetisoned southerner voting block before third party candidate and infamous Dixiecrat George Wallace could grab them to form a mammoth third party with them.

GOP basically sold their soul to secure the Dixiecrat voting block to ensure that Wallace was denied them, preventing the rise of a third party that could rival the Democrats and eclipse the GOP. For a lot of Republicans, this was the first cucking as they now had to cater to Dixiecrats in the South and basically cede the black vote to the Democrats and embrace a lot of conservative wingnut views held by the Dixiecrats.

When Nixon left office in disgrace, the GOP then had to find a way to resurrect their momentum and went after the religious right and ended up salvaging victory from the jaws of defeat in terms of being out of the White House for one term after Nixon and coming back with a 12 year stranglehold over the White House as well. Of course, for a lot of conservatives, this was one cucking they couldn't stand and you saw the Evangelicals and the Dixiecrats effectively seizing control over the Party as a result.
 
Crosspost but still relevant.

SNL unironically calling for Trump's death.
View attachment 1639676

Also, declared by Jim Carrey, notorious TDS sufferer and painter. Here is a sample of his work for those unfamiliar.
I literally don't get how that SNL skit was funny, came across as preachy especially with the music.
 
It's a combination of Johnson sacrificing the South for the black vote via the passing the Civil Rights Act, combined with Nixon's big comeback and immediately demanding the GOP pivot FAST to steal the jetisoned southerner voting block before third party candidate and infamous Dixiecrat George Wallace could grab them to form a mammoth third party with them.

GOP basically sold their soul to secure the Dixiecrat voting block to ensure that Wallace was denied them, preventing the rise of a third party that could rival the Democrats and eclipse the GOP. For a lot of Republicans, this was the first cucking as they now had to cater to Dixiecrats in the South and basically cede the black vote to the Democrats and embrace a lot of conservative wingnut views held by the Dixiecrats.

When Nixon left office in disgrace, the GOP then had to find a way to resurrect their momentum and went after the religious right and ended up salvaging victory from the jaws of defeat in terms of being out of the White House for one term after Nixon and coming back with a 12 year stranglehold over the White House as well. Of course, for a lot of conservatives, this was one cucking they couldn't stand and you saw the Evangelicals and the Dixiecrats effectively seizing control over the Party as a result.

That's a weird retelling of that history.

Nixon didn't stop Wallace at all, Wallace got 5 states in 1968 but got shot in 1972 in the middle of campaigning and dropped out. The Dixiecrats were already leaving the Democratic party because of its late 1960's liberalism--read some of their actual statements on why they switched. Blacks had been switching their votes to Democrats since FDR, because the New Deal benefited them economically. And the Democrats picked up the more conservative south whenever they ran a Southerner like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.

Reagan didn't spawn a new coalition of crazy religious people and wingnuts. Reagan had been a Buckley/National Review brand New Right conservative since the late 1950s, before the Civil Rights Act was ever written. He gave his Big Tent speech in 1967, when Nixon was still a failed candidate and was nowhere near the 1968 nomination. Relevant paragraphs for those who never read it:

The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a broad party.There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the divergence of views is one of our strengths.Let no one, however, interpret this to mean compromise of basic philosophy or that we will be all things to all people for political expediency.

In our tent will be found those who believe that government was created by We, the People; that government exists for the convenience of the people and we can give to government no power we do not possess as individuals; that the citizen does not earn to support the government, but supports a government so that he may be free to earn; that, because there can be no freedom without law and order, every act of government must be approved if it makes freedom more secure and disapproved if it offers security instead of freedom.

Within our tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over approach and method and even those we choose to implement our philosophy.Seldom, if ever, will we raise a cheer signifying unanimous approval of the decisions reached.But if our philosophy is to prevail, we must at least pledge unified support of the ultimate decision.Unity does not require unanimity of thought.


Yes, the Religious Right were in that tent during the 1980s, but not exclusively so. Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore, who led the moral crusades against video games and music respectively, were Democrats.

Bush Sr inherited the Reagan coalition, but it wasn't until Bush II that anyone devoutly Christian could only find a home in the Republican party. By that point, the reasons were completely disconnected from Johnson, Nixon, racism, etc.


I've done the full rant about the Southern Strategy myth elsewhere, but this is getting really off topic now.
 
That was me last year. This year has me at "liberals are evil or hold fundamental beliefs which allow them to be deceived by evil."

I think it's worse than that.

Conservatives think liberals are wrong.

Liberals think that they are inherently good, and thus anyone who disagrees with them must be inherently evil.

And if you think you're inherently good (no matter what you do) and anyone who disagrees or tries to stop you is inherently evil (no matter what they do), you're no better than a religious fundamentalist. Except the religion is self worshiping narcissism mixed with various flavors of radical Marxism.

You see this leak out at the edges of the lefty bubble sometimes. "You can't just not be racist, you must be actively anti-racist." "Silence is violence." "We're the party of Anti-Racism so our insane racist shit can't actually be racist."

It comes from another observation that's been made a few times.

Conservatives understand how Liberals think (but disagree with them)

Liberals have no fucking clue what Conservatives believe.
 
Last edited:
Not content to let a day go by without a SCANDAL, Internet sleuths inform us that Orange Man Black Sharpie is Bad.

View attachment 1639641View attachment 1639647
View attachment 1639649View attachment 1639651

I guess these zoom-and-enhance autists have never seen one of those famous meme images with Donald Trump holding up something he just signed with thick marker-like ink so that you can see it from far away.

View attachment 1639657View attachment 1639659
View attachment 1639660View attachment 1639661

It's almost like he's got a background in media and professional wrestling, where you over-act and exaggerate everything you do so that people in the far seats can see what's going on.

If they think a bill or order is only valid if Trump signs it with a blue ink ballpoint pen, they're in for a surprise. I am curious exactly what marker-pen he's using though, because it looks beautiful.
 
I guess these zoom-and-enhance autists have never seen one of those famous meme images with Donald Trump holding up something he just signed with thick marker-like ink so that you can see it from far away.
Oh no, they do. They just act intentionally fucking stupid at times to make up bullshit to complain about. It's apparently easier to do that than do something like mock how he has such an ego he needs a bolded pen or marker for his own name.

It's kind of amazing how stupid you tend to get when you focus and tard out on one guy.
 
More of them are jumping on the "Trump is faking it for sympathy" bandwagon now that it seems like he is getting better.
 
Back