Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Impenitent]

burning cities is mostly peaceful

-Imp

I need a hint

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-panne ... nosha-fire

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/minne ... bc-burning

https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-re ... itol-riots

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

...I am neither judge nor jury and find the accused innocent until proven guilty...

Are you applying that principle equally to Trump, Clinton and Biden?

If so, then Trump has no convictions, in your mind? So you're going to hold him innocent?

You're very trusting. I'm less certain of the rectitude of public politicians than you are, and would like to know the truth about that. Sexual misconduct is notoriously difficult to confirm, so lack of evidence is not always innocence. Legal status is one thing; public confidence in an elected official is not morally bound to follow jurisprudence. A man ought not to give opportunity for allegations. If he does, that's already evidence of bad judgment. All that remains to be confirmed is just how bad it was...a lapse in judgment or a serious crime.

But I think that there are credible allegations and not-credible ones. Lewinsky's allegations are, of course, proved...even though Clinton lied directly to the public about them. Likewise the allegations by Flowers have been admitted by Clinton himself; and Jones was also paid out. We known Clinton had at least 17 Epstein trips, too. And if that's related to Epstein's activities, we're looking at child rape. Since that information is clearly being suppressed by somebody, we may not ever know about all that. Still, I wouldn't vote for anybody who went to Epstein Island. Period. As for Tara Reade, watch her interview, and see if you believe her. Such allegations should be met with either a confession or prosecution. If they are not, I want to know why.

The bottom line, though, is either you count all the allegations against Trump, and all those against Biden and Clinton, too. Or you count none for any of them.

How do you want to roll?

[commonsense]

burning cities is mostly peaceful

-Imp

I need a hint

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-panne ... nosha-fire

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/minne ... bc-burning

https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-re ... itol-riots

-Imp

Oh, like Niro might have played lullabies

[tillingborn]

...I am neither judge nor jury and find the accused innocent until proven guilty...

Are you applying that principle equally to Trump, Clinton and Biden?

If so, then Trump has no convictions, in your mind? So you're going to hold him innocent?

Yes.

You're very trusting. I'm less certain of the rectitude of public politicians than you are

You demonstrated that this is not true when you wrote this:

When you pillory one man for making frat-boy talk, and say nothing about his competitor who's an actual rapist?

Quite clearly you either do not treat allegations equally, or if you were genuinely unaware of the allegations against Trump, you don't treat sources of news equally. Have you taken the opportunity to look at the allegations?

As for Tara Reade, watch her interview, and see if you believe her. Such allegations should be met with either a confession or prosecution. If they are not, I want to know why.

For the simple reason that there hasn't been a trial.

The bottom line, though, is either you count all the allegations against Trump, and all those against Biden and Clinton, too. Or you count none for any of them.

Should I take it you now count all the allegations against all those men?

How do you want to roll?

I'll stick with the presumption of innocence.

[Immanuel Can]

...you either do not treat allegations equally, or if you were genuinely unaware of the allegations against Trump, you don't treat sources of news equally.

You get American news. I don't. I've heard nothing about the unprosecuted allegations. I heard only that he was accused of foul language. But there are as many allegations against Clinton, many now evidently true; and similar ones, in lesser amounts, on Biden, that nobody cares to investigate, for some reason.

As I said before, I don't care to defend Trump. Whether he is the next president or not is of no particular concern to me. I care to understand why so many Americans excuse, in the Democrats, the same or worse sins they claim to be horrified by in Trump.

That's what TDS is about.

As for Tara Reade, watch her interview, and see if you believe her. Such allegations should be met with either a confession or prosecution. If they are not, I want to know why.

For the simple reason that there hasn't been a trial.

There should be. Either Reade should be prosecuted and sued for slander, assuming that's what she's done, or Biden should be owning up. Those are the only two reasonable alternatives. Anything else is a fiddling with justice.

The bottom line, though, is either you count all the allegations against Trump, and all those against Biden and Clinton, too. Or you count none for any of them.

Should I take it you now count all the allegations against all those men?

I'm not a court. I'm not even an American voter. So I can think whatever I want. But I'm not essentially concerned about the specific allegations actually, because the crimes implicated by all are ordinarily prosecuted -- except in this case, the Left seems to get a total pass. Now, America says it's all about justice and fairness. What's interesting to me to know is why they allegedly only care about alleged justice when it's being applied to one side, Trump, and not to his rivals.

It's that imbalance that makes me curious what's going on in America. It's something new: a complete taking-over of the media and justice systems by one political side, it seems. Hatred from all of them against one candidate, and no particular concern about others who are clearly doing at least similar things, and plausibly doing much worse.

That needs a closer look. It indicates something. But strangely, nobody seems capable of balanced analysis...

[tillingborn]

As I said before, I don't care to defend Trump.

You clearly hold him to a different standard. Do you have an answer to my earlier question yet?

When you pillory one man for making frat-boy talk, and say nothing about his competitor who's an actual rapist? I think practically everbody would say that's an imbalance of values, at the very least.

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault. Neither have been convicted. On what grounds do you find one guilty and the other innocent?

[Immanuel Can]

As I said before, I don't care to defend Trump.

You clearly hold him to a different standard.

No, that's an assumption on your part. You won't find I've done that, anywhere. I'm made no defense of him.

Do you have an answer to my earlier question yet?

Sorry...I missed it...what's your question?

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault. Neither have been convicted. On what grounds do you find one guilty and the other innocent?

I did answer that.

I don't have to do so. I'm not a court. All I have to do is decide, based on the evidence available to me, what I think of each. And voters do the same; they form their opinions not based on what has been legally declared, but on the evidence of their eyes regarding the character of each candidate. So that's very ordinary. There's a longer answer earlier, too.

But let me put the question back to you, now that it's been answered...twice. If you will only accept what has been proved as a result of a court case, then of what do you count Trump guilty? And if you will step outside of that, and make a judgment on his character, as I do, then on what basis do you excuse the Democrats who have done worse?

[Sculptor]

As I said before, I don't care to defend Trump.

You clearly hold him to a different standard. Do you have an answer to my earlier question yet?

He loves and adores Sir Donald.
So he makes exceptions for him.

[tillingborn]

As I said before, I don't care to defend Trump.

You clearly hold him to a different standard.

No, that's an assumption on your part.

There is no assumption involved; these are your own words, Immanuel Can:

When you pillory one man for making frat-boy talk, and say nothing about his competitor who's an actual rapist?

All I have to do is decide, based on the evidence available to me, what I think of each. And voters do the same; they form their opinions not based on what has been legally declared, but on the evidence of their eyes regarding the character of each candidate. So that's very ordinary.

Yes, we all make judgements about people's character, but it is something else to call a man a rapist before he has been convicted. I watched an interview with Tara Reade, as you suggested, and although she accused Joe Biden of a sexual assault that is inexcusable if true, at no time did she accuse him of rape.

If you will only accept what has been proved as a result of a court case, then of what do you count Trump guilty?

I don't know that Trump is guilty of anything.

And if you will step outside of that, and make a judgment on his character, as I do, then on what basis do you excuse the Democrats who have done worse?

Nowhere have I excused "Democrats who have done worse" than Trump. You on the other hand believe, on the strength of your character assessment, that "his competitor" is "an actual rapist". He hasn't even been accused of rape. I think we're all learning something about your character, Immanuel Can.

[Immanuel Can]

You clearly hold him to a different standard.

No, that's an assumption on your part.

There is no assumption involved; these are your own words, Immanuel Can:

When you pillory one man for making frat-boy talk, and say nothing about his competitor who's an actual rapist?

I explained that. We know for a fact...both by impeachment and by subsequent confession, that Clinton is a serial sexual predator. No Democrat seems to care.

All I have heard, up to this point, about Trump in that regard is that he made frat-boy talk. They always mention that one, and mention it first. But every time they mention it, the Democrats go into spasms of horror.

And I just don't believe them. I don't believe they care about women. I don't believe they're horrified at Trump's line...they hear worse in the comedies they entertain themselves with, and about which they never complain. I don't believe they care about serial rape, either. They're not interested in the Epstein list (another Democrat), and they aren't prosecuting any Clintons. And they don't care how many girls Biden sniffs, pats or molests either. He's their boy...and he's not to be questioned. Even when he slides into manifest senility, they're going to back him...but only if he doesn't run again, apparently. Loyalty isn't really what they care about either.

I watched an interview with Tara Reade, as you suggested, and although she accused Joe Biden of a sexual assault that is inexcusable if true, at no time did she accuse him of rape.

Ah, so forcible, digital penetration is not "rape," in your world? Your reply reminds me of Bill Clinton, desperately trying to redefine "sexual relations" so that he wasn't caught.

Nowhere have I excused "Democrats who have done worse" than Trump.

Biden. Above. Clinton...no comment?

[commonsense]

...you either do not treat allegations equally, or if you were genuinely unaware of the allegations against Trump, you don't treat sources of news equally.

You get American news. I don't. I've heard nothing about the unprosecuted allegations. I heard only that he was accused of foul language. But there are as many allegations against Clinton, many now evidently true; and similar ones, in lesser amounts, on Biden, that nobody cares to investigate, for some reason.

As I said before, I don't care to defend Trump. Whether he is the next president or not is of no particular concern to me. I care to understand why so many Americans excuse, in the Democrats, the same or worse sins they claim to be horrified by in Trump.

That's what TDS is about.

As for Tara Reade, watch her interview, and see if you believe her. Such allegations should be met with either a confession or prosecution. If they are not, I want to know why.

For the simple reason that there hasn't been a trial.

There should be. Either Reade should be prosecuted and sued for slander, assuming that's what she's done, or Biden should be owning up. Those are the only two reasonable alternatives. Anything else is a fiddling with justice.

The bottom line, though, is either you count all the allegations against Trump, and all those against Biden and Clinton, too. Or you count none for any of them.

Should I take it you now count all the allegations against all those men?

I'm not a court. I'm not even an American voter. So I can think whatever I want. But I'm not essentially concerned about the specific allegations actually, because the crimes implicated by all are ordinarily prosecuted -- except in this case, the Left seems to get a total pass. Now, America says it's all about justice and fairness. What's interesting to me to know is why they allegedly only care about alleged justice when it's being applied to one side, Trump, and not to his rivals.

It's that imbalance that makes me curious what's going on in America. It's something new: a complete taking-over of the media and justice systems by one political side, it seems. Hatred from all of them against one candidate, and no particular concern about others who are clearly doing at least similar things, and plausibly doing much worse.

That needs a closer look. It indicates something. But strangely, nobody seems capable of balanced analysis...

You say that the Left gets a total pass, yet Trump got elected to the US Presidency despite what was known about his taxes, his charitable foundation and his biased housing practices.

Furthermore, to say that Trump was guilty of frat-boy talk is to overlook the content of his taped utterances which revealed a deep and dark misogyny.

Some Americans probably don’t like Trump because he’s a Conservative. Others probably because he’s immoral. That’s the final answer to your question of why there are those who don’t like him.

As for the idea that anyone with DTS might have an unbalanced opinion of Trump v Biden, there’s no such criticism of those who dislike him because he isn’t a Liberal—it’s perfectly understandable not to criticize anyone for favoring only one side of the political spectrum.

Likewise, there’s no need to criticize those who dislike him because he isn’t moral. If you must compare Trump to Biden, consider this: there are Americans who—for whatever, if any, reason—feel in their gut that Trump is consistently unethical without any redeeming qualities.

Your question about imbalanced venom has been answered by several here. If you cannot accept the answers given, or if you deny that anyone has given you an answer, please provide insight into what answers would satisfy you.

[Immanuel Can]

You say that the Left gets a total pass...

From the Left. From the screaming, poser banshees claiming that frat-boy talk signals definitively that a candidate is beyond the moral pale, while simultaneously caring nothing for actual sexual predations, so long as it's somebody on their side.

...a deep and dark misogyny.

Say something about Clinton's and Biden's for me, will ya?

...there’s no such criticism of those who dislike him because he isn’t a Liberal—it’s perfectly understandable not to criticize anyone for favoring only one side of the political spectrum.

Partisanship before morality, then?

...there are Americans who—for whatever, if any, reason—feel in their gut that Trump is consistently unethical without any redeeming qualities.

Feel? I don't suppose we can ask them for any justification then. For the Left, feelings are...er...trumps.

Your question about imbalanced venom has been answered by several here.

Ummm...nope.

Nobody's given a good reason why frat boys are worse than serial predators. But if you want to try, go ahead.

[commonsense]

Nobody's given a good reason why frat boys are worse than serial predators. But if you want to try, go ahead.

There isn’t one. It isn’t about reason.

As for Clinton, sexual affairs with willing participants who profess to be in love are not sexual assaults nor rapes.

As for Biden, there’s something wrong with him in regard to interactions with others, including an apparently misogyny.

[Immanuel Can]

I've got it.

The Left does not actually fear Trump. They want fear OF Trump.

Those two are very different. In the first, the cause of fear is proportional to the object invoked. In the second, it isn't. The first may plausibly be genuine; the second is merely strategic.

I think that the Left actually has no fear of Trump, as a person, as a former-Democrat, as a media clown, as a frat boy, or even as leader of the Republican Party. They don't think he's going to assault any more women -- and if he does, they wouldn't care, just as they wouldn't care about Clinton, Epstein on Biden on that score -- they don't actually think he's dangerous, or a terrorist-leader, or alt-right, or a threat to anybody. They have no more actual fear of him than they have of Mickey Mouse, another fabricated media figure with a big personality.

But they worry that he could become a rallying point for opposition to their agenda. And they would like to use him as a sort of poster-boy for evil, about which the can hold periodic Orwellian "Hate Week" rallies to direct attention and anger away from their own failures.

They need fear OF Trump, in order to mobilize their plans. They need to gin up terror where they actually feel none. They need their followers to be enraged and their enemies to be intimidated by the prospect of being called "racists" or "Nazis" merely for associating with the man. All this has political utility -- and the reason they're absolutely unconcerned about the much-worse pecadillos of their own candidates is that none of what they are doing is about that, or even about America.

I'm tempted to say it must be about global Socialism. That's part of it, for sure; but that's too simple. That's what the Dem Left certainly believes its about, but they're only partly right. I think it's more likely a combination of that, and of securing power and wealth for the Democrats, in manifest collusion with the media and big business. And in that game, Trump serves as the bogeyman. And they need one, because Socialism and Democrat administrations are utterly hopeless with economies, militaries, health care initiatives, agriculture, infrastructure, education, and everything else the public looks to them to do. A vile and dark enemy serves their purposes; it makes them into (comparative) angels of light. So long as there is a strong enemy, to which we can have strong antipathies, nobody needs notice the men moving about behind the curtain.

By being a person of questionable integrity himself, Trump may well have played into their game. No doubt, he has. But it was never about that, because they don't care about the evils done by Democrats. They use moral language...and a lot of it...but for them, it was never about morality at all, nor about women, nor even about racism, sexism, homophobia, transism...nor about the whole country. It was about themselves, their ambitions, projects and values. And it was about power...by any means necessary.

That's TDS. For the masses, it may be "derangment" indeed. But for the calculators, the schemers and the manipulators at the top, it's all very deliberate. One has to wonder if they have any morals at all...and all the more, because they are happy to trade so freely on moral language that they don't really believe in at all.

What staggers me is how completely the American public has gone for it. They really, really need to have read 1984.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody's given a good reason why frat boys are worse than serial predators. But if you want to try, go ahead.

There isn’t one. It isn’t about reason.

Absolutely right. And it isn't about morality either. Very likely, it's about power and advantage.

As for Clinton, sexual affairs with willing participants who profess to be in love are not sexual assaults nor rapes.

It's not predation when a man with immense power and charisma lures women and seduces them (was it behind his wife's back?), then destroys their lives and reputations? And is it bad when he stands and faces the camera, and lies through his teeth to the people who elected him? If he did no wrong, why was he not honest and frank, then?

But as the case is, we know Bill did much more. Flowers and Lewinsky were only two of many...some of them actually violent, allegedly (See Broaddrick: the details are too gross for me to repeat here.) And as for his 17 trips with Epstein, what do you make of that?

As for Biden, there’s something wrong with him in regard to interactions with others, including an apparently misogyny.

Yes, there is. Nobody can fail to see it now. One wonders for how long it's gone on. His problem now is clearly dementia...but is that his first problem? Given his treatment of women, most likely not.