Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TDS is an acronym and moniker used by Trump apologists and worshippers, who can't successfully defend criticism of their messiah, to attempt to deflect that criticism away from their messiah.
It's not in the DSM-5, and it's not going to be in the DSM-6.
"of their messiah," Sorry that title was already given to obama.
Not surprised you can't think of anything original!
TDS is an acronym and moniker used by Trump apologists and worshippers, who can't successfully defend criticism of their messiah, to attempt to deflect that criticism away from their messiah.
It's not in the DSM-5, and it's not going to be in the DSM-6.
Exactly. Just a cheap rhetorical tactic to avoid discussion.
bush was called a racist. romney was called a racist. mccain was called a racist. trump is called a racist.
the democratic party politicians and their surrogates call any republican who runs for president a racist and the democrats always will assert this fallacy.
Repeating that same old lie over and over and over and over does not make it true - not the first lie and not the 666,000,000,000,000th lie.
Yet that's what you are doing repeating the "same old lie[s] over and over and over again". And you seem to think that by doing so, it will be true.
As a woman, I can tell you for a fact that if I (or any hypothetical daughter I might have) had to choose between someone sniffing my hair without permission or someone kissing me and grabbing me by my private body parts without permission, I'd choose having my hair sniffed over having my vagina grabbed.
The above^^^is a perfect example of you twisting Trump's words. If you paid attention to his direct quote, he said that women let him grab them. He said nothing about going up to random women and doing that. I, for one, would never have let anyone sniff my daughter's hair when she was a child, let alone grab her.
You seem to be stuck in a very deep valley yourself. Just exactly what HAS Trump done over the course of 4 years which started with Republicans in control of the Executive Branch and both Legislative Branches and with the Republicans also getting a great start on controlling the Supreme Court in addition? Even in these last couple of years when Democrats regained the majority in the House, Republicans still held onto everything else. The country should be running like clockwork under Trump's extraordinary guidance combined with the GOP's continuing stranglehold on the Senate.
And? When Obama had control over both legislative branches, he didn't get his agenda passed, did he? There was no amnesty for illegals like he wanted. Do you even know why? It's because he didn't have a super majority.
Instead, we are still in the grip of a deadly pandemic. As of today, more than 187,000 Americans have died of the coronavirus with no end in sight. This is more deaths than in any other country in the entire world. At least Trump's refusal to take the coronavirus seriously and his trademark contempt for American science and medicine has resulted in one thing - WE'RE NUMBER ONE! Nobody dies off the way we do. Yay! Thanks, Trump.
It's utterly illogical to blame the pandemic on Trump when the entire world is dealing with it. For the umpteenth time, it's up to each state to handle their response to the virus. You and your ilk know darn well that if Trump tried to dictate what each state should do, you all would be screaming about that. As for COVID deaths, are you unaware that the numbers were recently adjusted? Do some research.
Then there's the current exciting summer of race riots, shootings by every group with guns from the police to the protesters to innocent and not so innocent bystanders. These days it's hard to tell the difference between the antifa and the alt.right and wealthy yuppies standing outside their mansions and waving semiautomatics at passing peaceful protesters.
Of course, Trump's underlying loyal base insist that it is the Democrats who are responsible for all the unrest, but the party which is actually in power and the President who (mis)leads it are jumping at any excuse they can find to absolve Trump and Co. from any responsibility for pouring fuel on the flames of racial injustice. The Democrats have long been the go to outfit for blame setting by Republican leaders eager to point the finger at anyone but themselves. And after all, Trump did say that, "There are good people on both sides."
Wrong! The rioting/looting/vandalizing is on the democrat leadership of each jurisdiction that allows it. it's laughable that you think democrats aren't pointing blame at republicans.
Another thing Trump has done is to take an economy that was booming when he first entered office and send employment, company earnings, and just about everything else in the economic sector in an entire new direction - that would be the one called "down."
You do realize that due to the pandemic, many businesses were forced to close. You do know this, correct?
There's just too much excitement for me these days. If Trump makes American life anymore exciting, I may just die of a heart attack. I want a president who has some integrity even if he is "sleepy" (which Biden isn't). I don't care about PC, I just want a country like the US used to be where every single night on the news, Americans didn't have to watch the reporting on the latest disaster because there wasn't a disaster every single day like there is now.
It's sad that you have allowed Trump to live in your head 24/7 and rent-free to boot.
I strongly disliked his predecessor so I paid as little attention to him as possible. It's a shame that you can't do that when it comes to Trump
I'm voting for Biden. Meanwhile, I'll see you in the unemployment line.
Are you saying that Biden's going to put you in the unemployment line? Then why vote for someone who will do that?
Now that I've had a chance to read through your rant, I was in a position to better respond to it.
What I hear most often for "proof" that Trump is a racist is that he said a few years back after the violent clash in Charlotte that there were good people on both sides of the issue. Since he didn't totally denounce the group which was made up of average citizens trying to preserve some history and some white supremacists that got all the news time Trump must be a racist.
^^^^^
This is one point (what Trump said) where I agree with Trump supporters rather than a huge percentage of people in the media who are lying. If you look at everything Trump said at that event, not just what many in the media want people to look at, it is evident that the "good people on both sides" = people on both sides of the statue debate, not the neo-nazis and white nationalists. He even specifically stated that he wasn't talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists and that they were to be condemned totally. I don't remember what the actual number was, but lets say (for the sake of argument) there were 75 people there whose side was that they didn't want the statues torn down and that they were otherwise unaffiliated (meaning NOT neo-nazis nor white nationalists). One could argue that those 75 people are terrible people for having that opinion and attempt to condemn Trump for calling those people good people. But the media did NOT attempt to do that and that is a separate matter/separate issue from what the media DID do, which was to lie and say that Trump was calling the neo-nazis and white nationalists good people. CNN host Michael Smerconish originally jumped on the bandwagon with fellow hosts. Then (as time would have it, after I had already done this) someone prompted him to look at the whole event, and he changed his view and now agrees that Trump was talking about the sides of the statue debate and was NOT calling the neo-nazis and white nationalists good people. (BTW, It was Charlottesville (VA), not Charlotte (NC)). My cynicism leads me to think that most of the people in the media who are claiming that Trump called the neo-nazis and white nationalists good people don't really believe that, they just don't want to give up that 'demonization opportunity' because they realize that trying to demonize Trump for siding with the 'average citizens', as you describe them, lacks political traction.
Quote:
With that logic we could say that all Democrats are anarchists that want to destroy America. If we look at a peaceful protest that turns ugly there are a percentage of people that stand back and watch the animals fight the Police and set fires. Are they good people that want intelligent change or do they all just really want to destroy?
If Trump is a racist then ALL Democrats are anarchists.
Nope.
Trump being a racist has nothing to do with the D party.
There are also quite a few reasons people have cited in this thread for Trump being racist that have nothing to do with the Charlottesville event.
I'll mention the two of those that I have already mentioned in this thread. In no particular order:
1. When he was a casino owner, he said he hated having black people count his money, and that he only wanted Jewish men (short men wearing yarmulkes was the actual verbiage) counting his money.
2. He's a birther (Obama happens to be a Democrat, but Trump being a birther isn't generalized to Democrats, it's specific to Obama....and no, that's not the same as with Harris. The people who are attempting to delegitimize Harris are saying a SCOTUS decision (Wong Kim Ark) should be disregarded).
^^^^^
This is one point (what Trump said) where I agree with Trump supporters rather than a huge percentage of people in the media who are lying. If you look at everything Trump said at that event, not just what many in the media want people to look at, it is evident that the "good people on both sides" = people on both sides of the statue debate, not the neo-nazis and white nationalists. He even specifically stated that he wasn't talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists and that they were to be condemned totally. I don't remember what the actual number was, but lets say (for the sake of argument) there were 75 people there whose side was that they didn't want the statues torn down and that they were otherwise unaffiliated (meaning NOT neo-nazis nor white nationalists). One could argue that those 75 people are terrible people for having that opinion and attempt to condemn Trump for calling those people good people. But the media did NOT attempt to do that and that is a separate matter/separate issue from what the media DID do, which was to lie and say that Trump was calling the neo-nazis and white nationalists good people. CNN host Michael Smerconish originally jumped on the bandwagon with fellow hosts. Then (as time would have it, after I had already done this) someone prompted him to look at the whole event, and he changed his view and now agrees that Trump was talking about the sides of the statue debate and was NOT calling the neo-nazis and white nationalists good people. (BTW, It was Charlottesville (VA), not Charlotte (NC)). My cynicism leads me to think that most of the people in the media who are claiming that Trump called the neo-nazis and white nationalists good people don't really believe that, they just don't want to give up that 'demonization opportunity' because they realize that trying to demonize Trump for siding with the 'average citizens', as you describe them, lacks political traction.
Nope.
Trump being a racist has nothing to do with the D party.
There are also quite a few reasons people have cited in this thread for Trump being racist that have nothing to do with the Charlottesville event.
I'll mention the two of those that I have already mentioned in this thread. In no particular order:
1. When he was a casino owner, he said he hated having black people count his money, and that he only wanted Jewish men (short men wearing yarmulkes was the actual verbiage) counting his money.
2. He's a birther (Obama happens to be a Democrat, but Trump being a birther isn't generalized to Democrats, it's specific to Obama....and no, that's not the same as with Harris. The people who are attempting to delegitimize Harris are saying a SCOTUS decision (Wong Kim Ark) should be disregarded).
I'm glad that there are people that are not buying the medias attempt to smear Trump with the Charlotteville Misquote but time and time again this is what people point to when asked for evidence that Trump is a racist. The media knew they were lying, knew that they would persuade people into believing the propaganda and of course any apologies or back tracking on the lie is done quietly when no one is listening.
I don't think your 2 examples paint him as a racist. We have to remember that people of Trump's generation had different thoughts of the races. People were conditioned to think of people in stereotypical fashion, think Archie Bunker or even Al Bundy plus many movies such as "Blazing Saddles". It was a different time and Trump was a private citizen.
If he really is a racist why would he allow himself to photographed over the decades shaking hands and hanging out with black celebrities? It is funny how Trump was just another white guy but when he got elected he turned into this horrible racist monster?
What does the Obama birther question have to do with proving he is a racist?
Given how President Trump has reached out to the Black community with prison reform, pardons, trying to protect minority groups from the scourge of illegal aliens and working on a great economy that had more people of colour working and more off welfare, if he is a racist he is the worse racist in history.
Branding someone a racist is a play right out of the Demoncrats book of tactics to win elections and people still fear it and the voters still fall for it.
"I'll directly knock the legs out from under', only in your dreams.
No need to dream, already done .
Quote:
".I'm 100% white." doesn't mean you can't be just as racist!
^^^^^
My points obviously completely went over your head, so I'll spell them out:
1. In that post, it was evident that you were trying to draw out what race r small is to make that an issue (to see if he's black, IMO), when what race r small is and what race I am (I mentioned that I'm white because I thought you were going to try to say...irrespective of what r small might say...that r small is black. IOW, I brought up my being white to illustrate that two people saying the same thing might be of different races...another way of saying that the race of the person doesn't matter, only what the person is saying matters.
2. Trump is either racist, with valid reasoning that people can articulate...or he isn't. It's the content of the critique/criticism of him that matters. The race of the person articulating that content is irrelevant.
3. I'll use a movie to help illustrate, beyond what people on this thread have already articulated, why some people say that Trump being a birther is racist. The movie is the 1967 movie Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Stanley Kramer and William Rose intentionally constructed, Sidney Poitier's character, as much as possible, to be perfect and to make the hurried decision necessary in order to try to make the only objection the parents could have to their daughter marrying Dr. Prentiss (Poitier) be race (Poitier black, and their daughter white) or that they had only known each other for ten days. The hurried decision would be to illustrate that if you claim to have principles (they brought their daughter up to believe in racial equality), and actually live those principles, then you don't need much, if any, time to think....you just act on them. At one fairly early point, the daughter brings up, essentially, that she is being consistent with the way she was raised. The parents don't disappoint, give their blessing, and their daughter is to leave an engaged woman looking forward to her future. The way that this movie relates to birtherism is that every argument that people can try to bring up about questioning Obama's birth can be (and has been in this thread by many people) refuted so that all that is left are the proverbial elephants in the room...the color of Obama's skin and questions about his religion. Some academics have lumped skin color and religion together in discussions about birtherism, refering to that as "Otherism".
^^^^^
My points obviously completely went over your head, so I'll spell them out:
1. In that post, it was evident that you were trying to draw out what race r small is to make that an issue (to see if he's black, IMO), when what race r small is and what race I am (I mentioned that I'm white because I thought you were going to try to say...irrespective of what r small might say...that r small is black. IOW, I brought up my being white to illustrate that two people saying the same thing might be of different races...another way of saying that the race of the person doesn't matter, only what the person is saying matters.
2. Trump is either racist, with valid reasoning that people can articulate...or he isn't. It's the content of the critique/criticism of him that matters. The race of the person articulating that content is irrelevant.
3. I'll use a movie to help illustrate, beyond what people on this thread have already articulated, why some people say that Trump being a birther is racist. The movie is the 1967 movie Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Stanley Kramer and William Rose intentionally constructed, Sidney Poitier's character, as much as possible, to be perfect and to make the hurried decision necessary in order to try to make the only objection the parents could have to their daughter marrying Dr. Prentiss (Poitier) be race (Poitier black, and their daughter white) or that they had only known each other for ten days. The hurried decision would be to illustrate that if you claim to have principles (they brought their daughter up to believe in racial equality), and actually live those principles, then you don't need much, if any, time to think....you just act on them. At one fairly early point, the daughter brings up, essentially, that she is being consistent with the way she was raised. The parents don't disappoint, give their blessing, and their daughter is to leave an engaged woman looking forward to her future. The way that this movie relates to birtherism is that every argument that people can try to bring up about questioning Obama's birth can be (and has been in this thread by many people) refuted so that all that is left are the proverbial elephants in the room...the color of Obama's skin and questions about his religion. Some academics have lumped skin color and religion together in discussions about birtherism, refering to that as "Otherism".
What's funny about this is that poster could have looked at my profile and seen that my ethnicity is "Scots/Irish", which most people would consider white. Meanwhile his profile gives no information about him at all. But I think I can guess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
