Today in Fascism
- Thread starter HĂĽsker DĂĽ
- Start date
You could listen to FoxNews all day long, absolutely devour it, but then, when you hear SLEAZEBAGS, like Congressman Ro Khanna, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” LIE, LIE, LIE, AND LIE AGAIN, without any pushback, or competent rebuttal from an anchor, in this case, Jacqui Heinrich, the entire Common Sense dialogue that has been going on all day at Fox is completely obliterated! Why would Fox put SCUM like this on, or others, such as Low Rated Bill Maher, who gains “credibility” by constant referral to him as though he were a Liberal source of “Wisdom,” or very Low IQ Hakeem Jeffries, who considers the Supreme Court “illegitimate,” and probably hates our Country. No matter how “Fair and Balanced” the day’s News at Fox may be, the end result is destroyed by professional Liars, Conmen, and Liberal, Crooked Politicians. This is why MAGA Republicans, who are actually close to 100% of the Party, hate Fox, despite the wonderful contributions made by so many of their great anchors and commentators. Hard to win Elections like this! President DONALD J. TRUMP
HĂĽsker DĂĽ
DA
One down . . .
HĂĽsker DĂĽ
DA
Now, for those of you who say people have TDS for criticizing Trump for bad policies and screwing up our country, let's take a look at real TDS.
(TDS) is often used as a rhetorical "get out of jail free" card—a way to dismiss any critique as irrational hysteria rather than engaging with the actual substance of the argument.
However, there is a compelling case to be made that the term has been flipped on its head. If "derangement" is defined as a break from reality or a loss of objective judgment, then the label may more accurately describe those who have abandoned their own lifelong principles to defend actions they would never tolerate in anyone else.
1. Criticism is Not "Derangement"—It’s Accountability
To suggest that criticizing a president’s policy is a "syndrome" is to pathologize the very foundation of democracy. In a healthy republic, citizens are supposed to be skeptical of power.
If a leader proposes tariffs that raise costs for working families, or alienates long-standing allies, questioning those moves isn't a mental lapse—it’s a civic duty.
Supporters often claim critics hate Trump's "personality" rather than his policies. This ignores the reality that for many, the personality is the policy—erratic behavior, public insults, and disregard for institutional norms have tangible consequences for national security and social stability.
2. The Real TDS:
The argument for flipping the definition of TDS rests on the idea that it is the defenders who exhibit symptoms of a "syndrome." This manifests as an inability to acknowledge any fault, no matter how documented or self-evident.
• The Double Standard: Many who claim to value "fiscal conservatism" or "family values" often ignore record-high deficits or personal conduct that would have disqualified any other politician in their eyes. This selective blindness is a hallmark of true derangement—the sacrifice of a moral compass for the sake of a personality.
When a leader does exactly what his supporters previously complained about—such as increasing government spending, using executive orders to bypass Congress, or "playing golf on the taxpayer's dime"—and those supporters pivot to defend it, they are operating in a reality-free zone.
The most common defense mechanism for those truly "afflicted" is projection. By accusing critics of being "deranged," supporters avoid having to defend the actual incompetence or policy failures being discussed.
• Deflection: When a valid criticism is raised about a specific policy failure, the response is often "What about [other politician]?" This shifts the focus from the current leader's competence to a perpetual state of grievance.
Real derangement is watching a leader fail to staff key government agencies or flip-flop on major national security issues, and then labeling that chaos as "4D chess."
So the question remains , Who is Actually "Deranged"?
FeatureThe Critic (Accused of TDS)The Defender (Actual TDS)Response to PolicyAnalyzes outcomes and compares them to historical standards.Defends the leader regardless of the outcome or contradiction.Standard of ConductExpects the same decorum and ethics from all leaders.Excuses behavior they would condemn in a political opponent.
Relationship to Truth Relies on documented facts, data, and institutional records.Relies on "alternative facts" or views any negative news as a "hoax."Core Loyalty loyal to the Constitution, the country, and personal principles.Loyal to the individual, even at the expense of previously held beliefs.
Ultimately, true "derangement" isn't found in those who demand excellence and accountability from the most powerful person in the world. It is found in those who have become so loyal to a single figure that they can no longer recognize when their own country—and their own values—are being undermined.
(TDS) is often used as a rhetorical "get out of jail free" card—a way to dismiss any critique as irrational hysteria rather than engaging with the actual substance of the argument.
However, there is a compelling case to be made that the term has been flipped on its head. If "derangement" is defined as a break from reality or a loss of objective judgment, then the label may more accurately describe those who have abandoned their own lifelong principles to defend actions they would never tolerate in anyone else.
1. Criticism is Not "Derangement"—It’s Accountability
To suggest that criticizing a president’s policy is a "syndrome" is to pathologize the very foundation of democracy. In a healthy republic, citizens are supposed to be skeptical of power.
If a leader proposes tariffs that raise costs for working families, or alienates long-standing allies, questioning those moves isn't a mental lapse—it’s a civic duty.
Supporters often claim critics hate Trump's "personality" rather than his policies. This ignores the reality that for many, the personality is the policy—erratic behavior, public insults, and disregard for institutional norms have tangible consequences for national security and social stability.
2. The Real TDS:
The argument for flipping the definition of TDS rests on the idea that it is the defenders who exhibit symptoms of a "syndrome." This manifests as an inability to acknowledge any fault, no matter how documented or self-evident.
• The Double Standard: Many who claim to value "fiscal conservatism" or "family values" often ignore record-high deficits or personal conduct that would have disqualified any other politician in their eyes. This selective blindness is a hallmark of true derangement—the sacrifice of a moral compass for the sake of a personality.
When a leader does exactly what his supporters previously complained about—such as increasing government spending, using executive orders to bypass Congress, or "playing golf on the taxpayer's dime"—and those supporters pivot to defend it, they are operating in a reality-free zone.
The most common defense mechanism for those truly "afflicted" is projection. By accusing critics of being "deranged," supporters avoid having to defend the actual incompetence or policy failures being discussed.
• Deflection: When a valid criticism is raised about a specific policy failure, the response is often "What about [other politician]?" This shifts the focus from the current leader's competence to a perpetual state of grievance.
Real derangement is watching a leader fail to staff key government agencies or flip-flop on major national security issues, and then labeling that chaos as "4D chess."
So the question remains , Who is Actually "Deranged"?
FeatureThe Critic (Accused of TDS)The Defender (Actual TDS)Response to PolicyAnalyzes outcomes and compares them to historical standards.Defends the leader regardless of the outcome or contradiction.Standard of ConductExpects the same decorum and ethics from all leaders.Excuses behavior they would condemn in a political opponent.
Relationship to Truth Relies on documented facts, data, and institutional records.Relies on "alternative facts" or views any negative news as a "hoax."Core Loyalty loyal to the Constitution, the country, and personal principles.Loyal to the individual, even at the expense of previously held beliefs.
Ultimately, true "derangement" isn't found in those who demand excellence and accountability from the most powerful person in the world. It is found in those who have become so loyal to a single figure that they can no longer recognize when their own country—and their own values—are being undermined.