Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[tehdang]

Tehdang doesn't actually believe anything they say. The post is to just post randomly, ignore confrontations completely, and then move onto the next talking point in hopes that everyone that is fact checking or refuting them would stop.

I guess disingenuous posting is just not against forum rules. Unfortuntately

My advice for anyone that wants to be accused of posting in bad faith is to post exactly what they believe and why.

In this case, what the problem is with the post: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54687002

The point being that the early stages of the story aren't positively "right-wing terroristic violence," but he still said such a thing. And why? See my previous posts, and respond if you wish.

Tehdang's entire moral compass centers around hating on the Democrats. He's not the only one as being defined by what you hate is all too common in politics, especially in America, but he's still a perfect example thereof.

You've correctly identified that I hate the Democrat ideology surrounding violence and terrorism. I hope that it's abandoned in the future. I don't like how people in this forum have failed to see it, but I hope they eventually see the destruction it's caused to both the dialogue and the Democratic permission structure.

The Democrats can start to agree with me more, and operate openly and honestly, and gain some support. Jared Polis occasionally has something good to say. Josh Shapiro too. Fetterman's turning on to be much better than his campaign for Senate would indicate, which is to say that a lot of Democrats hate him now (a flaw in moral compasses, since we're on that subject). Richie Torres also sometimes. Let's see if people whose moral compass doesn't revolve around hating Republicans can say some nice things in return!

[Fugus]

To be fair, they have banned many of them. I always put them on perma-ignore when I see them, and looking at my ignore list, a whole lot of them appear to be permabanned. Remember Orlong? Ransath? YUPPIE? Allybeboba? Hammerfest? Shalcker? And so many other bullshit-peddlers and right-wing nutjobs. It used to be so much worse.

How long did it take for them to finally be held to account? And did they commit an offense that crossed a line or was it for stuff like what is going on here currently?

If it’s for the repeated stuff like this, that is progress. If it’s because they crossed lines further than this, then they know they are untouchable so long as they don’t cross that line and can troll and spread lies as long as they want.

[tehdang]

Not against the rules in the slightest otherwise him and others would have been banned years ago.

Trolling isn’t against the rules, but calling out trolls can be.

Posting in bad faith isn’t.

Intentionally lying isn’t against the rules either. Nor is most things outside of threats.

I've put several users on ignore that do nothing but troll, spread lies, post in bad faith, and personally attack. I do heartily recommend it to people who feel likewise, even if I'm the object. I hope you find some right-of-center people to talk to that you do respect, in order to form a more complete ideology. This forum obviously doesn't have a large or diverse population of them, so you'll likely have to look elsewhere. Anybody I respond to I respect enough to have the conversation, and my posts reflect my true feelings on the subject, as far out of the forum mainstream they may be.

[Dontrike]

So what do republicans think is important to research? Is it gun violence, gang violence, drug abuse? Nope, they want to research Trump Derangement Syndrome......*sigh* yep. Brought to you by my state, Ohio; the south of the north.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) introduced the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Research Act of 2025. This bill would direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study the psychological and social roots of what is known as Trump Derangement Syndrome, a phenomenon marked by extreme negative reactions to President Donald J. Trump. He was joined by original cosponsor Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL).

“TDS has divided families, the country, and led to nationwide violence—including two assassination attempts on President Trump. The TDS Research Act would require the NIH to study this toxic state of mind, so we can understand the root cause and identify solutions.” said Rep. Davidson (R-OH). “Instead of funding ludicrous studies such as giving methamphetamine to cats or teaching monkeys to gamble for their drinking water, the NIH should use that funding to research issues that are relevant to the real world.”

“Trump Derangement Syndrome has become an epidemic on the Left,” said Rep. Moore (R-AL). “Some individuals who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome have participated in nationwide political and social unrest, even trying to assassinate President Trump twice. Rep. Davidson’s common-sense bill will use already appropriated funds on an NIH study that can make a difference.”

Background:

The TDS Research Act addresses a critical issue: the instinctual negative and often violent reaction to any supportive statement or event related to President Trump. By leveraging NIH’s existing programs at the National Institute of Mental Health, the bill will:

Investigate TDS’s origins and contributing factors, including the media’s role in amplifying the spread of TDS.
Analyze its long-term impacts on individuals, communities, and public discourse.
Explore interventions to mitigate extreme behaviors, informing strategies for a healthier public square.
Provide data-driven insights into how media and polarization shape political violence and social unrest.
Require an annual report to Congress.
No Additional Spending: Uses existing NIH resources and avoids new spending.

[Endus]

My advice for anyone that wants to be accused of posting in bad faith is to post exactly what they believe and why.

When "what you believe and why" can't be justified objectively, that's when you get correctly accused of posting in bad faith.

What you believe doesn't fucking matter. What you can establish as actually true, with evidence, matters. If the former conflicts with the latter, it's delusion, not an argument. Or, more often, just common dishonesty.

In this case, what the problem is with the post: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54687002


The point being that the early stages of the story aren't positively "right-wing terroristic violence," but he still said such a thing. And why? See my previous posts, and respond if you wish.

There is no "problem" with that post. The right wing in the USA has a long and bloody history of terrorist violence against fertility clinics. At best, Kalredar jumped the gun, but it's an entirely reasonable jump.

You've correctly identified that I hate the Democrat ideology surrounding violence and terrorism. I hope that it's abandoned in the future. I don't like how people in this forum have failed to see it, but I hope they eventually see the destruction it's caused to both the dialogue and the Democratic permission structure.

In that they oppose violence and terrorism? Because that's the Democrat "ideology" on the subject.

Are you honestly coming out pro-right-wing-terrorism, here? I don't think that's what you mean, but it's really the only conclusion if I'm meant to take you posting in good faith.

Now, if you're lying about Democrats and what they believe to push a dishonest bad-faith agenda, that would make more sense. But then you'd be exactly what you keep complaining we all keep describing you as.

Let's see if people whose moral compass doesn't revolve around hating Republicans can say some nice things in return!

I hate Republicans and their ideology because of my moral compass, not because my moral compass is predicated on hating Republicans. I've even said good things about a very few Republicans, in the past. You're projecting your own ideological failings, here, not making an accurate claim about others. Most people aren't like you in this. We have actual moral centers that aren't predicated on blind hatred. It's weird that you'd think that's a reasonable thing to claim.

- - - Updated - - -

I've put several users on ignore that do nothing but troll, spread lies, post in bad faith, and personally attack. I do heartily recommend it to people who feel likewise, even if I'm the object. I hope you find some right-of-center people to talk to that you do respect, in order to form a more complete ideology. This forum obviously doesn't have a large or diverse population of them, so you'll likely have to look elsewhere. Anybody I respond to I respect enough to have the conversation, and my posts reflect my true feelings on the subject, as far out of the forum mainstream they may be.

Yeah, no, you put users on ignore when they cut through your bullshit and you don't have a response. If you want to construe that as a "personal attack", that's on you. Pointing out the dishonesty in your arguments and the venom at the heart of your ideology is just a response to your actual posting habits. If those truths didn't lie at the center of your posts, it wouldn't get pointed out so consistently (and hardly just by me). People pointing out who you are and that we can tell when you're lying is not a "personal attack". Maybe stop lying, and we'll stop pointing it out.

As for right-wing ideology in general, I've invited debate on various right-wing talking points in various threads. I'm perfectly willing to debate those points if someone's willing to approach it honestly. It won't go well for the right-wingers, generally, though. That's why they stopped trying. It's not my fault you can't defend your own views and have to put people like me on Ignore instead of actually explaining yourselves properly for once.

Because that's the thing. I am willing to talk across the aisle. You are the one who isn't, and will use the Ignore system to avoid real discussion and debate. The only people I've ever had on Ignore were temporary cases when they were spamming me with death-threat DMs or the like.

[SAY HER NAME]

Sweet. I know people on the right condemn the violence. I thought you were talking about being forced to "own" the violence, but apparently this has all been a terrible misunderstanding.

All the lies and disinformation are just too thick. Fugus, get in here! I heard this is your area of specialization!

Frankly, I was wondering why you backpedaled from "actual manifest [partisan] terroristic violence that harms and kills people" and now you're all "a left-wing figured condemned it, moving on."

It's a little beside the point if you refuse to acknowledge your own side when it happens. There's a giant gap between recognizing when left-wingers do it and talking about the statistics of ideologically or politically motivated violence.

Said it several times:

You can always tell me that my point is correct, if you feel I have demonstrated it.

Can you articulate whatever this is more specifically and better? What is terrible? What is "you guys are doing terrible stuff?" How does it relate to some anti-life anti-religion zealot blowing up a fertility clinic? How does it relate to whether we're allowed to blame political ideology for violence, or under what conditions?

Simply put, you have a worldview where violence on the right is violence, and violence on the left doesn't count. That's a crooked game. You know it, and you don't care. People on the right have picked up on this. We don't generally play the crooked game anymore.

This sort of view. Like this framework in general. Is the "game" here condemnation of violence by people that share some of your ideology?

Its a weird to view to have. And its a bit pathetic.

I still think your overall point is right in that people in this forum arent capable of condemning violence as is without adding any disclaimers (if not outright excusing it see Endus and Luigi Mangione)

[Kaleredar]

This sort of view. Like this framework in general. Is the "game" here condemnation of violence by people that share some of your ideology?

Its a weird to view to have. And its a bit pathetic.

I still think your overall point is right in that people in this forum arent capable of condemning violence as is without adding any disclaimers (if not outright excusing it see Endus and Luigi Mangione)

Important people in “the left” do condemn violence when carried out by left-wing perpetrators. As evidenced by Bernie sanders and the American Democratic Party at large condemning the shooter @tehdang used as his example. The democrats did not frame the shooter as a hero or “well but actually” or try and deflect away from it. They said it was unacceptable, and that is their choice of words for any and all such violence.

Important people on the right do not general do such things when it comes to right-wing violence, which we’ve established is statistically far more prevalent, and something that tehdang refuses to acknowledge is a fact and will not attempt to even hazard a guess at why that might be the case.


Perhaps it’s the left wing’s address of and willingness to condemn political violence in general, even if someone who supposedly agrees with them commits it, that has made left-wing people overall far less violent and willing to support or commit violence for political gain than right wing people.

Because I’m not hearing any theories to the contrary to address a verifiable fact.

[Endus]

I still think your overall point is right in that people in this forum arent capable of condemning violence as is without adding any disclaimers (if not outright excusing it see Endus and Luigi Mangione)

Congrats on utterly failing to understand a pretty basic point in what I was saying regarding Luigi Mangione.

It wasn't "excusing the violence". It was questioning why we accept violence perpetrated by the likes of psycho cops or healthcare execs, but condemn it when violence is used in response to those injustices.

If you can't discuss the ethics of violence and just want to condemn violence, period, you're unfit to have an adult discussion on the topic. The idea that violence is always to be condemned would mean you're arguing that police should not exist, because enforcing the law is "violence" and your basic premise was that "violence is not justifiable".

If that is your position, that's interesting but extreme and fringe and I don't think you'll find much support outside the likes of Jainists.

If that isn't your position, then your criticism of me on this is wildly incoherent and has no basis in the ethics of violence. I'd argue it's intentionally dishonest and seeking to avoid even having such a discussion, probably because it won't go your way.

If you accept that police can force a mass murderer to the ground and put cuffs on them to stop their killing spree, you've admitted that violence can be justified. You can't use "but it's violent and that's bad" as an argument any more. Not without lying, at least.

And I'm sure not arguing that police shouldn't exist. I'm well aware that violence is ethically justifiable. That's the argument you're complaining about me making.

[SAY HER NAME]

Important people in “the left” do condemn violence when carried out by left-wing perpetrators. As evidenced by Bernie sanders and the American Democratic Party at large condemning the shooter @tehdang used as his example. The democrats did not frame the shooter as a hero or “well but actually” or try and deflect away from it. They said it was unacceptable, and that is their choice of words for any and all such violence.

Important people on the right do not general do such things when it comes to right-wing violence, which we’ve established is statistically far more prevalent, and something that tehdang refuses to acknowledge is a fact and will not attempt to even hazard a guess at why that might be the case.


Perhaps it’s the left wing’s address of and willingness to condemn political violence in general, even if someone who supposedly agrees with them commits it, that has made left-wing people overall far less violent and willing to support or commit violence for political gain than right wing people.

Because I’m not hearing any theories to the contrary to address a verifiable fact.

I think trying to add the extra text already discredits your point.

If the random people on the internet dont matter then why bother mentioning them? The question isnt "Do leftists condemn violence?" the question is "Do you condemn violence and the rhetoric behind it?"

The moment you start adding these disclaimers you are already missing the point.

Like if I asked you: "Do you think Luigi Mangione murdering that healtchare CEO is bad?" And you answered in any other way that isnt simply Yes, then you are providing some justification for it. Whether you intended it or not.

I dont disagree with the point. Conservative leadership is unhinged. I dont remember any of them condemning the attack on Paul Pelosi and they instead used it as a chance to make fun of him for it. And to this day they wont recognize how unhinged that entire episode was.

[Endus]

the question is "Do you condemn violence and the rhetoric behind it?"

And again; if the vast majority of people answer this question honestly, no matter their political affiliations, they will say "no, I do not condemn violence".

Condemning violence wholesale, again, means condemning violence used in defense of one's self or others. It condemns police arresting offenders, and the very concept of the law being enforceable. It condemns any military action no matter how noble the purpose, including condemning the Allies for daring to resist Nazi expansion and terror.

Practically nobody actually condemns violence wholesale like this. We all understand violence is contextually defensible. The context and purpose of that violence is what matters.

No matter how much you try and avoid that question.

[Paranoid Android]

**TRUMP TAX BILL FAILS IN HOUSE PANEL AS GOP SPLITS ON COST**

Honestly incredible, Full govt control and the GOp couldn't even get it out of the budget committee. LMAO folks, this is why the entire media sphere is hyperfixated on Dems In Disarray Biden Old Feckless Dems, James Comey, Taylor SWiftes, it's because *Republicans have complete control and literally can't do anything*. The media hates reporting that, like a child avoiding brusselsprouts on their plate.

Four years ago today, with the *barest of majorities* and 2 intransigent Dems (who would soon after become Independents), Dems managed to pass multiple landmark bills, including a massive climate change bill that even Trump is having trouble stifling.

Trump's big bill advances in rare weekend vote as House conservatives negotiate changes

Naw they fell inline. It was the defecit hawk Republicans who just wanted people to work on Medicaid. In the end they didn't give a bleep about the defecit.

The Republicans criticizing the measure noted that the bill's new spending and the tax cuts are front-loaded in the bill, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded. They are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for able-bodied participants in Medicaid. Those requirements would not kick in until 2029 under the current bill.

Unlike Democrats; Republicans fall in line and don't shit on their bills to make them worse. I hate Republicans but always give them their Dues in that they fall in line and no matter how bad their policies are, they don't care.

Edit. For cleanup this is out of Committee not up for House vote yet. So slim margin maybe fail in the House? Then Senate could make changes to the bill.

[SAY HER NAME]

Trump's big bill advances in rare weekend vote as House conservatives negotiate changes

Naw they fell inline. It was the defecit hawk Republicans who just wanted people to work on Medicaid. In the end they didn't give a bleep about the defecit.



Unlike Democrats; Republicans fall in line and don't shit on their bills to make them worse. I hate Republicans but always give them their Dues in that they fall in line and no matter how bad their policies are, they don't care.

I didnt read that the new measures wouldnt kick in until 2029. So basically the new term? Dude this is unreal lol

[tehdang]

This sort of view. Like this framework in general. Is the "game" here condemnation of violence by people that share some of your ideology?

Its a weird to view to have. And its a bit pathetic.

I still think your overall point is right in that people in this forum arent capable of condemning violence as is without adding any disclaimers (if not outright excusing it see Endus and Luigi Mangione)

Ok. I took the instance of a terrorist attack on a fertility clinic, and Kaleredar's reflexive "How can we talk about actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence that harms and kills people" as endemic of an issue. Really, Corvus's "Trump's America gets more and more dangerous." is in the same vein. You should really comment on both those posts.

If you can look at a recent terrorist attack and say "Trump's America gets more and more dangerous" or "actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence" without knowing a damn thing about who did it and why, you betray a very perverted worldview on who's responsible and why.

When saying "actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence," without knowing, would the same hold true for left-wing violence? That's an open question. Not whether it would be condemned, as these generally are from both left and right.

[Gestopft]

I still think your overall point is right in that people in this forum arent capable of condemning violence as is without adding any disclaimers (if not outright excusing it see Endus and Luigi Mangione)

You're conflating 'excusing' with 'contextualizing,'

[tehdang]

Trump's big bill advances in rare weekend vote as House conservatives negotiate changes

Naw they fell inline. It was the defecit hawk Republicans who just wanted people to work on Medicaid. In the end they didn't give a bleep about the defecit.

Unlike Democrats; Republicans fall in line and don't shit on their bills to make them worse. I hate Republicans but always give them their Dues in that they fall in line and no matter how bad their policies are, they don't care.

Edit. For cleanup this is out of Committee not up for House vote yet. So slim margin maybe fail in the House? Then Senate could make changes to the bill.

My question is what kind of compromise was reached on the holdouts with SALT cap. Medicaid work requirements and that angle never appeared to be the big holdup.

[Kaleredar]

I think trying to add the extra text already discredits your point.

If the random people on the internet dont matter then why bother mentioning them? The question isnt "Do leftists condemn violence?" the question is "Do you condemn violence and the rhetoric behind it?"

The moment you start adding these disclaimers you are already missing the point.

Like if I asked you: "Do you think Luigi Mangione murdering that healtchare CEO is bad?" And you answered in any other way that isnt simply Yes, then you are providing some justification for it. Whether you intended it or not.

I dont disagree with the point. Conservative leadership is unhinged. I dont remember any of them condemning the attack on Paul Pelosi and they instead used it as a chance to make fun of him for it. And to this day they wont recognize how unhinged that entire episode was.

Random people on the internet are just that: random people on the internet. Not only might they not be voters, they might not be living in the US, period. They could be some 14 year old edgelord living in the UK for all you know. Why on earth would an American voter give a flying fuck what they think?

And regardless of all of that, there’s still far less left-wing aligned political violence than right-wing. This is a fact. And there must be a reason that this is a fact. Now I’m not actually saying it has to be because prominent individuals within the left-wing condemn and redress political violence far more than their right-wing counterparts. It I’m merely posing that as a possible explanation for a fact. But regardless of the reason, a fact it still remains.

But Tehdang isn’t proffering anny explanations for this fact. He isn’t even accepting that as a fact despite decades of research establishing it as a quantifiable and observable trend. He’s just dancing around it.

His whole thing is to pose this as a “both sides” argument. But here’s the thing… even if he were correct about the left-wing not condemning violence (he’s not,) even if he were correct about random people on the internet not condemning left-wing violence (he isn’t,), and even if he were to name entirely equal instances of left wing violence (he hasn’t, quick tip but vandalizing someone’s car isn’t equal to trying to overthrow the government) none of it would change the fact that right-wing political violence is far more prominent and dangerous than left-wing violence.


And if your worry, NED, is about left wing violence not being adequately rebuked then I’d suggest you’ve no real need to worry, as the left-wing political elements of the US writ large widely rebuke political violence no matter its source. Including the healthcare CEO’s murder.

[Mayhem]

Sweet. I know people on the right condemn the violence. I thought you were talking about being forced to "own" the violence, but apparently this has all been a terrible misunderstanding.

I am impressed by your occasional yet convenient lack of understanding English.

[Mekh]

Endus and Luigi Mangione

I'm sorry, did I miss when Luigi Mangione was found guilty?

[gondrin]

I didnt read that the new measures wouldnt kick in until 2029. So basically the new term? Dude this is unreal lol

This is the same nonsense they pulled in 2017 with the first Trump tax cuts. They "conveniently" had the middle class and poor tax cuts expire in 2025 with Trump thinking he would have won a second consecutive term. That way when the tax cuts expired, Trump and the rest of the GOP squad could blame the expiring tax cuts on the Democrats.

This is one of the reasons why they absolutely are panicking about it because if they expire, a lot of people are going to see their tax bill increase by not a small amount. That is on top of all of the removal of deduction that came with 2017 tax cut act.

It is basically to setup the opposing party for failure down the road.

[Huehuecoyotl]

It's a little beside the point if you refuse to acknowledge your own side when it happens.

And in case anyone has missed it, there's tehdang's hypocrisy laid bare. Making it clear that his position is that you can't attack the violence of the other side if you refuse to accept the violence on your own. While attacking the violence of the Left and refusing flat out to denounce the violence of the Right post after post after post.

"Rules for thee" once again.

It's hard work cutting through the mass of meaningless words that they spout to get to the nub of what they're actually trying to say. But every once in a while the truth of things manages to sneak its way through.