Thursday, February 24, 2022

HDS : Hillary Derangement Syndrome

 Those who complain about TDS seems to be the worst sufferers of HDS. 

See here. 

28 comments:

Kevin said...

What about those with the integrity and objectivity to criticize their own side? Seems like they are the ones best positioned to identify derangement.

CNN isn't one of them.

Victor Reppert said...

Remember what you said here when conservatives accuse Trump critics of derangement.

David Duffy said...

The best political catch phrases of the last few years are "Me Too," "BLM" and "TDS."

Me Too: Not good for Trump. Worse for the Clintons

BLM: We will see

TDS: Nailed it.

HDS? Not so much

Kevin said...

Remember what you said here when conservatives accuse Trump critics of derangement.

I've been quite clear on this blog that Republicans were deranged in their treatment of Obama. I'm not aware of anyone else here that has criticized both sides, despite both sides deserving criticism.

I'd be quite curious if you could continue the conversation in your other post about forcing values onto others regarding human rights. That was a unique topic that got derailed.

bmiller said...

I'd be quite curious if you could continue the conversation in your other post about forcing values onto others regarding human rights. That was a unique topic that got derailed.

I second that.

But I doubt we will get 2 comments into a discussion of rights before someone (you all know who you are) screams about the Orange Man.

David Duffy said...

"I'm not aware of anyone else here that has criticized both sides"

Awareness

bmiller said...

Awareness

Kevin has mentioned that he didn't vote for Trump or Hillary or Biden, I think for character reasons.

I think it's misguided to worry about being accepted by socialists by proclaiming that "Republicans were deranged in their treatment of Obama." although no one did that on this blog and expecting to be spared the gulag. His sin is not criticizing both sides, but criticizing one side when there is only one side requiring criticism.

Kevin said...

I think it's misguided to worry about being accepted by socialists

I couldn't care less if socialists like what I say. Those behaving poorly should be called out on it, regardless of party or ideological affiliation. That takes a lot more integrity than only attacking the other side.

Awareness

I'm not aware of what this refers to.

bmiller said...

I agree that there were some Republicans foaming at the mouth about Obama but I don't recall most of them and the media doing that and certainly no one on this blog. That is certainly not the case with Trump.

I guess I don't get it why I should make it a point to criticize someone I voted for when everyone who voted against that person is doing it. I may agree with some of the criticisms so there's nothing much to say. There is, however, something to say when I disagree with the criticisms. I doubt anyone thinks they ever voted for a perfect candidate.

As an example, I don't know who you voted for or would have voted for but I don't think it's odd or unusual that I've never heard you criticize that person. Obviously, you thought that person was the best available despite the negatives.

Kevin said...

I don't recall most of them and the media doing that

The same media sources certainly weren't, but those that were pro-Trump were.

That is certainly not the case with Trump.

Oh I agree it got taken to the next level with Trump, but prior to that Republicans did earn the nickname "Party of No". And the media frenzy surrounding Obama, coupled with the many radicals he had associated with, made some people wonder if he was the Antichrist. I found that silly, as the Antichrist would be much smarter and wouldn't rely on a teleprompter to avoid stuttering.

I guess I don't get it why I should make it a point to criticize someone I voted for when everyone who voted against that person is doing it.

I'm talking about hypocrisy, not simply criticizing for the sake of it. It doesn't make much sense for me to condemn X when my guy Y does the same thing.

Obviously, you thought that person was the best available despite the negatives.

The people I would have voted for were not available to vote for.

bmiller said...

Oh I agree it got taken to the next level with Trump,

That was my point. We can always expect bias in the media and while some on the right were saying Obama was the Antichrist I don't recall people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity saying that. On the other hand, "Trump is literally Hitler", a traitor, a puppet of Putin, etc. was blasted daily by the rest of the MSM. Also, no one on this blog making those unhinged remarks about Obama, while of course, the converse it not true.

I'm talking about hypocrisy,

OK, I get that. For instance it would be hypocritical to blame Obama for increasing the national debt without acknowledging that Trump also increased the national debt. It's fair to point out hypocrisy (however ineffective it seems to be against socialists).

David Duffy said...

"Awareness

I'm not aware of what this refers to."

You wrote you were not aware of anyone here that is critical of both sides. I have seen many commentators here who are able to be critical of different sides on various topics, while taking criticism in return. It's not that they are not here, it's that you have not noticed them (been aware).

Kevin said...

I have seen many commentators here who are able to be critical of different sides on various topics

If someone else has been openly disdainful of both political parties when they deserve it - particularly if the point of criticism applies to both parties - then I apologize to them for not recalling.

Kevin said...

Sean Hannity saying that

For instance it would be hypocritical to blame Obama for increasing the national debt without acknowledging that Trump also increased the national debt

Sean Hannity is an excellent example of this. When Obama was president he couldn't stop talking about the debt, despite much of the early debt in the Obama administration being a result of events that occurred prior to his being in office. But once Trump got in office, suddenly deficit spending wasn't a priority to talk about.

bmiller said...

Probably because Trump promised to pay down the national debt but not the day he entered office.

Eliminating the national debt, which Trump said he could accomplish “over a period of eight years,” was one of several ambitious claims Trump made in an interview with The Washington Post published on Saturday.

It's not like Hannity didn't ask him about it at all and wasn't concerned.

After he took office, Trump predicted that economic growth created by the 2017 tax cut, combined with the proceeds from the tariffs he imposed on a wide range of goods from numerous countries, would help eliminate the budget deficit and let the U.S. begin to pay down its debt. On July 27, 2018, he told Sean Hannity of Fox News: “We have $21 trillion in debt. When this [the 2017 tax cut] really kicks in, we’ll start paying off that debt like it’s water.” (https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump)

Now some people may think he was naive (and some much much worse) but the truth is we never got to see if his plan was going to work or not. He hasn't completed his second term and covid shutdowns worldwide was not anticipated.

I have my doubts he would have eliminated the national debt, but I can't fairly mark that as a failed campaign promise since there has not been a second term. I can say he looked like he was not on track to deliver on it though.

David Duffy said...

"If someone else has been openly disdainful of both political parties"

I don't recall anyone being disdainful of both parties either. Were there discussions about parties? If so, I was probably partisan, but don't remember.

When you wrote about both sides I interpreted it as one political figure versus another, faith versus unbelief, or current political policy. On these sides, I have seen understanding for the opposing point of view.

David Duffy said...

Understanding for the opposing point of view...save Trump

David Duffy said...

On the national dept. I would like some politician to say to the American people: if you want this you have to pay for it. You want to keep increasing the price of going to college, pay for it with your taxes. You want to forgive student debt, pay for it with your taxes. You want military involvement around the world, pay for it with your taxes. You want to pay for the social ills of the sexual revolution, elaborate retirement plans for government workers, PhD programs in ethnic studies, foreign wars, extravagant lifestyles for diplomats, pay for it with your taxes.

The only way to balance the budget is to ask the American people to pay for the government they want.

bmiller said...

You're basically saying don't borrow any more money.

But that alone won't decrease the debt, that will only balance the budget for expenditures other than interest on the debt (which is growing). Like making the minimum payment on your credit card, the credit card company keeps making money on the interest you still owe.

You'd have to have politicians that will take in much more money in taxes/tariffs/whatever than they would be tempted to spend otherwise and apply that to paying down the debt.

bmiller said...

Since half of the politicians are of a party that isn't even remotely interested in this idea and the other half are afraid of being called meanies for wanting to pay bills I think we have a problem.

bmiller said...

The question is why are those politicians not remotely interested in paying down the debt?

David Duffy said...

It just occurred to me, all the billionaires in the United States are hardcore capitalist and politically liberal: Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates. They are all giving millions to charity. None are giving to pay off the national debt.

bmiller said...

They are all giving millions to charity. None are giving to pay off the national debt.

Which means they think they can do a better job with their (tax-free) charity money than the government can. Doesn't make sense does it?

Victor Reppert said...

There were plenty of unhinged claims made about previous Presidents. Obama was claimed to be a Kenyan whose birth certificate was phony, Bush was accused of complicity with the 9/11 attacks, and Clinton was accused of having Vince Foster killed, while Hillary was implicated in the death of Seth Rich. Plenty of derangement to go around.

David Duffy said...

Victor,

How many of those HDS claims came from people holding office in the federal government? People with actual power over our lives. I'm asking because I actually don't know.

If you would like a list of things said by congressmen and senators with TDS, I will supply the list.

bmiller said...

I can't remember anyone who posted a comment on this blog making unhinged claims about any president except Trump. And the TDS commenters weren't just one and done. They're still at it.

bmiller said...

It's almost like a State of the Union Address is coming up.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
I can't remember anyone who posted a comment on this blog making unhinged claims about any president except Trump

Memories are tricky things. I'll agree it was rare.

Barrack Hussein Obama was a Communist Agent in the White House.