TDS and the Redefinition of Words—A Losing Battle

How does one even respond to victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome anymore? They are completely unhinged, uninterested in truth, bereft of any concept of reality, and they are simply never going to be cured. 

And I swear, if I hear the word cult one more time, I am literally going to heave up an internal organ.

It brings me to the idea of words in and of themselves, and how the liberals especially have simply rewritten numerous portions of the dictionary's definitions of them. Real definitions don't matter anymore. Why should they? Because truth doesn't matter anymore either.

If you simply believe something, it must be true, right?

I mean, think about it. We have to ask the question, "What is the definition of a woman?" with a straight face. And on top of that, we're supposed to accept the answer that, "Well, it depends," with an equally straight face.

They have redefined what a woman is for Heaven's sake, and they believe their truth is the truth independent of what we all know the truth actually is. Reality is whatever make-believe they want it to be, and when you take that into account, you can see right through their "truth," and how they get there.

Take the Russia Collusion hoax. In their eyes it is true no matter what. Because they said so. Because even though the dossier was fake, and provably so, that doesn't matter. The story was told, they sucked it all in, they believed it, and no reality can ever make it untrue now.

The story is the story and the conclusion that it never happened doesn't matter.

They use words like evidence as though simply uttering the word makes any accusation now a proven thing. They've redefined evidence to mean, "It means whatever we say is considered evidence." They don't say examine the facts. They simply say, "Look at the evidence."

But what is the evidence? Simply things they say it is. Not proven. But interpreted.

It is even the misconstruing of the power of words like impeachment and indictment, as though the mere act of doing them make it immediately clear that bad things happened to cause them. We go back to evidence as defined by those who brought it forth as being the gospel.

What evidence of impeachable things? The evidence they say it is. What evidence that merited an indictment? The evidence they say it is. Even if none of the "evidence" is evidence of anything other than what they believe it is.

Part of the problem we have here is a dishonest media whom we can no longer trust to report the truth, or even to examine it in any real way. The media is involved in the redefinition of words and in the dissemination of whatever their truth happens to want to be.

We'll have an argument with a TDS sufferer about what happened on January 6th, and they will respond with, "Look at all the evidence presented during the J6 hearings." With one huge problem being horribly overlooked.

The J6 committee was biased. It was a panel of Trump dissenters, haters and anyone who may have posed a different line of questioning was barred from serving on it.

Does that matter to anyone against Trump? Does it matter to the media? Does that truth of what made up that committee matter?

No. Only the evidence presented, true or false matters. And of course, they only could have presented the truth despite their bias—which wasn't classified as bias either. Because, you know, words don't mean what they mean anymore.

These were not biased people after all. Their bias was redefined as patriotism. And because this committee was made up of patriotic elected officials, well then, anything they said happened must have happened, because of course you rarely trust a politician unless that politician serves to prove your truth to be true.

What would have happened if they could have put Jim Jordan on that committee and what kinds of questions may he have asked of Nancy Pelosi and her own actions on January 6th had he been there? Or her for that matter? And why would his questions be considered biased if the others' on the committee weren't?

How much more convincing perhaps the seriousness of the committee could have been taken if the panel was made up of people on both sides of the question?

But you can't explain that to someone suffering TDS. Because it doesn't make sense to them. Because it doesn't follow their narrative. There is only one answer for them, and you don't need to ask questions about it to get to it. You simply need to ask questions that confirm the truth as they see it. That confirms the evidence as they define it.

The ones who support Trump are considered to be a cult. But why aren't the ones who don't support Trump also considered one? If the idea is that the "cult" will simply go along with whatever they think is the truth about Trump, why is the other side also not a cult for the same reason? 

Because the word cult has also been redefined. And it's just another way of using a different word to describe a Trump supporter because the old ones aren't fresh anymore and don't work as well. Like racist. 

No matter what there is no question in the minds of these TDS sufferers that Trump is a criminal. That he is evil. That he wants to be a dictator. That he incited an insurrection and tried to overthrow the government. That he is a danger to the country and to the world. That he is determined to destroy democracy. 

I am not even saying we need to change their minds about that. I am simply saying, as I have always said, let's make sure we ask the right questions. Let's make sure we use words correctly and let's examine everything with a clear head and with honesty.

When I talk to most Trump supporters the thing I come away with from those exchanges is that they are examining the evidence with far more scrutiny and thought than anyone suffering TDS is. They are stepping back from everything and giving each detail careful consideration. By contrast, when I talk to Trump haters, they simply spout off the narrative with no question in their mind whether or not it happens to be true.

He's guilty. That's it. No ifs ands or buts because they said he is. Period. End of story. No need for further explanation. It's cut and dry and the case is sealed, signed and delivered.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Stupid Talk Needs to be Called Out as Stupid Talk

Let's face it, when it comes to social media a lot gets said, and a lot of what gets said is dumb. Hell, I won't fail to admit that I have probably said some dumb things in my time on social media as well. Still, if I say something dumb someone usually calls me out on it.

Not that I always agree that what I said was dumb, mind you. Nonetheless, we call things for what they are.

Take this statement made on Twitter, now X, by Barb McQuade wherein she said, "I think a strong case can be made that Trump committed 5 counts of manslaughter on Jan 6 by recklessly causing the unintended deaths of others."

That's dumb.

Granted, I may be a little bit biased on my opinion of the whole January 6th, so-called "insurrection," in that I don't agree that the events occurred as so many believe they did.

Do I think it was an orchestrated and planned event to serve as a distraction from a possible real examination of what happened with the election in 2020? Yes. As a matter of fact, I do. But I don't want to digress. I simply want to point out my bias.

Including my bias as a Trump supporter then and now.

If there is one thing that we can all agree upon, for whatever it is worth, it is that January 6th was an unpleasant event in our history. For a lot of reasons. Still, to suggest that Trump caused it, I believe, is a real stretch of the imagination.

People, with individual intent decided on that day, provided it was not a planned and orchestrated event, to act in a manner that could at best be labeled as inappropriate, and perhaps even unfortunate. Smooth transition of power has always been a tenet of our system and on that day that tenet was challenged.

The deaths that occurred on that day were also tragic and unfortunate. But to suggest that Trump should be held liable in any way for them is ludicrous beyond imagination. Were the people who stormed the Capitol Trump supporters? Who knows? But again, does it matter if they were?

If we were to take Barb McQuade's comment seriously, we'd have to consider other events in our history and assign similar culpability. In all fairness, right?

Do we go back and hold Barack Obama to account for his decision to initiate Fast and Furious that resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent? Do we take a look at what happened in Benghazi when Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, an event that killed four Americans, and hold her accountable for those deaths?

And by the way, there is some reason to suggest maybe she should have been accountable. But even I will admit it is a bit ridiculous to suggest it. Same goes for Barack Obama and Fast and Furious.

Or what about Joe Biden? Should we, according to Barb McQuade, hold him criminally liable for the actions, or lack of actions he took which led to the death of multiple Americans on the tarmac in the withdrawal of Afghanistan?

All of these ideas are, to my mind, clutching at straws. 

The bottom line is that when things like this are said, they are said out of pure hatred for the person those things are said about. There is no real basis for the comments. And frankly, there's no thought behind them either.

It's the old forest for the trees argument. You either see the one tree you want to focus on and dismiss the entire forest for potentially having similar trees, or you have no interest in the rest of the forest. Only the one tree matters.

Clearly Barb McQuade does not like Trump, so of course she's going to make a comment like that. But she has to understand what she's really saying. She can't simply dismiss all the other bad things that have happened and target the one she perceives as having been perpetrated by one man she dislikes or disagrees with. 

And people should call her out for it. As I did, commenting back on her post. And as I have done here.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on X at @jimbauer601 or on my Facebook page.