Donald Trump tho

I think he clearly defined it as a fact. Can't argue with facts!

Those damn facts, huh?

Are you part of his Cult 45? He uses his white, uneducated, minions like you, to do his dirty work.

Really, he uses anyone uneducated. He really needs his "Gays for Trump", "Blacks for Trump" and "Latinos for Trump" and they say only the left plays identity politics. Tsk tsk tsk.

The fact that you make this comment shows just how ignorant you are. And I fear no amount of education can cure your TDS.

Yes, because you're such a stalwart of enlightenment for claiming people have TDS. Ad hominems aside, you have to look no further than his rallies to see that Trump uses identity politics. Perhaps not in the same scale as the left, but to claim otherwise is actually ignorant.

As per usual, progressives accuse those with whom they disagree of the exact same thing they are not just guilty of, but extremely guilty of. Not that it matters, but I will give you credit for mitigating your comment by applying some scale to both sides' use of identify politics.

And I don't think it takes any enlightenment, or lack of enlightenment, to recognize TDS. I've never seen anything like it before. The day after the election, the fake media and social media were ablaze with insane stories about Trump and his supporters...beating up gay couples, vandalizing their property, supporting (and being) white nationalists... and yes, of course, Trump will destroy America, when in fact it was the violent leftist protesters who were out, actually destroying Americans' property,

The same day that Trump was inaugurated, the Washington Post printed an article about the campaign to impeach Trump having started. TDS much?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/

I'm flattered that you think me a progressive, although I'm sure you mean it as an insult. Espeically since my political views do not support your so-called progressive definition. But again, more ad hominems aside;

It is hilarious that you continue to push TDS as if it's never been done before. TDS originated from Thatcher Derangement Syndrome. It was first utilized in the US to refer to W. Bush, then called BDS. It is ironic that it's reverted back to TDS with Trump and Thatcher sharing the first-letter of their names.

My position on media is that you not only have to choose your outlets but also your reporters. Opinion pieces make up a high percentage of online reporting and are incredibly more popular with views than reports that give "bland" facts. I wouldn't go so far as to say opinion pieces are the only ones that contain obvious bias in their rhetoric, nor would I go so far to dismiss all media for rhetorical bias. A position that I've frustratingly had to contend with among Trump Supporters thanks to Trump's dismissive nature on anything reported on him that he preceives to be bad press.

How is implying that you're progressive ad hominem in any way? I thought progressives were... well, progressive? And we all want progress, right?

The history lesson is irrelevant, so beyond this comment, consider it ignored.

Regarding TDS, just because it's been done before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be pushed, to use your word. Until it's eradicated, it needs to see daylight.

You're correct that opinion pieces make up a large percentage of online "reporting", and the fact that most progressives are too ignorant to recognize when what's being passed off as actual news is nothing more than an opinion piece, or maybe even hit piece, is what I find the most irritating about them.

Let's take a recent "news" piece published on the NY Times website (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html)

Paragraph number four starts with: "Mr. Trump has made clear that he sees the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies."

If that sentence alone doesn't convince you that a formerly well regarded news outlet like the NYT has gone full blown TDS, nothing will.

Do we all want progress? I’m not sure we agree on that or that I agree with progressives just because I am critical of Donald Trump. That is why it’s an ad hominem. It’s irrelevant what my position is unless your purpose is to dismiss me and not the argument. Which is a sign of either my argument being valid or incapable of being argued against. It is basic debate strategy.

Again, ignoring history is perhaps why you’ve never seen anything like TDS. I highly recommend looking up it's origins. I think you’d find it most amusing. I also don't recommend using it to debate with people if you have a rational argument to present. It needlessly diminishes the conversation to petty insults with those who are incapable of critical thinking. And if your intent is to either sway or appeal to those who might disagree with you, it seems self-defeating to go in with the petty position that their argument be immediately dismissed by bias.

Everyone has bias. It doesn't negate the argument if the argument is presented well. I somewhat agree that there are certainly a fair few individuals with irrational reasons to hate Donald Trump, it doesn't mean every critical opinion of him is equally irrational. I will, however, spare you from me listing those reasons. Though, I'm sure you'll inevitably force me to list them. I'd much rather keep to the topic at hand since our comment space is limited.

Once again, you’ve dismissed an entire media source by a single report. Erroneous logic. Unfortunately, this statement is based on fact. The President urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions for over a year to investigate Hillary, Obama, and Democrats which would accurately describe his "political enemies". I'm not saying that particular article is completely without any bias but it is not an alarming amount to quickly dismiss the facts presented within.

So when you say "Really, he uses anyone uneducated.", with "he" meaning Trump, and "anyone" meaning those who support him, that's not ad hominem, but when I call you progressive, that's ad hominem Got it! Thanks!

I never took debate in school, so I doubt I'm capable of implementing a basic debate strategy. However, that's absolutely not a sign of your argument being valid.

I didn't say I ignore history, I said I ignored your history lesson. Please...

If you know of any president who has been attacked, not just from day one, but from the day he was elected, as much as Trump has been, then please let me know. Yes, he brings on a lot of what he gets, but those attacks are the very definition of ad hominem.

And let's be perfectly clear, a president should not be impeached just because they are not liked. Vote them out. Can we at least agree on that?

You made an interesting comment regarding swaying or appealing to those who might disagree. I see the very same thing. Using Imgflip as an example, meme after meme with nothing but personal attacks against Trump. I've seen from day one the literal fabrication by the mainstream media, things he and his supporters have supposedly said and done but have not. Those who engage in this have such a bad case of TDS that they fail to realize, those who might be swayed to agree with them, were they making intelligent arguments, are in fact dismissing their arguments as nothing more than noise.

I'm one who could be swayed. I was not a big Trump supporter. But endless 'orange man bad' and 'Trump and his supporters are uneducated' does nothing to sway me to change my opinion.

Don't worry, I won't attempt to force you to list the reasons you think he's worthy of hate, because I'm not going to list the reasons he's a good president. I'm fair that way. Plus, it really wouldn't change either of our positions, don't you agree?

Wow, your analysis of the NYT's clear opinion as a statement of fact, pretty much leaves me gobsmacked. Please cite your references. Particularly the "political enemies" quote.

Don't believe I dismissed the NYT based on one article. Since then, I've spent more time than I have in the recent past reading the NYT, and believe me, they hate Trump, and they don't care whether or not proof is on full display in news pieces. What ever happened to op/ed? Now, the TDS is right there, for all to see, brainwashing any ignorant fool who can't tell the difference between news and opinion.

Yes, there is a difference between everyone and anyone. My comment was not directed at you unless you consider yourself uneducated.

I agree. A President should not be impeached due to unpopularity. However, that is not why Donald Trump is being impeached. Personal attacks against Donald Trump are frequently equated with personal attacks against his supporters or those who voted for him. This is irrational projection. These people may have legitimate reasons to be upset at Donald Trump. Taking their criticisms personally is not a sign of critical thinking. The loyalty of his supporters, though I suppose admirable, does not create a constructive basis for criticism.

If you can be swayed, then I ask you to reconsider dismissing those who criticize Donald Trump as suffering from TDS. Instead of labeling them as a victim of TDS, ask them questions. If they're insults become directed at you, then move on.

As for the NYT's statement. Again, I'm not saying that particular article is completely without any bias. But the example you pointed to is factual. Donald Trump has frequently tried to jail or investigate Hillary, Obama, and other Democrats. This goes far beyond the usual method of standard behavior between political opponents. I don't know how else to label them other than political enemies. As for sources? Donald Trump's tweets. And yes, they count.