Trump has proven love of his country—-WTF are you talking about he has discredited and denigrated anybody and everybody in this country that disagrees with him. He has shown his love of Putin while discredit all 17 Intel agencies. ( NEVET FORGET TRUMP QUOTE I BELIEVE PUTIN)

You judge the Character of this man how about 2 divorces c***ting on his wife with a porno star 5 weeks after the birth of his son. Then watch his personnel attorney lose his license to practice law get sentenced to 3 1/2 years in jail for Lying and paying the hush money with Trumps name on the checks. (SOME F’ing character)

The remainder of you post is simply BS written by a child

"TDS", you say The term seems to fit you as well as it does anyone.

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a satirical psychological diagnosis used to explain the hysterical reaction and belligerent behavior of people, pro or con, generally directed towards anything related to President Donald Trump as pertaining to his presidency. It isn't intended to be a logical argument, rather a jab at another individual's excessive emotional reactions as well as aggressive physical displays. It is an ad hominem argument, not a strawman argument as suggested by definition...and, there are numerous variations on TDS, all of which have their own particular partisan/ideological twist to them.

TDS was originally a made-up condition, conceived as an insult label by the alt-right to attack anyone who criticizes or refuses to support Donald Trump. The idea being the left is so obsessed with Trump they have collectively lost their minds. Like many of their other little online crusades, this one has backfired. People dislike Trump for actual reasons which often go well beyond just politics or partisanship, and if anyone has Trump Derangement Syndrome it's those on the right that blindly support him. They have lost their sense of morality, religious convictions, principles, objectivity, all discernment, and even the ability to have a civil discussion or reason. So the term has now been co-opted by others to refer to Trump supporters who are blinded by their unrealistic devotion to Trump.

The origin of the term 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is traced to political columnist and conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist, who originally coined the phrase 'Bush derangement syndrome' in 2003 during the presidency of George W. Bush. That syndrome was defined by Krauthammer as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency – nay – the very existence of George W. Bush." The first use of the term 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' may have been by Esther Goldberg in an August 2015 op-ed in The American Spectator; She applied the term to "Ruling Class Republicans" who are dismissive or contemptuous of Trump. Krauthammer, himself a harsh critic of Trump, later defined "Trump derangement syndrome" as a Trump-induced "general hysteria" among the chattering classes, producing an "inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and ... signs of psychic pathology" in the President's behavior.

I’m very familiar with the highly respected Mr. Krauthammer! He was a beloved and honored guest on Fox for many years! I’m aware that this came from one of his articles.

I have always enjoyed your quotes and you always supply them! That was my point!😌

I see no changes in the exchanges of insults from both sides as long as President Trump is our President and the line between the liberals and conservatives get wider and more severe. As a conservative Christian, I see the very moral fibers of our country being eroded! Especially the senseless slaughter of the unborn! I will continue to use TDS as a response to the insults that are continually thrown at this President and my beliefs as a conservative and a Christian. Now would be the perfect time for me to have an appropriate quote?!?🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

By Lee McIntyre

While watching the House impeachment hearings, I realized my two decades of research into why people ignore, reject or deny science had a political parallel.

From anti-evolutionists to anti-v*****e advocates, known as “anti-v**xers,” c*****e c****e deniers to Flat Earthers, science deniers all follow a common pattern of faulty reasoning that allows them to reject what they don’t want to believe – and accept what they favor – based on a misunderstanding of how science deals with evidence.

As I’ve been watching the hearings, I’ve noticed that a number of characteristics of this type of reasoning are now being embraced by President Donald Trump and his congressional supporters.

There are five common tactics used by science deniers. In 1998, brothers Mark and Chris Hoofnagle (a lawyer and a physiologist) wrote an early blog post about science denialism. That was followed by further work by econometrician Pascal Diethelm and public health scholar Martin McKee and cognitive scientists John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky. All identified the following factors as characteristic acts of science deniers:

Believing in conspiracy theories;
Relying on cherry-picked evidence;
Relying on f**e experts (and dismissal of actual experts);
Committing logical errors;
Setting impossible standards for what science should be able to deliver.

These elements are present when those who deny the Earth is round or who believe v*****es cause autism insist that there is a governmental cover-up of the real evidence on their topics. They can be seen when Ted Cruz tries to discredit c*****e c****e with talk about the anomalous world w*****r p*****n in 1998 due to El Niño. And they’re evident when intelligent design theorists complain that evolution by natural se******n still has not been proven.

Trump and his defenders in Congress echo this pattern. Even though Trump has firsthand knowledge of some of the facts under dispute – whereas his supporters may not – all seem to have bought in fully to the idea that the actual political situation is not the one pictured in the mainstream consensus of facts and evidence, but instead is based on an alternative reality.

Here are the five ways Trump and his allies use the same strategies as science deniers:

Conspiracy theories: During his questioning of Ambassador Bill Taylor and other witnesses at the impeachment hearings, Republican counsel Steve Castor repeatedly pursued a debunked conspiracy theory involving an alleged plot in which the Ukrainian government – and not the Russians – interfered with the 2016 p**********l e******n because they were out to get the president.

Cherry-picking: Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that President Trump told him, “I want nothing from Ukraine. I want no quid pro quo.” Trump and his supporters focused on this statement as evidence of his innocence, despite the fact that in other testimony by Sondland that day, he said, “Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky…Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

Discrediting experts: President Trump has repeatedly – and falsely – claimed that State Department and CIA employees such as Bill Taylor, George Kent, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman and others who have testified in the impeachment hearings are “Never Trumpers,” a term for Republicans who do not support Trump – and who therefore have no credibility. His supporters have latched onto this tactic. GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said on Sept. 20, after the whistleblower complaint was made public: “It looks to me like another deep-state attack.”

Illogical reasoning: Trump supporters have claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky never complained that he felt pressured by Trump to do the investigations into the Bidens that Trump sought. Trump himself has described the July 25 conversation he had with Zelensky in which he asked for the investigations as “perfect.” But news reports have shown that Zelensky did in fact feel pressured, and analysts have pointed out that Zelensky would risk losing crucial U.S. support were he to anger Trump by saying that he felt pressured.

Double standard for opponents: Trump claimed that written testimony from the whistleblower was unacceptable, despite the fact that he himself had only given written testimony in the Mueller investigation. Some of his supporters seem to agree and have tried to compel the whistleblower’s in-person testimony.

What might be behind the similarities between Trump defenders and science deniers? Perhaps, like science denial, all fact denial is basically the same. All ideology supports the reflex to believe what you want to believe. Scholars have studied the role of identity in shaping belief and concluded that sometimes even empirical beliefs can be tribal, reflecting what the other people on your team want you to believe. Adherence to a belief is not always based on evidence. The danger, of course, is that even as new facts come in, people won’t change their minds. This is the direct opposite of good empirical reasoning.

It is the hallmark of science that beliefs should be based on evidence, and that people should be willing to change their beliefs based on new evidence. This means that people should be able to specify in advance what evidence, if it existed, would be sufficient to get them to change their minds.

But are Trump and his congressional supporters doing that?

Like science deniers, no amount of evidence seems sufficient to change their partisan beliefs that the phone call with Zelensky was proper and that Trump “did nothing wrong.”

Even when the facts are overwhelming, congressional Republicans seem, like science deniers, willing to contort their beliefs and torture their logic, to stick to the party line because that is who they are.

As Senator Lindsey Graham recently put it, “I don’t care what anybody else says about the phone call … The phone call, I’ve made up my own mind, is fine.”

In science, such behavior means that one is eventually read out of the profession – you’re not fired, your tenure isn’t revoked, but you’re no longer taken seriously anymore.

In politics, it is not yet clear what the consequences might be.