US Senator John Thune, Senate Majority Leader, was quoted in the latest episode of The Dakota Scout’s weekly Scouting Lounge podcast as saying “the dark side of the story is that ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ is real,” as was written in their follow-on commentary on 4 January. In the podcast, Sen. Thune named names of some of those TDS-afflicted Democrats: Cory Booker (NJ), Ruben Gallego (AZ), Jeff Merkley (OR), Chris Murphy (CT), Bernie Sander (VT), and Elizabeth Warren (MA).
That was a good starter list and a clear indication that the mild-mannered Thune “gets it” with respect to resistance to President Trump and the Republican agenda in Congress. However, just about every Senate Democrat could have made the list – especially the disgraceful Mark Kelly (AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (IL) of Seditious Six fame – as they have voted nearly in lockstep against every Trump nominee and Republican bill since President Trump was inaugurated last January.
As a Dakota Scout subscriber, I routinely read articles of interest and occasionally engage in debate with some of the lunatic Democrat lemmings who comment on them from time to time. As someone who honed his virtual debating skills with online Democrats and other leftists for over a decade on X (formerly Twitter), it takes a particularly egregious comment from someone to stimulate me to spend the time needed to counter unsupported cliches with facts.
And so it was with a couple of the commenters who raged against Senator Thune without providing any facts to substantiate their emotional claims. Thune has learned how to trigger Democrats and their base, and trigger some of them he did in that podcast and Dakota Scout article! Below are some excerpts of the back and forth I had with a couple of them in the comments section.
WHAT SET ME OFF
I read the article with interest and noted that Dakota Scout did its best to “lean Democrat” throughout the article as they always do. No matter, as those of us who pay attention know that Senator Thune’s comments – although perhaps too polite for me! – were spot on and not debatable. Nevertheless, the consumers of MSNBC and CNN weighed in as usual. Here is the comment that got me going:
Person X’s comments:
This is absurd.
Spouting “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as a reality is terrible journalism. Thune promotes the idea that anyone who opposes this president is deranged, and this paper promotes it.
Absolutely despicable.
Many mental professionals have described TRUMP as having mental issues. Thune didn’t mention that and neither did the Scout. The fear of Trump reprisals and the need to keep on his good side is the kind of media suppression that justifies the description of fascism.
MY REPLY TO PERSON X
Shaking my head at the ridiculousness of those comments, I responded with the following:
I’m not inclined to care much about an obviously uninformed opinion like yours. However, I do like providing people like you with some facts that dispel your fantasies. Here is what Grok says about the unprecedented obstruction by Senate Democrats in 2025:
The level of Senate Democratic obstruction to Donald Trump’s appointees and legislative agenda in 2025 was unprecedented in scale, though it built on escalating partisan tactics seen in prior decades. This included blanket refusals to allow unanimous consent (UC) for nominees, forcing time-consuming roll-call votes even on non-controversial picks, and near-universal opposition to Trump-backed bills. While historical precedents exist for minority-party delays (e.g., Republican filibusters under Obama), the comprehensive nature of the 2025 blockade—resulting in zero UC or voice votes for any civilian nominees—stands out as a new extreme in polarization metrics.
Note that isolated instances of one or two Democratic “yes” votes (e.g., from moderates like Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema, if independent but caucusing) do not constitute meaningful bipartisan support, as they fail to reflect broader cross-party consensus.
Opposition to Appointees
In 2025, Senate Democrats voted against the overwhelming majority of Trump’s nominees, with many receiving zero Democratic support and confirmations proceeding almost exclusively on party lines. This forced Republicans to invoke procedural changes to accelerate the process.
• 2025 Details: By December 2025, the Senate confirmed 417 Trump nominees, exceeding Biden’s first-year total of 365, but only after overcoming extensive delays. Cabinet-level confirmations moved quickly initially (all 22 by September), but lower-level picks faced blanket opposition: Six Cabinet nominees (e.g., Pete Hegseth for Defense, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for HHS) got zero Democratic votes, while only Marco Rubio for State received full Democratic backing. Overall, eight Democrats voted against 21 of 22 Cabinet picks each. For the full slate, Democrats allowed no voice votes or UC, requiring individual roll calls that slowed progress—leading to 149 nominees stalled by September despite committee approval. Republicans responded with a “nuclear option” rule change in September, enabling batch confirmations (e.g., 48 at once on September 19, followed by packages of 97). Even routine roles like U.S. attorneys saw opposition, with only four receiving “blue slips” (home-state Democratic approval). Democrats defended this as necessary scrutiny, denying it was obstruction. [Cvrk: any fool can see it was blatant, unprecedented obstruction.]
• Historical Comparison: Cabinet confirmations in 2025 were faster than in Trump’s first term (50 by July 2017 vs. 94 by July 2025) or recent predecessors, but the zero-UC policy for civilians was labeled “unprecedented” by sources across the spectrum, as no prior president faced such a total blockade on fast-tracking. For context, Obama faced record filibusters (e.g., over 80 cloture votes on nominees in his first term), but many non-controversial picks passed via UC. Bush saw Democratic holds on judges, prompting 2005 nuclear threats, but not a blanket denial of expedited processes. Earlier eras (pre-1990s) featured routine bipartisan confirmations with 80+ yes votes typical. The 2025 tactics amplified trends from the 2000s onward, per Brookings analyses, but the scale—impacting even apolitical roles—marked a departure.
Opposition to Bills
Democrats in 2025 opposed virtually all major Trump agenda items, with key legislation passing on strict party lines and minimal cross-aisle votes.
• 2025 Details: The centerpiece was the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA), a sweeping reconciliation package with tax cuts, Medicaid/SNAP reductions, and defense boosts, passed in July on a 51-50 vote (VP tiebreaker) after a 24+ hour marathon. No Democrats supported it, viewing it as tied to “Project 2025” priorities that harmed the middle class. Other Trump-backed measures, like appropriations tied to his agenda, faced similar unified Democratic “no” votes, with no significant bipartisan enactments reported on core policies.
• Historical Comparison: Party-line reconciliation bills are not new—e.g., Trump’s 2017 tax cuts (51-48), Obama’s ACA (without GOP votes), or Bush’s 2001 tax cuts (narrow margins amid some crossovers). However, 2025’s near-total Democratic lockstep opposition aligns with post-1990s polarization trends, where DW-NOMINATE scores show ideological gaps at historic highs. Pre-1980s Senates often saw more fluid voting (e.g., 1964 Civil Rights Act with bipartisan majorities despite filibusters), but recent cycles mirror 2025’s divides without the same blanket refusal on routine items.
Blocking Unanimous Consent
Democrats in 2025 systematically objected to UC requests for Trump’s nominees and some procedural matters, grinding the Senate to a halt and prompting rule reforms.
• 2025 Details: No civilian nominee received UC or voice vote approval, a tactic Republicans called a “historic blockade” and “temper tantrum.” This applied even to non-controversial picks, forcing full debates and votes. Democrats tied objections to demands for spending or policy concessions, which Republicans rejected as “extortion.” The impasse led to the September nuclear option, allowing grouped votes.
• Historical Comparison: UC holds have been minority tools since the 1800s, with escalations in the 2000s (e.g., Republicans’ secret holds under Obama delaying hundreds; Democrats’ filibusters under Bush). But 2025’s zero-UC record for an entire year is cited as without parallel, surpassing even peak obstruction periods like Obama’s (over 100 cloture motions but some UC approvals). This fits broader trends of “minority tyranny” debates, but the totality in 2025 exceeded norms.
In summary, 2025 Democratic obstruction was intense and systemic, breaking records for nominee delays despite eventual confirmations, and reflecting amplified partisanship. While not wholly without historical roots, the scale—per Republican and neutral analyses—marked it as an outlier in U.S. Senate history.
End of Grok analysis.
By the way, your “many mental professionals have described TRUMP as having mental issues” comment is limited to partisan hack Democrat psychiatrists, i.e., the same ones who defended Biden’s mentality acuity and sharpness until he exposed himself during the 2024 presidential debate. None of those “professionals” have had their licenses pulled – but they should have!
Lastly, TDS is real. You’ve quite obviously got it in spades.
PERSON Y REPLIES
Another person decided to reply at this point and pile on in support of Person X:
Hmmm, Grok is an unbiased AI tool? You are an idiot. Grok has also labeled Trump as a pedophile https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/musk-rogue-ai-chatbot-brands-042321919.html. Guess that makes it a fact that he’s a child rapist and you support raping children by supporting him.
Grok is a large language model, sucking up information and putting it together in response to prompts: it’s little more than a guess and it simply makes stuff up if it doesn’t have a response. It’s no more a credible source than Fox or any other mainstream, billionaire owned, media. Let me explain why people oppose Trump and his policies. This comes from Miles Taylor but I think it’s the most succinct explanation of the problem. “By any objective measure, Trump is the most Constitution-defying president of the modern era.
[A lengthy quote was included here that I choose not to include from Miles Taylor, a DHS employee who resigned before he could be fired by President Trump for insubordination. The gist of Taylor’s claims is that President Trump “violates the constitution with impunity in all of his actions” by referring to all of the Democrat lawfare cases decided in US district courts by primarily Democrat-appointed justices.]
[Person Y continues:] … in his first year alone, dozens of federal judges have ruled Trump violated the Constitution. Indeed, he’s notched more constitutional violations than any of his recent predecessors have committed during their entire time in public office. The next closest case? Trump himself, in his first term. Meanwhile, hundreds of additional claims from federal judges have found his administration acted unlawfully even where constitutional questions weren’t directly reached.
While many of these cases have been appealed, the initial rulings aren’t just from a cabal of “activist” liberal judges, as the White House asserts. Many of the harshest statements have come from conservative judges, including some Trump put on the federal bench. Taken together, their message screams like a siren: this is the most lawless administration in modern American history.”
Taylor’s argument is comprehensive and well-supported, and while the constitution they swore to uphold supports these rulings regarding Trump’s criminal constitutional violations, the Republican Congress stands silently by, or as South Dakota’s Thune and Johnson and Rounds demonstrate, actively supporting the violation of our constitution.
MY REPLY TO PERSON Y
In responding to the unsupported claims (equivalent to someone claiming the moon is made of cheese), I provided the following:
More LoL from someone who doesn’t like the facts.
1. Regarding Grok stating Trump is a pedophile. I asked this question just now (“Is Trump a pedophile?”) and received this response:
No, there is no credible evidence or legal finding that Donald Trump is a pedophile. While he has faced numerous allegations of sexual misconduct over the years, only a few involve claims related to minors, and those have been unsubstantiated, dismissed, or withdrawn without corroboration. [and it goes on to detail all the false allegations, etc.]
2. You’re applying the typical lefty spin when you don’t like the message being delivered, i.e., attacking the messenger (in this case Grok). You can’t dispute the facts, i.e., numbers and specifics provided in terms of near-unanimous Democrat obstruction of the Trump agenda, so you try to falsely discredit the messenger. The fact of the matter is that Grok (like all AI tools) has been evolving from the beginning. And like any AI tool, the user needs to apply some intelligence in asking and refining questions. That is, if you know something that disputes Grok’s aggregation and analysis, you refine the response with pointed questions and additional facts. I do that all the time. The point remains that you can’t dispute the facts in that answer about Democrat obstruction.
3. By the way, X (Twitter) has been evolving for the better since Musk bought it, too. I was kicked off along with Trump in January 2021 for political reasons (challenging Biden’s 81 million fake votes in multiple articles that I wrote and got posted on Redstate and other blogs). You and your ilk probably cheered the suppression of us conservatives at that time. Since then, Musk has dealt with a lot of the algorithms (lefties were running the show, and a number were fired and/or resigned “in protest” before they were canned). After my account was restored, I am now back up to nearly 50K followers. The same has happened for many others.
4. Miles Taylor. The guy who claimed that “”I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration” before he was outed and cashiered. BTW, if you’re a federal employee, you don’t get to blatantly thwart the will of a duly elected president with impunity. You’re suffering from confirmation bias: the human tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s preexisting beliefs, values, or hypotheses, while giving less attention to — or actively ignoring/dismissing — evidence that contradicts them. Taylor’s claims that Trump is acting unconstitutionally are completely bogus. You can’t cite anything examples in which Trump has acted unconstitutionally (including all the caterwauling nonsense about what some activist judges have ruled in your screed – most of which are still in dispute on appeal, except for the ones already overturned). Just because a radical judge (including the ostensible “conservative” now and then) attempts to thwart a Trump action via Democrat lawfare claims doesn’t make Trump’s actions unconstitutional. Tell me how many of the district court judge decisions made thwarting Trump’s policies have been sustained by the USSC? The facts are that the US Supreme Court has overwhelmingly sided with the administration on emergency appeals of lower court decisions, lifting or vacating those lower court blocks to allow policies to proceed while litigation continues. There have been ~17 Supreme Court stays or orders to vacate lower court orders (favoring the administration, i.e., overturning the district court rulings against it). There is only 1 documented Supreme Court affirmation of a lower court order against the administration (sustaining the district court ruling).
5. President Trump is merely restoring Article II powers that have been eroded by the Democrats/Uniparty for 50 years, and the Uniparty (and sheep like you) don’t like it.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
There was some more back-and-forth, but you get the gist of it. The debate – such as it was – ended with my concluding comments:
To summarize, no rebuttals with any facts at all to my statistics and statements. You merely shifted to a morality play which is what I’ve seen on Twitter and elsewhere for over a decade. The pattern is obvious: make general comments that mirror MSNBC/CNN/NYT/WaPo cliches and claims, throw more cliches and claims unsupported by facts out there in an attempt at “rebuttal,” resort to name-calling and morality plays in a vain attempt to take the high road when you can’t support your original claims, and then go silent or block when you run out of cliches and insults.
Perhaps you’ve run into people like two in recent years, too. The facts cut through their platitudes and cliches every time. Sadly, a person could conduct debates like this every day and never make a dent in the Trump resistance – even in South Dakota!
And I thank Senator Thune for setting aside his 2016 statements about President Trump and working to get the Trump agenda passed through the US Senate in 2025. More, please!
The end.