|
Blind Pineapple posted:No, the political climate in the wake of W's failure got a lot of democrats voted in, who tried to govern from the center. The Tea Party was formed as a (uninformed, racist) response to Obama, and didn't gain any real governing power until a couple years into his term. They weren't taking the reins directly from Bush during the 08 financial collapse, which would probably look insignificant compared to whatever disaster it would take to get Trump removed a decade of bitter, resentful partisanship later. The resentments among the far right that led to the Tea Party started during Bush's administration, largely because they saw the Bush Republicans as being too moderate. They were willing to put up with the party running boring moderate after boring moderate as long as they kept winning, but as soon as the GOP lost an election - to a black former community organizer whose middle name was Hussein, no less - the fringes started claiming it was the natural result of the GOP's lack of ideological purity and started demanding purges. It's pretty similar to what's going on now with the left. The only real difference is that in the case of the Tea Party, wealthy media magnates started pouring money into the movement in hopes of harnessing that populist anger to fulfill their own conservative plans.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think we need to be realistic. Under the current climate, there is most likely only one thing that is getting Trump impeached: Strong evidence of Collusion with Russia. Why would this get him impeached? The Republicans love Russia now, why would he get in trouble for colluding with our soon-to-be ally?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:And you can say a bunch of poo poo about how our system is not very democratic to begin with but the fact is there has never been a President in the history of the United States where a fear of not giving up power if the time comes in 2020 seems so great. An impeachment will not be half as damaging than a President refusing to leave office or seven years of Pence. It's a ridiculous fear to begin with. A president can't refuse to leave office. The only way that could happen is if he carries out a literal military coup.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
xeria posted:Trump doesn't seem like the type to be overly concerned with what a president can and can't do. He doesn't get a say in the matter when he's not President anymore. You don't stop being the president when you leave the White House for good, you stop being the president when the White House staff starts saying "sorry, but you don't live here anymore".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:That's cool. George W and Obama never challenged the legitimacy of their respective elections or literally said that they would not accept the results of their elections. They never claimed they would jail their opponents. I do remember, on the other hand, tons of people on the left challenging the legitimacy of Trump's election, pushing for electors to steal the election from him and give it to someone else instead, asserting that the entire election was rigged by the Russians, and so on. And while Obama never pushed to jail his opponent, there sure were a lot of naive Obama supporters who hoped that he would jail his predecessor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:55
|
|