For the Left- Going Tea Party?

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Tea Party Right had one consistent theme, being irate. Facts didn't matter.

Now I'm seeing a trend towards this with some (not all) of the left. I've no doubt that Trump is not a person fit for office. I don't agree with his policies and execution of them. I don't like anything about him at all.

That said, there has been a tendency of some to construct arguments for impeachment, making statements about law that are, well absurd. TPR would say that Obama violated the Constitution and the response should be "not until a court makes a final decision". The TPL? Same thing.

Naturally anyone can say pretty much anything, but the TPR didn't help in the long run. It provided the means for people to dismiss them wholesale even if they did have a point.

I suggest the TPL will have the same effect.

Want to remove Trump? Go about it rationally with facts as they are, not as people would like them to be.

 

[agent00f]

The Tea Party Right had one consistent theme, being irate. Facts didn't matter.

Now I'm seeing a trend towards this with some (not all) of the left. I've no doubt that Trump is not a person fit for office. I don't agree with his policies and execution of them. I don't like anything about him at all.

That said, there has been a tendency of some to construct arguments for impeachment, making statements about law that are, well absurd. TPR would say that Obama violated the Constitution and the response should be "not until a court makes a final decision". The TPL? Same thing.

Naturally anyone can say pretty much anything, but the TPR didn't help in the long run. It provided the means for people to dismiss them wholesale even if they did have a point.

I suggest the TPL will have the same effect.

Want to remove Trump? Go about it rationally with facts as they are, not as people would like them to be.

Hahahahhaha, totally predictable fair and balanced BothSides from a "independent": http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...degenerate-as-possible.2498580/#post-38720378

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I don't quite see a comparison here, particularly on the facts. This administration has zero respect for facts. By extensions their supporters show the same contempt for informed understanding.

Do some people go a little nutty and talk impeachment? Sure. Is it anywhere near the level of the right the last 8 years? No. Not even close.

 

[sandorski]

Death Panels/ FEMA Camps/Kenyan/Muslim Brotherhood = Bowling Green Massacre/Inauguration attendance/Executive Order fuckups/Security Council shenanigans


What makes these things equivalent is that they all came from one side of the Political aisle. One side is utter fear mongering BS, the other were actions taken.

There certainly is a lot of enthusiasm to Impeach on the other side, perhaps even for less than well established Legal reasons, but it at least attempts to base itself within Reality.

 

[IronWing]

Coffee Party seems a fitting name.

Anyway, the Tea Party was astroturf created by the Reps so I don't see how progressives possibly breaking from the Dems is the same. The Dems abandoned the left decades ago. The Tea Party brand was just a more vulgar expression of Rep orthodoxy.

 

[agent00f]

I don't quite see a comparison here, particularly on the facts. This administration has zero respect for facts. By extensions their supporters show the same contempt for informed understanding.

Do some people go a little nutty and talk impeachment? Sure. Is it anywhere near the level of the right the last 8 years? No. Not even close.

Why would facts matter to people who've largely internalized the fox news mantra?

Let's get @Jaskalas in here too to discuss how liberalism is bad as fascism, presumably because they both got "ism" at the end, and it's really all down to the leftards fault anyway.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't quite see a comparison here, particularly on the facts. This administration has zero respect for facts. By extensions their supporters show the same contempt for informed understanding.

Do some people go a little nutty and talk impeachment? Sure. Is it anywhere near the level of the right the last 8 years? No. Not even close.

Perhaps "Coffee Party" as has been suggested then.

You note I haven't had a positive thing to say about Trump or his actions. He makes stuff up and his followers aren't concerned about it and that's indeed troubling. But I'm not talking about them, I've written them off. I also understand venting. Hell knows I have. But I have seen what appears an increasing segment of nutters who decide to misrepresent or conflate "what must be" with "what is".

If something is done about Trump it won't be made easier by raising the noise level, it will be by the mechanisms provided in the Constitution.

It isn't about equivalence because the Right has been screaming about nothing much but rather a change I perceive, which of course you are free to disagree about, which isn't always grounded in reality and I don't mean Trump. I agree he's crap.

 

[fskimospy]

The Tea Party Right had one consistent theme, being irate. Facts didn't matter.

Now I'm seeing a trend towards this with some (not all) of the left. I've no doubt that Trump is not a person fit for office. I don't agree with his policies and execution of them. I don't like anything about him at all.

That said, there has been a tendency of some to construct arguments for impeachment, making statements about law that are, well absurd. TPR would say that Obama violated the Constitution and the response should be "not until a court makes a final decision". The TPL? Same thing.

Like I said in the other thread, this is a misunderstanding of how impeachment works. SCOTUS has explicitly ruled that the judiciary is not involved in the impeachment process, meaning that a court finding is irrelevant.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Perhaps "Coffee Party" as has been suggested then.

You note I haven't had a positive thing to say about Trump or his actions. He makes stuff up and his followers aren't concerned about it and that's indeed troubling. But I'm not talking about them, I've written them off. I also understand venting. Hell knows I have. But I have seen what appears an increasing segment of nutters who decide to misrepresent or conflate "what must be" with "what is".

If something is done about Trump it won't be made easier by raising the noise level, it will be by the mechanisms provided in the Constitution.

It isn't about equivalence because the Right has been screaming about nothing much but rather a change I perceive, which of course you are free to disagree about, which isn't always grounded in reality and I don't mean Trump. I agree he's crap.

I respect that stance you've taken against the Trump admin and the objectivity to it. It's refreshing to see that people can separate R and D from what is good or bad for the country as a whole. As a Canadian I don't have a direct dog in the fight but the impact to us can't be understated. It's concerning to see people, either side, so profoundly incapable of being objective. But that's not something new. The mental gymnastics I see from people who would rather find a way to justify the wrongs than just say it's wrong is astounding.

 

[agent00f]

Perhaps "Coffee Party" as has been suggested then.

You note I haven't had a positive thing to say about Trump or his actions. He makes stuff up and his followers aren't concerned about it and that's indeed troubling. But I'm not talking about them, I've written them off. I also understand venting. Hell knows I have. But I have seen what appears an increasing segment of nutters who decide to misrepresent or conflate "what must be" with "what is".

If something is done about Trump it won't be made easier by raising the noise level, it will be by the mechanisms provided in the Constitution.

It isn't about equivalence because the Right has been screaming about nothing much but rather a change I perceive, which of course you are free to disagree about, which isn't always grounded in reality and I don't mean Trump. I agree he's crap.

"Yeah that Trump & co are sure crap, and fox news over here has informed me that them libtards are pretty crap, too, because they dared argue against my personal interpretation of impeachment"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like I said in the other thread, this is a misunderstanding of how impeachment works. SCOTUS has explicitly ruled that the judiciary is not involved in the impeachment process, meaning that a court finding is irrelevant.

The door was left open as future actions were not ruled out. If Congress decides that it is going to trump up charges (yes a pun) or otherwise act in a clearly partisan way to remove a President then you cannot know what they will do. You are making the same mistake Trump did with his executive orders where courts defer to the Executive on national security issues.

You speculate, but you do not know.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't quite see a comparison here, particularly on the facts. This administration has zero respect for facts. By extensions their supporters show the same contempt for informed understanding.

Do some people go a little nutty and talk impeachment? Sure. Is it anywhere near the level of the right the last 8 years? No. Not even close.

Talk of impeachment is trolling from the alt-left following the formula of the alt-right. Conflict is attention. Attention is influence. Facts don't matter.

Trump stole Repubs' base, the Teahadis among them. They're more loyal to him than the Party. They'll primary the shit out of any Repub who stands against the Donald, particularly in the gerrymandered districts Repubs created. Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

Trump will have to fail in some utterly astounding way for his base & the Repubs to turn on him. Short of that, there's room for a whole lot of fail in the meanwhile.

 

[Zorba]

Where is the widespread BS machine of the left? I know there are some left wing publications that push a lefty agenda, but they are at least mostly based on fact. They also have low readership compared to the extreme right wing rags.

Yes there is a lot of outrage on the left, but it is actually grounded in fact and based off real things Trump has done. The tea party was always based on BS, innuendo, and simply being against Obama having any victories. I just don't see a similarity, unless you are for the normalizing of the insanity of Trump.

 

[fskimospy]

The door was left open as future actions were not ruled out. If Congress decides that it is going to trump up charges (yes a pun) or otherwise act in a clearly partisan way to remove a President then you cannot know what they will do. You are making the same mistake Trump did with his executive orders where courts defer to the Executive on national security issues.

You speculate, but you do not know.

Haha, no I'm not. Of course it's impossible to know with complete certainty what would happen in the future but as with anything else we can look to the statements of SCOTUS as a guide and they are pretty clear. They DEFINITELY did not consider any finding by a court to be required for impeachment, in fact they explicitly stated that such a requirement would likely be unconstitutional as it would violate the separation of powers. What you said in your OP is very clearly wrong.

If anyone's making a Trumpian mistake here it's you because you're ignoring clear legal precedent in order to see your desired outcome.

 

[agent00f]

Talk of impeachment is trolling from the alt-left following the formula of the alt-right. Conflict is attention. Attention is influence. Facts don't matter.

Trump stole Repubs' base, the Teahadis among them. They're more loyal to him than the Party. They'll primary the shit out of any Repub who stands against the Donald, particularly in the gerrymandered districts Repubs created. Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

Trump will have to fail in some utterly astounding way for his base & the Repubs to turn on him. Short of that, there's room for a whole lot of fail in the meanwhile.

Talk of "impeachment" is largely a metaphor for discontent, which is hardly trolling. We all know no conservative is ever going against their own and impeachment is a political vote.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why would facts matter to people who've largely internalized the fox news mantra?

Let's get @Jaskalas in here too to discuss how liberalism is bad as fascism, presumably because they both got "ism" at the end, and it's really all down to the leftards fault anyway.

It'd be nice to get back to liberalism instead of barking like rabid dogs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Haha, no I'm not. Of course it's impossible to know with complete certainty what would happen in the future but as with anything else we can look to the statements of SCOTUS as a guide and they are pretty clear. They DEFINITELY did not consider any finding by a court to be required for impeachment, in fact they explicitly stated that such a requirement would likely be unconstitutional as it would violate the separation of powers. What you said in your OP is very clearly wrong.

If anyone's making a Trumpian mistake here it's you because you're ignoring clear legal precedent in order to see your desired outcome.

I never said a court finding was required. I said a legal basis. By your own standards the 112th Congress could have removed Obama over the ACA. Hey if you can make the rules and the House was Republican they could have just because. I don't think so. What I did say is that if there is a basis in the judicial mind over the proceedings in Congress the SCOTUS might become involved, such as in the case of a President being removed without a clear legal justification. You also disregard things as to the scope and boundaries and consequences under the law for emoluments. I'm saying I don't know. The article says it isn't clear. You are absolute on what it has to means.

BTW the reference about a suit is also related and because there is no real determination of what things mean in a defined sense that suit isn't likely to do well in the OTHER branch, the judiciary, however the same doubts and questions would almost certainly come up in an impeachment process.

And therein lies a problem. Desire outweighs external expert opinions. Hey I want the guy out too but it bugs you with your "trumpian" comment. Hey whatever. At some point the conversation ends and you win if you like.

I suggest you think on this.

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

 

[agent00f]

It'd be nice to get back to liberalism instead of barking like rabid dogs.

Liberalism is all about empirical reality, in his case the empirical reality of BothSides. Rather fitting you believe that people who point out these simple observations about the fox news independents are just like them Trumpsters.

 

[UNCjigga]

I don't know if the "coffee party" or "resistance" can be looked at as a unified movement like the Tea Party Republicans. I don't think that one started out as a unified movement either, but then you had the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity take it over eventually. Not sure if the same thing will happen here--I know there are a few Soros-funded groups involved but most of the folks I know protesting don't normally protest things and sure aren't getting paid to protest.

What's troubling is that 10% of the protestors labeled as "antifa" are not too keen on non-violent protest and are using these events to promote their own form of extreme socialist ideology. Critics of the left are using their actions to delegitimize the rest of the protestors, and are probably a good scapegoat for Republicans cancelling their town hall events.

 

[agent00f]

I don't know if the "coffee party" or "resistance" can be looked at as a unified movement like the Tea Party Republicans. I don't think that one started out as a unified movement either, but then you had the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity take it over eventually. Not sure if the same thing will happen here--I know there are a few Soros-funded groups involved but most of the folks I know protesting don't normally protest things and sure aren't getting paid to protest.

What's troubling is that 10% of the protestors labeled as "antifa" are not too keen on non-violent protest and are using these events to promote their own form of extreme socialist ideology. Critics of the left are using their actions to delegitimize the rest of the protestors, and are probably a good scapegoat for Republicans cancelling their town hall events.

Antifa is considerably less than 10%, unlike ~100% of trumpsters and arguably conservatives in general who are all about the fascism and scapegoating browns, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said a court finding was required. I said a legal basis. By your own standards the 112th Congress could have removed Obama over the ACA. Hey if you can make the rules and the House was Republican they could have just because. I don't think so. What I did say is that if there is a basis in the judicial mind over the proceedings in Congress the SCOTUS might become involved, such as in the case of a President being removed without a clear legal justification. You also disregard things as to the scope and boundaries and consequences under the law for emoluments. I'm saying I don't know. The article says it isn't clear. You are absolute on what it has to means.

Again, I'm simply quoting what the Supreme Court has said on the topic, if you don't like their opinion I don't know what to tell you. As for my standard, Congress could not have removed Obama over the ACA as that would clearly be an attempt to usurp the executive's power, which is part of the extremely, extremely narrow scope SCOTUS listed for where they might intervene.

One more time: impeachments are unreviewable by the courts and such review would likely be unconstitutional, absent Congress behaving irrationally or attempting to usurp the power of the executive. That standard is EXTRAORDINARILY narrow and Trump has already engaged in multiple actions that would easily justify impeachment.

BTW the reference about a suit is also related and because there is no real determination of what things mean in a defined sense that suit isn't likely to do well in the OTHER branch, the judiciary, however the same doubts and questions would almost certainly come up in an impeachment process.

And therein lies a problem. Desire outweighs external expert opinions. Hey I want the guy out too but it bugs you with your "trumpian" comment. Hey whatever. At some point the conversation ends and you win if you like.

I suggest you think on this.

I agree that desire is outweighing expert opinion here. I strongly suggest you check your standard with SCOTUS rulings on the issue. Once you do you'll agree with me. Don't be so wedded to your interpretation of something that you can't change your mind.

 

[Commodus]

It'd be nice to get back to liberalism instead of barking like rabid dogs.

Liberalism means a free press that can report the truth without fear of reprisals, and an attempt to preserve a representative democracy where facts matter. Pretty sure that's what's going on right now.

 

[Jaskalas]

Liberalism means a free press that can report the truth without fear of reprisals, and an attempt to preserve a representative democracy where facts matter. Pretty sure that's what's going on right now.

What's going on right now is sheer unadulterated hatred for "others".
And when fake news is posted by the "left"? Multiple times?
Attack those who question it, and label them other.

What's going on right now is the continued madness of the 2016 election. Unending polarization and hatred.
As pulled from another topic:

I follow the simple rule of treating people how they treat others.

We are warning against extremism pure and simple. Against calls for vengeance by those who feel wronged by the election.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yea, fvck no. tea party = palin, bachmann and that level of braintrust. No thank you.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

What's going on right now is sheer unadulterated hatred for "others".
And when fake news is posted by the "left"? Multiple times?
Attack those who question it, and label them other.

What's going on right now is the continued madness of the 2016 election. Unending polarization and hatred.
As pulled from another topic:



Hayabusa Rider is raising the alarm at calls for vengeance by those who feel wronged by the election. It is extremism pure and simple.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty understand what's fake news and what's information being reported that you don't like.

Pizzagate is fake news. FEMA camps is fake news. The latest one that Obama is setting up a shadow government is fake news. Actual information that is based in things that actually occurred is not fake news.