Election Day and Results

Status
Not open for further replies.
In reference to your statement in bold- "The Tea Party would have been formed no matter what dem got elected."

From your link- "The catalyst for what would become known as the Tea Party movement came on February 19, 2009, when Boston Tea Party (1773) in his response to Pres. Barack Obama’s mortgage relief plan."

I just don't think you can retroactively speculate or outright say anything about the scenario (any other dem gets elected and the Tea Party sill happens) with any certainty.

Oh and incase I didn't quite state my opinion here, this debate of who was doing what, who should be denouncing this or that, is fucking stupid. I read some of this back and forth, and want to scoop my own eyeballs out with a fucking table spoon. There has got to be something better to discuss/read here.:wall:O_o:-/:whatever:

Fair enough.
 
Given the mood of the country I think a Tea Party would form in the wake of almost any Democrat's election, but its size and staying power would be in question.
 
Given the mood of the country I think a Tea Party would form in the wake of almost any Democrat's election, but its size and staying power would be in question.
I am actually sort of surprised there haven't been rumblings of something starting out of the dems.
 
I am actually sort of surprised there haven't been rumblings of something starting out of the dems.

It's still early. You never know, but, I think they may be a little skeptical about splitting their forces on multiple fronts. But, like I said, you never know!
 
It's still early. You never know, but, I think they may be a little skeptical about splitting their forces on multiple fronts. But, like I said, you never know!
I mean, if there was ever a time where they could seize on a groundswell of people that are just angry and want to do something about it, the time is now.

I have absolutely no clue what the hell that would look like, BTW.
 
I mean, if there was ever a time where they could seize on a groundswell of people that are just angry and want to do something about it, the time is now.

I have absolutely no clue what the hell that would look like, BTW.

No doubt. The field is certainly ripe for the harvest, but I think the Democratic Party has prided themselves on their "sticking" or staying ability while attacking the Tea Party and the perceived inability of the Republican Party to stay together. Whether the "split" was real or perceived, they (D's) presented it that way.

If they would form an offshoot of their party, I think they would give it a little time to come out into the open, but, like you said, I really don't have a clue what it would look like either. It would be interesting to see though.
 
No doubt. The field is certainly ripe for the harvest, but I think the Democratic Party has prided themselves on their "sticking" or staying ability while attacking the Tea Party and the perceived inability of the Republican Party to stay together. Whether the "split" was real or perceived, they (D's) presented it that way.

If they would form an offshoot of their party, I think they would give it a little time to come out into the open, but, like you said, I really don't have a clue what it would look like either. It would be interesting to see though.

I would be in a weird place personally. I have more in common with Clinton Democrats than I do the straight liberal progressives. I don't really do the identity politics part of I don't have to (obvious racism, sexism) and I do like firearms. I think a split would do similarly to the GOP and you would get progressives and establishment democrats. To me Hillary was exactly that. Basically a middle of the ride politician. Obviously she was made out to be some progressive liberal, but her policy didn't reflect that. She couldn't get real progressives to support her because she wasn't a real progressive.

Bernie and his supporters forced her to come more to the left in some areas. The thing is though Bernie won't run again. Next up is Elizabeth's Warren if she wants the job. She to me is a perfect candidate to beat whoever she is running against(I still don't think trump is in this thing for 8 years). She has experience in government, which I think is a plus, she has both establishment and progressive ties, and she fucking hates the banks.
 
I would be in a weird place personally. I have more in common with Clinton Democrats than I do the straight liberal progressives. I don't really do the identity politics part of I don't have to (obvious racism, sexism) and I do like firearms. I think a split would do similarly to the GOP and you would get progressives and establishment democrats. To me Hillary was exactly that. Basically a middle of the ride politician. Obviously she was made out to be some progressive liberal, but her policy didn't reflect that. She couldn't get real progressives to support her because she wasn't a real progressive.

Bernie and his supporters forced her to come more to the left in some areas. The thing is though Bernie won't run again. Next up is Elizabeth's Warren if she wants the job. She to me is a perfect candidate to beat whoever she is running against(I still don't think trump is in this thing for 8 years). She has experience in government, which I think is a plus, she has both establishment and progressive ties, and she fucking hates the banks.

We shall certainly see my Brother! I think this four years will certainly be different. I think people will probably be on the extreme ends of the scale with Trump at the end of his term -- really like him or really dislike him. If they tend to dislike him or marginally like him at best...I think a Warren or someone like her would certainly put up a good fight. As it's extremely early in Trump's position, it will be interesting to see who the R's would put up...especially if it's a new generation of them rather than the usual career politicians.
 
Elizabeth Warren...another shill. I'd like to return to youth please, Dems shat on Webb and O'Malley.

It's funny how many think Trump is the right wing apocalypse...dude was a Democrat until 2004?
 
We can get all riled up about idiots, or we can remember that petition was signed by 469 of almost 24000 students and faculty.

It is always easy to find idiots who will take anything too far.

I try and remember whenever I see examples like this that the vast VAST majority of students, and even faculty don't push politics on campus. Most people are just too busy. That does change in certain departments, but even there they aren't often taken seriously as academics outside their safe spaces.

Or apathy. Most students just don't care.
 
I am actually sort of surprised there haven't been rumblings of something starting out of the dems.
There is, media is reporting that many Democratic House Members want to delay the leadership vote, which means Pelosi's tenure as the House Democrat Leader may be over.

Flipping through the radio channels and some guy on Glen Beck (ironically) really had some good points.
Trump ran against the media, and people are so pissed at the perceived bias that the election was also a giant F.U. to the "Mainstream Media".
There is more to it, but I agree with that sentiment.
I really wished Webb would have stayed in, but he knew it was rigged from the get-go.
 
So PE Trump wants to increase the Army by 110k from the end strength the current draw down will end at, increase the size of the Navy by 80 ships, and the Air Force by 100+ Aircraft...too late. Where's the money coming from though?
 
Very interesting, and plausible, article from WOTR. I am not saying I think this is likely, but I agree with the author that it could happen. I don't think PE Trump is anywhere near the same league as a Putin when it comes to this stuff.

The Danger of Inadvertent War in the Next Four Years

At work the Ops folks joke "will I be on shift when WWIII breaks out" at least once a week. Not just the pessimists like me, but the "rainbows and butterflies" types as well. Cold War 2.0 is back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top