I'd like to see what is happening now happen. For the most part Trump is being allowed to do what he wants, which checks and balances working. We are seeing a political push back, a la the Tea Party in 2008, which is try to provide a voice for the majority of voters who did not elect Trump. I want someone who has no experience in government, who has admitted to aides that "he is surprised he cannot run the government like he runs his business" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...73601.html) to have more scrutiny on him so he does not do anything unethical or illegal, and if he does, that he prosecuted for it. I also want him to stop being a child in Twitter and lashing out at people who do not agree with him.

I've answered your questions, now answer three of mine.

What obstruction has there been so far? He is barely behind on his Cabinet posts, but that is because he skipped some ethical screenings and have chosen people who are questionably qualifier or have been outright hostile to the post they are nominated to. That to me seems like a reasonable reason to want thorough vetting.

How is he not being allowed to work on his agenda?

Why should we forget what he said during the campaign, when his actions as POTUS do not indicate that he has changed?

Just to be clear, I've stated multiple times that I hope the Dems do not follow the Reps lead from 2008 and work to compromise and reduce gridlock. I don't like a blanket strategy of obstruction like Mr. Turtle proposed and implemented in 2008, and I hope the Dems do not follow suit, starting with the Supreme Court nomination. It was stolen, but hey, just suck it up and keep some ammo as being the better team in your back pocket for later.

I'd like to go back to us highlighting all of the crooked stuff Trump's administration or his nominees have done if we could.

(02-10-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 10:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 10:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you make a good point about the negative feedback loop of looping all liberalism in with socialism, and same for racism, et. al. with conservatism.

Hate to be a nitpick, but the proper mathematical terminology is a positive feedback loop. A negative feedback loop detracts from the input, eventually settling to a steady state less than the original signal (most typically a zero output).

A positive feedback loop leads to larger and larger output.

It was a good nitpick. I just hate to call something like that positive.

When you are x-rayed for a possible broken bone, do you want the result to be positive or negative?

(02-10-2017 02:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 10:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 10:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 10:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you make a good point about the negative feedback loop of looping all liberalism in with socialism, and same for racism, et. al. with conservatism.

Hate to be a nitpick, but the proper mathematical terminology is a positive feedback loop. A negative feedback loop detracts from the input, eventually settling to a steady state less than the original signal (most typically a zero output).

A positive feedback loop leads to larger and larger output.

It was a good nitpick. I just hate to call something like that positive.

When you are x-rayed for a possible broken bone, do you want the result to be positive or negative?

(02-10-2017 01:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'd like to see what is happening now happen. For the most part Trump is being allowed to do what he wants, which checks and balances working. We are seeing a political push back, a la the Tea Party in 2008, which is try to provide a voice for the majority of voters who did not elect Trump. I want someone who has no experience in government, who has admitted to aides that "he is surprised he cannot run the government like he runs his business" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...73601.html) to have more scrutiny on him so he does not do anything unethical or illegal, and if he does, that he prosecuted for it. I also want him to stop being a child in Twitter and lashing out at people who do not agree with him.

I've answered your questions, now answer three of mine.

What obstruction has there been so far? He is barely behind on his Cabinet posts, but that is because he skipped some ethical screenings and have chosen people who are questionably qualifier or have been outright hostile to the post they are nominated to. That to me seems like a reasonable reason to want thorough vetting.

How is he not being allowed to work on his agenda?

Why should we forget what he said during the campaign, when his actions as POTUS do not indicate that he has changed?

I am really disappointed to hear that this, that what is happening, is what you want. How does this make anything better?

You do realize that all the politicians are using Twitter now. I saw one from Hillary this morning. Maybe she was lashing out at somebody who disagree with her. As did Schumer, Warren, and others. I think Tweeting by politicians is here to stay for a while. Or is it just Trump you want kicked off?

Sounds like you want to get back to business as usual. OK. That's a choice many people make. Not my choice, but a choice.

1. Really??? You really see no obstruction? You really thought this normal? How old are you? Is this your first transfer of power election? The delays in cabinet approvals are the least of it, but those delays are real and they are delays from the left.

http://rickwells.us/schumer-vows-senate-...net-picks/

The obstructionism extends past the elected Democrats, though. Republicans cannot even speak at townhalls without being shouted down.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/318869...-town-hall


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/edu...9540fba4e2

Not sure why Black Lives Matter is protesting DeVos, but as long as you concur, maybe you can explain it to me.

And the nitpicking is part of it. Nothing happens that the antiTrumps cannot be aghast at or make fun of.

Obstruction is like chocolate cake - a little can be very good, but an endless stream of nothing but chocolate cake, day after day...

2. By being obstructed, delayed, and opposed in every possible way, for any reason or none at all.

3. Forget? I guess I forgot that I told you to forget. Thanks for reminding me.

What I am saying the clock went to 00:00, and your team was behind on points. Time to shake hands and show the sportmansship. Stop the whining about the bad calls in the third quarter, the trick play that scored points, etc. Game over, until we play again.

We have to move forward from here. You are digging in your heels. No amount of indignation over a 15 year old joke is going to help.

Ok, you answered my questions, I answered yours. I guess we are done. Good talk.

OO, for someone who constantly professes that they don't support Trump, you seem to bend over backwards to defend his administration. But I think this may be our last back and forth for a while. It's clear that we just aren't doing anything productive at the moment but talking past each other, and I don't think either of us think we are addressing the points the other is making.

First, I did not ask Trump to stop using Twitter. I asked him to, and I quote, stop being a child on Twitter. Have you read his tweets before? He could, and should, use his Twitter, but he should use it in a different manner, IMO. He has the right to tweet how he wants, but that doesn't mean he should use it to single out judges, heads of unions, department stores, airline companies, etc. when they do things he disagrees with.

Second, the only real obstruction in federal government that you mentioned is exactly what I stated there has been - some obstruction involving his Cabinet posts. However, I provided reasons as to why those delays were at least partially justified, and I will provide some more. 1) His administration started the Cabinet selection and vetting process later than his predecessors (http://www.wsj.com/graphics/how-donald-t...residents/ ). 2) It is not unprecedented to have a partially filled Cabinet as of Feb 10. Clinton didn't have his final spot filled until Mar 11. W's wasn't until Mar 17. And Obama didn't get a vote on his final appointee until Apr 28. Trump has the fewest at this point, but as I said he took a while to unveil all of his picks, and unlike past presidents has not (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709 ). 3) The past two administrations, if anything, had their picks fill out "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll" questionnaires to get ahead of possible ethic concerns, the likes of which are being brought up with the positions that are still being debated (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/po...binet.html ).

In short, yes Democrats have obstructed these picks, but not without reason, and in fact, a lot of the tardiness is due to Trump's decision making (late selections or controversial selections).

Could you please provide me examples of other Congressional obstruction that has been occurring so far? (Answer: none because frankly, it's too early to start!). All of the other examples you tried to provide are examples of citizens using their first amendment rights to protest or make their concerns heard. Were you saying the same thing when Tea Partiers were doing literally, the exact same thing? Please take a peak at this article to see what I am talking about: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...ut_of.html

In short - angry people of the opposing party at a town hall is nothing new.

Second, your answer to my second question is not an answer. The only thing Trump is being obstructed on at the moment (and not even to a truly historic level yet) is his Cabinet selection. How is he being kept from addressing his agenda items (e.g. his legislative agenda)? Answer, as I said earlier, he isn't. It's pretty much too early to make much headway.

Third, forget and moving on are pretty much synonymous in how you're using them. I am not currently whining about what Trump did during the campaign. However, I was using what he did during the campaign to explain to you how the push back you are seeing is not spontaneous and was caused by what he did during the campaign. All of my recent complaints have been about his and his administration's actions in the first three weeks of his presidency, not about how he acted in his campaign. I've complained about his current use of Twitter, the way he is handling his conflicts of interest, the way his administration is handling those, his blatant disregard for facts, his seeming complete lack of desire to understand complex issues, the general bumbling roll out of a controversial immigration EO, and on and on. I have NOT continued to harp on the election as you tried to suggest.

But here's the big thing that I think you're missing about my responses OO. I also agree that we should find ways to work together, and I've repeatedly said that the Dems should not completely obstruct this administration like McConnell, et. al. did with Obama in '09. However, that is not where we are right now, so I don't mind what is going on. I see right now a groundswell of political activism on the left akin to the Tea Party movement in '08, which means we are getting more people into the political spectrum. I hope that it results in politicians who listen more actively to their constituents. I hope as well that it doesn't just cause the left to become more extreme like the right did the with Tea Party - because if that does happen, then we will continue to see gridlock going forward.

But one parting shot, because sorry, I can't resist. Your calls for sportsmanship are great and admirable, but did you call for that when McConnell did the opposite in 2009?

(02-10-2017 05:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But one parting shot, because sorry, I can't resist. Your calls for sportsmanship are great and admirable, but did you call for that when McConnell did the opposite in 2009?

Perhaps you forgot the quote that started the issue:

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/ob...won-017862

When the President tells McConnell to almost literally pound sound on working together, how exactly do you expect McConnell to react?

To be honest, Obama was frank and honest -- he didnt need the Republicans for anything..... and he explicitly took that path. Not a slam on Obama, just a raw statement of the relative positions. Indelicate, partisan to the max, and without a hint of an offering or outreach.

And you are pissed that McConnell responded the way that he did after having been shat on? Lolz......


In that vein, I wasnt to proud of McConnell's statemement of purpose -- but it is understandable, just as similarly I wasnt proud of the supposed "Great Uniter" basically taking such a giant poop on the opposition -- but again similarly understandable.

(02-10-2017 05:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, for someone who constantly professes that they don't support Trump, you seem to bend over backwards to defend his administration. But I think this may be our last back and forth for a while. It's clear that we just aren't doing anything productive at the moment but talking past each other, and I don't think either of us think we are addressing the points the other is making.

First, I did not ask Trump to stop using Twitter. I asked him to, and I quote, stop being a child on Twitter. Have you read his tweets before? He could, and should, use his Twitter, but he should use it in a different manner, IMO. He has the right to tweet how he wants, but that doesn't mean he should use it to single out judges, heads of unions, department stores, airline companies, etc. when they do things he disagrees with.

Second, the only real obstruction in federal government that you mentioned is exactly what I stated there has been - some obstruction involving his Cabinet posts. However, I provided reasons as to why those delays were at least partially justified, and I will provide some more. 1) His administration started the Cabinet selection and vetting process later than his predecessors (http://www.wsj.com/graphics/how-donald-t...residents/ ). 2) It is not unprecedented to have a partially filled Cabinet as of Feb 10. Clinton didn't have his final spot filled until Mar 11. W's wasn't until Mar 17. And Obama didn't get a vote on his final appointee until Apr 28. Trump has the fewest at this point, but as I said he took a while to unveil all of his picks, and unlike past presidents has not (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709 ). 3) The past two administrations, if anything, had their picks fill out "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll" questionnaires to get ahead of possible ethic concerns, the likes of which are being brought up with the positions that are still being debated (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/po...binet.html ).

In short, yes Democrats have obstructed these picks, but not without reason, and in fact, a lot of the tardiness is due to Trump's decision making (late selections or controversial selections).

Could you please provide me examples of other Congressional obstruction that has been occurring so far? (Answer: none because frankly, it's too early to start!). All of the other examples you tried to provide are examples of citizens using their first amendment rights to protest or make their concerns heard. Were you saying the same thing when Tea Partiers were doing literally, the exact same thing? Please take a peak at this article to see what I am talking about: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...ut_of.html

In short - angry people of the opposing party at a town hall is nothing new.

Second, your answer to my second question is not an answer. The only thing Trump is being obstructed on at the moment (and not even to a truly historic level yet) is his Cabinet selection. How is he being kept from addressing his agenda items (e.g. his legislative agenda)? Answer, as I said earlier, he isn't. It's pretty much too early to make much headway.

Third, forget and moving on are pretty much synonymous in how you're using them. I am not currently whining about what Trump did during the campaign. However, I was using what he did during the campaign to explain to you how the push back you are seeing is not spontaneous and was caused by what he did during the campaign. All of my recent complaints have been about his and his administration's actions in the first three weeks of his presidency, not about how he acted in his campaign. I've complained about his current use of Twitter, the way he is handling his conflicts of interest, the way his administration is handling those, his blatant disregard for facts, his seeming complete lack of desire to understand complex issues, the general bumbling roll out of a controversial immigration EO, and on and on. I have NOT continued to harp on the election as you tried to suggest.

But here's the big thing that I think you're missing about my responses OO. I also agree that we should find ways to work together, and I've repeatedly said that the Dems should not completely obstruct this administration like McConnell, et. al. did with Obama in '09. However, that is not where we are right now, so I don't mind what is going on. I see right now a groundswell of political activism on the left akin to the Tea Party movement in '08, which means we are getting more people into the political spectrum. I hope that it results in politicians who listen more actively to their constituents. I hope as well that it doesn't just cause the left to become more extreme like the right did the with Tea Party - because if that does happen, then we will continue to see gridlock going forward.

But one parting shot, because sorry, I can't resist. Your calls for sportsmanship are great and admirable, but did you call for that when McConnell did the opposite in 2009?

I did join the "Let's give him a chance" bunch in 2009, although I didn't use the football analogy. But I sat back, quieted my fears, and let Obama do his thing. I gave him a chance, and he failed to do as I hoped - move to the middle and try and work with the Republicans. But I waited to see. I appreciate your faith in my hypocrisy, though.

I find little in common between the Tea Party protests and the current stuff. I don't remember any trash cans thrown though windows or traffic blockages. Maybe you can search the internet and find some for me. I do remember a rally on the National Mall in which the grounds were left clean and neat. I remember a lot of people with signs. I remember one cowboy with a gun - holstered. I don't remember violence and disruption. The

I don't see any paralells at all between 2009 and 2017. Feel free to refresh my memory of the bad behavior of the right at that time. How many police cars did they trash?

It seems to me the country has wanted a change for a long time. Not just the Trumpsters but the Bernies demonstrate this. Add the two together and I think they make a majority for change.

The vast majority, if not all, of the violence associated with the protests since the election has been easily traced back to anarchists groups who have taken advantage of the large crowds to wreak havoc. That was the case with the Women's March and the protests in Berkley.

But if you don't see the parallels between the momentum of the right in 2009 and that of the left in 2017, then you may be surprised in 2018. I will eat crow in 2018 if there is not a significant gain in democratic seats in the next set of mid-terms.

It's easy to see the similarities when you scratch past the superficial comparison you drew. Both are reactionary grass-root type awakenings of the opposition party due to the election of an opponent that is easy to galvanize around and a complete lack of control in the executive and legislative branch. Tea partiers were reacting to what they viewed would be an overreach of government. The current protests are against the exact opposite, what many view as a potential for a complete under-reach of government.

I'm not the only one who thinks these situations are similar:

Quote: The parallels are striking: a massive grassroots movement, many of its members new to activism, that feeds primarily off fear and reaction. Misunderstood by the media and both parties, it wreaks havoc on its ostensible allies, even as it reenergizes their moribund political prospects; they can ride the wave, but they cannot control it, and they are often at the mercy of its most unreasonable fringe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ty/516105/

Quote: “Eight years ago we were in the same boat,” says Dean Clancy, who previously ran policy for Freedom Works, a Tea Party-affiliated group that advocated against the health care law. “We were stunned, angry, fearful, besieged, paranoid, but we were also liberated. The feeling was wonderful, like you're the rebels in Star Wars.”

Tea Party activists showed up en masse to Democratic legislators’ events during the summer of 2009, turning typically mundane meetings into heated shouting matches over “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...-tea-party

I haven't had a chance to delve back into these conversations lately, but it's also worth noting that the "Indivisible Guide" many of these groups are using is written by former Dem staffers based in large part on the observations of Tea Party successes. So when I sea Rs and Tea Partiers condemning them, it is more than a little ironic.

I also find it amusing that so many R reps are calling them paid protestors and of course blaming the all powerful George Soros for it. I know so many moms and daughters that were at the Austin women's march that had never gone to a march or demonstration before. It was very much organic and grassroots.

Similary, a good friend of mine started one of the Austin Indivisible groups. He did it totally on his own initiative with help from some like minded friends. Btw, he's CEO of a local tech company and has created many jobs. Does that make him a "maker" or is he an evil "elite" because he's a college educated liberal urbanite?

(02-11-2017 10:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I haven't had a chance to delve back into these conversations lately, but it's also worth noting that the "Indivisible Guide" many of these groups are using is written by former Dem staffers based in large part on the observations of Tea Party successes. So when I sea Rs and Tea Partiers condemning them, it is more than a little ironic.

I also find it amusing that so many R reps are calling them paid protestors and of course blaming the all powerful George Soros for it. I know so many moms and daughters that were at the Austin women's march that had never gone to a march or demonstration before. It was very much organic and grassroots.

Similary, a good friend of mine started one of the Austin Indivisible groups. He did it totally on his own initiative with help from some like minded friends. Btw, he's CEO of a local tech company and has created many jobs. Does that make him a "maker" or is he an evil "elite" because he's a college educated liberal urbanite?

I have no problem at all with that sort of activity --- root democracy at its core starts at these types of movements.

Interesting counterpoint, is that while I too have seen some conversation about the current protests being "astroturfed", I am likewise reminded how the Tea Party was tagged with that moniker on an incessant basis, along with a couple of others I have harped on previously. :wink:

And, assuming in arguendo (which I dont believe in the slightest) that either (or both) movements are/were "funded", so what?

(02-10-2017 11:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The vast majority, if not all, of the violence associated with the protests since the election has been easily traced back to anarchists groups who have taken advantage of the large crowds to wreak havoc. That was the case with the Women's March and the protests in Berkley.

But if you don't see the parallels between the momentum of the right in 2009 and that of the left in 2017, then you may be surprised in 2018. I will eat crow in 2018 if there is not a significant gain in democratic seats in the next set of mid-terms.

It's easy to see the similarities when you scratch past the superficial comparison you drew. Both are reactionary grass-root type awakenings of the opposition party due to the election of an opponent that is easy to galvanize around and a complete lack of control in the executive and legislative branch. Tea partiers were reacting to what they viewed would be an overreach of government. The current protests are against the exact opposite, what many view as a potential for a complete under-reach of government.

I'm not the only one who thinks these situations are similar:

Quote: The parallels are striking: a massive grassroots movement, many of its members new to activism, that feeds primarily off fear and reaction. Misunderstood by the media and both parties, it wreaks havoc on its ostensible allies, even as it reenergizes their moribund political prospects; they can ride the wave, but they cannot control it, and they are often at the mercy of its most unreasonable fringe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ty/516105/

Quote: “Eight years ago we were in the same boat,” says Dean Clancy, who previously ran policy for Freedom Works, a Tea Party-affiliated group that advocated against the health care law. “We were stunned, angry, fearful, besieged, paranoid, but we were also liberated. The feeling was wonderful, like you're the rebels in Star Wars.”

Tea Party activists showed up en masse to Democratic legislators’ events during the summer of 2009, turning typically mundane meetings into heated shouting matches over “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...-tea-party

Maybe not exactly the same...

Oh, the violence


Trashing our country

more trash[

Just like the Tea party

yep, just the same

You see the same, I see different. But I know which ones I would take my young grandchildren to.

As for obstruction, you say the current obstructors have good cause. I think all obstructors always thought that. It's just that now they ware working for your side.

I am not against obstruction. I think if you disagree with a policy or proposed law, or a proposed nomination, you, as a legislator, have a duty to oppose it. I have a problem with those who thought the Republican obstruction of 2009-10 was horrible and the Democrat obstruction now is OK, even laudable. If it is good for one side, it is good for the other.

(02-11-2017 01:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 11:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The vast majority, if not all, of the violence associated with the protests since the election has been easily traced back to anarchists groups who have taken advantage of the large crowds to wreak havoc. That was the case with the Women's March and the protests in Berkley.

But if you don't see the parallels between the momentum of the right in 2009 and that of the left in 2017, then you may be surprised in 2018. I will eat crow in 2018 if there is not a significant gain in democratic seats in the next set of mid-terms.

It's easy to see the similarities when you scratch past the superficial comparison you drew. Both are reactionary grass-root type awakenings of the opposition party due to the election of an opponent that is easy to galvanize around and a complete lack of control in the executive and legislative branch. Tea partiers were reacting to what they viewed would be an overreach of government. The current protests are against the exact opposite, what many view as a potential for a complete under-reach of government.

I'm not the only one who thinks these situations are similar:

Quote: The parallels are striking: a massive grassroots movement, many of its members new to activism, that feeds primarily off fear and reaction. Misunderstood by the media and both parties, it wreaks havoc on its ostensible allies, even as it reenergizes their moribund political prospects; they can ride the wave, but they cannot control it, and they are often at the mercy of its most unreasonable fringe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ty/516105/

Quote: “Eight years ago we were in the same boat,” says Dean Clancy, who previously ran policy for Freedom Works, a Tea Party-affiliated group that advocated against the health care law. “We were stunned, angry, fearful, besieged, paranoid, but we were also liberated. The feeling was wonderful, like you're the rebels in Star Wars.”

Tea Party activists showed up en masse to Democratic legislators’ events during the summer of 2009, turning typically mundane meetings into heated shouting matches over “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...-tea-party

Maybe not exactly the same...

Oh, the violence


Trashing our country

more trash[

Just like the Tea party

yep, just the same

You see the same, I see different. But I know which ones I would take my young grandchildren to.

As for obstruction, you say the current obstructors have good cause. I think all obstructors always thought that. It's just that now they ware working for your side.

I am not against obstruction. I think if you disagree with a policy or proposed law, or a proposed nomination, you, as a legislator, have a duty to oppose it. I have a problem with those who thought the Republican obstruction of 2009-10 was horrible and the Democrat obstruction now is OK, even laudable. If it is good for one side, it is good for the other.

I think the Womens March, the majority of the inauguration protests, and the plethora of town hall encounters with Republican legislators is spot in line with the tactics and execution of the Tea Party movement.

There is more of an undercurrent of violence in some of the encounters, mainly due to the violent portions of the inaugural protests and Berkeley that the Tea Party never had associated with it (much to the chagrin of the MSM that reported and liberals/progressives that were the object of the TP).

I will give credit that much of the violence (if not all, at least post-inauguration) has been because of very organized groups that were not necessarily part and parcel of the main protests -- but having said that these 'ancillary' protesters are using other protests to inject another flavor of left-wing based violence into those protests.

I was never aware of, say, the Aryan Nations using the Tea Party events to bootstrap into their violent or riotous behavior in the same fashion that violence seems to be at the edges of some of these protests, or in the physical assaults at the He Will Not Divide Us (performance art?) exhibition.

But overall I do see a huge similarity and purpose (not political purpose though) in the protests today and the Tea Party Spring, Summer, and Fall. But to reiterate, the present day progressive protests seemingly do have a very explicit remora hovering around that the Tea Party did not.

I cant indict the entire so-called 'Resistance Movement' for these types of actions, albeit the Tea Party was seemingly charged with an incessant so-called 'violent, ugly, aura'. It is interesting to me that MSM to a great degree reported on that 'violent, ugly, aura' (with no reports of violence or riotous behavior), yet seem loathe to comment on the aura presently.

(02-11-2017 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 01:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 11:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The vast majority, if not all, of the violence associated with the protests since the election has been easily traced back to anarchists groups who have taken advantage of the large crowds to wreak havoc. That was the case with the Women's March and the protests in Berkley.

But if you don't see the parallels between the momentum of the right in 2009 and that of the left in 2017, then you may be surprised in 2018. I will eat crow in 2018 if there is not a significant gain in democratic seats in the next set of mid-terms.

It's easy to see the similarities when you scratch past the superficial comparison you drew. Both are reactionary grass-root type awakenings of the opposition party due to the election of an opponent that is easy to galvanize around and a complete lack of control in the executive and legislative branch. Tea partiers were reacting to what they viewed would be an overreach of government. The current protests are against the exact opposite, what many view as a potential for a complete under-reach of government.

I'm not the only one who thinks these situations are similar:

Quote: The parallels are striking: a massive grassroots movement, many of its members new to activism, that feeds primarily off fear and reaction. Misunderstood by the media and both parties, it wreaks havoc on its ostensible allies, even as it reenergizes their moribund political prospects; they can ride the wave, but they cannot control it, and they are often at the mercy of its most unreasonable fringe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ty/516105/

Quote: “Eight years ago we were in the same boat,” says Dean Clancy, who previously ran policy for Freedom Works, a Tea Party-affiliated group that advocated against the health care law. “We were stunned, angry, fearful, besieged, paranoid, but we were also liberated. The feeling was wonderful, like you're the rebels in Star Wars.”

Tea Party activists showed up en masse to Democratic legislators’ events during the summer of 2009, turning typically mundane meetings into heated shouting matches over “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...-tea-party

Maybe not exactly the same...

Oh, the violence


Trashing our country

more trash[

Just like the Tea party

yep, just the same

You see the same, I see different. But I know which ones I would take my young grandchildren to.

As for obstruction, you say the current obstructors have good cause. I think all obstructors always thought that. It's just that now they ware working for your side.

I am not against obstruction. I think if you disagree with a policy or proposed law, or a proposed nomination, you, as a legislator, have a duty to oppose it. I have a problem with those who thought the Republican obstruction of 2009-10 was horrible and the Democrat obstruction now is OK, even laudable. If it is good for one side, it is good for the other.

I think the Womens March, the majority of the inauguration protests, and the plethora of town hall encounters with Republican legislators is spot in line with the tactics and execution of the Tea Party movement.

There is more of an undercurrent of violence in some of the encounters, mainly due to the violent portions of the inaugural protests and Berkeley that the Tea Party never had associated with it (much to the chagrin of the MSM that reported and liberals/progressives that were the object of the TP).

I will give credit that much of the violence (if not all, at least post-inauguration) has been because of very organized groups that were not necessarily part and parcel of the main protests -- but having said that these 'ancillary' protesters are using other protests to inject another flavor of left-wing based violence into those protests.

I was never aware of, say, the Aryan Nations using the Tea Party events to bootstrap into their violent or riotous behavior in the same fashion that violence seems to be at the edges of some of these protests, or in the physical assaults at the He Will Not Divide Us (performance art?) exhibition.

But overall I do see a huge similarity and purpose (not political purpose though) in the protests today and the Tea Party Spring, Summer, and Fall. But to reiterate, the present day progressive protests seemingly do have a very explicit remora hovering around that the Tea Party did not.

I cant indict the entire so-called 'Resistance Movement' for these types of actions, albeit the Tea Party was seemingly charged with an incessant so-called 'violent, ugly, aura'. It is interesting to me that MSM to a great degree reported on that 'violent, ugly, aura' (with no reports of violence or riotous behavior), yet seem loathe to comment on the aura presently.

Well, yes, everybody is protesting something they don't like, so in that respect the TP and antiTrumps are the same. But the AT protests everything and everybody associated with the man. The TP was far more about specific issues.

I also think, top to bottom, west to east, the TP was far better behaved than the
AT. So, yes, there are similarities, like there are similarities between a VW bug and a Mack truck or between a house cat and a puma. But I know which crowd I would avoid like the plague if they were gathering outside my door. I presume you would feel safer with the crowd I would avoid. I bet either of us would move our car if it was the AT crowd.

One last thing. Defending Trump from overstated and unsupported attacks does not require me to have voted for him. i was dismayed that he won the GOP nomination. At that point I felt there were no options. I couldn't vote for HRH if she was the only one running, and every other action was in effect a protest vote. I took another option.

Anyway, this has gone far afield from my initial question. I thank you for your response and continued responses. With respect, thanks.

OO, just as the are plenty of the AT crowd (as you put it) who are protesting Trump and what those people believe he stands for, the Tea Party protests had their fair share of people who were also just protesting Obama and what they believe he stood for and they were not as specific as I think you remember.

Just google "Tea Party Signs."

Let's see, I see: "Socialism is not Freedom," "America's Hitler," "We Came Unarmed (This Time)," "Obama Lies," "Where's the Birth Certificate," "America's Hitler," and on and on.

Plenty of people in the Tea Party protested the person they thought Obama was or was going to be. Sure, there were plenty protesting the eventual socialization of medicine, but there are plenty of the AT protesting the potential removal of that, and other policy positions Trump has mentioned.

Off the top of my head I can tell you a few very specific or broad policy items that people were generally marching against for Trump (these were all items he discussed during the campaign or before the inauguration): the rolling back of the ACA, the building of The Wall, the gutting of specific Departments with the US (EPA in particular), Trump's stance on abortion and how he has mentioned wanting to get Roe v. Wade overturned, the removal of net-neutrality regulation.

OO, you can try and tell yourself that these people are blind and just hating Trump because he is a Rep. And you know, I bet you're right that there are some that would hate him and disagree with his policies, even though they would agree with a Dem that did the exact same thing. However, there are plenty of people that have real concerns about Trump's proposed policies or agendas, and that is one of the reasons they got out there.

(02-11-2017 08:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, just as the are plenty of the AT crowd (as you put it) who are protesting Trump and what those people believe he stands for, the Tea Party protests had their fair share of people who were also just protesting Obama and what they believe he stood for and they were not as specific as I think you remember.

Just google "Tea Party Signs."

Let's see, I see: "Socialism is not Freedom," "America's Hitler," "We Came Unarmed (This Time)," "Obama Lies," "Where's the Birth Certificate," "America's Hitler," and on and on.

Plenty of people in the Tea Party protested the person they thought Obama was or was going to be. Sure, there were plenty protesting the eventual socialization of medicine, but there are plenty of the AT protesting the potential removal of that, and other policy positions Trump has mentioned.

Off the top of my head I can tell you a few very specific or broad policy items that people were generally marching against for Trump (these were all items he discussed during the campaign or before the inauguration): the rolling back of the ACA, the building of The Wall, the gutting of specific Departments with the US (EPA in particular), Trump's stance on abortion and how he has mentioned wanting to get Roe v. Wade overturned, the removal of net-neutrality regulation.

OO, you can try and tell yourself that these people are blind and just hating Trump because he is a Rep. And you know, I bet you're right that there are some that would hate him and disagree with his policies, even though they would agree with a Dem that did the exact same thing. However, there are plenty of people that have real concerns about Trump's proposed policies or agendas, and that is one of the reasons they got out there.

Not JUSt because he is a Republican, although that is a major part for some people. But for most, it seems personal - they just don't like Donald Trump. I think for a lot of them, they are buying that he is a racist, sexist, misogynist, antiMuslim, whatever, and they take this as personal affront, either to themselves or to their principles.

For example, I bet a lot of them think he hates Mexicans, and so he is a horrible person who cannot be allowed to bring his racism to the White House. Start free m a flawed premise and it excuses whatever you do.

They don't like Trump, to,the point they will do anything to get him out of office, even though that would put Pence in, a man most of,them dislike also.

The AT"s are a cult of anti personality. To the point that if DJT orders vanilla ice cream, it will be seen as further proof that he is a racist and the next Hitler.

I can't do anything to make anybody give him a chance, so I,guess I will just watch the hysteria on TV. If you choose to join a protest, let me know how it goes.

(02-11-2017 08:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tea Party protests had their fair share of people who were also just protesting Obama and what they believe he stood for and they were not as specific as I think you remember.

Just google "Tea Party Signs."

So on your thesis anything that referenced Obamacare, the bailout(s), Government Motors, or Obama's "promises" (you can keep your doctor type thingies) are included as a protest against Obama since you include "and what he stands for". That sentence pretty much swallows everything in the world, but the comparison was not "Trump and everything he supports" it was a "visceral dislike of Trump (period)."

You wave a magic wand and conflate every single issue into a visceral dislike into that in your perusal of signs. Sorry, the "Socialism" definitely is not a "visceral dislike of Obama" --- it signifies a dislike specifically of Obamacare, bailouts, Government Motors and all the anti-Randian thingies that the Obama and Democrats pulled out the hat in 2009; but not necessarily a visceral dislike of Obama ipso facto.

Same can be said for about half the signage you describe.

And to be blunt, I was at more than a couple of Tea Party events -- the vast majority were not fans of the policies, but were not knee-jerk visceral disliking of Obama during that time.

Of course, when Obama failed to tack center in any way shape or form, that might have changed. But the failure to tack only was apparent well after the Tea Party demonstration days and well into the 2010-2012 election cycle.

Sorry have to agree that the dislike on Trump is far more nearer a visceral response, much in the vein of the Bush Derangement People that haunted the left simply because of Florida in 2000.

And yes, some of it I see first hand. Let's just say me and my wife perhaps did not vote for the same candidate, and let's just say that neither of the candidates we voted for won. And the conversations I overhear at social gatherings with those whom seem to share my (edited to add) wife's (end edit) political choices really do fit the thesis of a visceral dislike -- the vast majority of them in fact.

(02-10-2017 11:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The vast majority, if not all, of the violence associated with the protests since the election has been easily traced back to anarchists groups who have taken advantage of the large crowds to wreak havoc. That was the case with the Women's March and the protests in Berkley.

But if you don't see the parallels between the momentum of the right in 2009 and that of the left in 2017, then you may be surprised in 2018. I will eat crow in 2018 if there is not a significant gain in democratic seats in the next set of mid-terms.

It's easy to see the similarities when you scratch past the superficial comparison you drew. Both are reactionary grass-root type awakenings of the opposition party due to the election of an opponent that is easy to galvanize around and a complete lack of control in the executive and legislative branch. Tea partiers were reacting to what they viewed would be an overreach of government. The current protests are against the exact opposite, what many view as a potential for a complete under-reach of government.

I'm not the only one who thinks these situations are similar:

Quote: The parallels are striking: a massive grassroots movement, many of its members new to activism, that feeds primarily off fear and reaction. Misunderstood by the media and both parties, it wreaks havoc on its ostensible allies, even as it reenergizes their moribund political prospects; they can ride the wave, but they cannot control it, and they are often at the mercy of its most unreasonable fringe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ty/516105/

Quote: “Eight years ago we were in the same boat,” says Dean Clancy, who previously ran policy for Freedom Works, a Tea Party-affiliated group that advocated against the health care law. “We were stunned, angry, fearful, besieged, paranoid, but we were also liberated. The feeling was wonderful, like you're the rebels in Star Wars.”

Tea Party activists showed up en masse to Democratic legislators’ events during the summer of 2009, turning typically mundane meetings into heated shouting matches over “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...-tea-party

You keep referencing anarchist groups. I'm fairly ignorant of anarchist movements, but having recently proofed a high school paper my daughter wrote comparing the anarchist movements in Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution and in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and discussing what she had read . . . . . .

they have a scary philosophy and generally are prone to violence. There is a lot of reference to the collective and the tendency then was to try and create an agrarian society. Seemed to be a little like communism without a centralized government.

My daughter noted that the most 'successful' version of the anarchist movement had a shelf life of 9 months in the areas where they had succeeded in establishing control.

Violence did not necessarily cease when they took control, as the desire to avoid a powerful governing authority leaves a vacuum, and the only way to prevent others from trying to fill the void, is to, well, continue to kill them.

Historically, anarchism was an extreme fringe of the socialist and communist movements during the first half of the 20th century.

I'm sure others here have more knowledge of what they represent than I do, both then, and certainly now.

But laying this off on anarchists doesn't make me feel any better about the violence at the anti-Trump rallies.

(02-12-2017 02:38 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 11:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The vast majority, if not all, of the violence associated with the protests since the election has been easily traced back to anarchists groups who have taken advantage of the large crowds to wreak havoc. That was the case with the Women's March and the protests in Berkley.

But if you don't see the parallels between the momentum of the right in 2009 and that of the left in 2017, then you may be surprised in 2018. I will eat crow in 2018 if there is not a significant gain in democratic seats in the next set of mid-terms.

It's easy to see the similarities when you scratch past the superficial comparison you drew. Both are reactionary grass-root type awakenings of the opposition party due to the election of an opponent that is easy to galvanize around and a complete lack of control in the executive and legislative branch. Tea partiers were reacting to what they viewed would be an overreach of government. The current protests are against the exact opposite, what many view as a potential for a complete under-reach of government.

I'm not the only one who thinks these situations are similar:

Quote: The parallels are striking: a massive grassroots movement, many of its members new to activism, that feeds primarily off fear and reaction. Misunderstood by the media and both parties, it wreaks havoc on its ostensible allies, even as it reenergizes their moribund political prospects; they can ride the wave, but they cannot control it, and they are often at the mercy of its most unreasonable fringe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ty/516105/

Quote: “Eight years ago we were in the same boat,” says Dean Clancy, who previously ran policy for Freedom Works, a Tea Party-affiliated group that advocated against the health care law. “We were stunned, angry, fearful, besieged, paranoid, but we were also liberated. The feeling was wonderful, like you're the rebels in Star Wars.”

Tea Party activists showed up en masse to Democratic legislators’ events during the summer of 2009, turning typically mundane meetings into heated shouting matches over “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...-tea-party

You keep referencing anarchist groups. I'm fairly ignorant of anarchist movements, but having recently proofed a high school paper my daughter wrote comparing the anarchist movements in Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution and in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and discussing what she had read . . . . . .

they have a scary philosophy and generally are prone to violence. There is a lot of reference to the collective and the tendency then was to try and create an agrarian society. Seemed to be a little like communism without a centralized government.

My daughter noted that the most 'successful' version of the anarchist movement had a shelf life of 9 months in the areas where they had succeeded in establishing control.

Violence did not necessarily cease when they took control, as the desire to avoid a powerful governing authority leaves a vacuum, and the only way to prevent others from trying to fill the void, is to, well, continue to kill them.

Historically, anarchism was an extreme fringe of the socialist and communist movements during the first half of the 20th century.

I'm sure others here have more knowledge of what they represent than I do, both then, and certainly now.

But laying this off on anarchists doesn't make me feel any better about the violence at the anti-Trump rallies.

Specifically in the Berkley protests a group known as the black bloc, which has been wreaking havoc int he Bay Area for years took advantage of the situation.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

They are a scary group, but they are primarily just attaching themselves to the presence of a large number of people that they can blend into to cause problems. The violence is bad, but my point is that it is not being perpetrated by those who are actually protesting something. It's being done by people with an alternate agenda.

As a UC Berkley official said: “We have never seen this on the Berkeley campus,” Mogulof said. “This was an unprecedented invasion.”

It's good that the anarchists wear a uniform - all black, face covers - so we can differentiate them.

True most - not all - of the Berkeley violence was this bunch, and that seems to be the case in Portland, also.

A well organized network of ananrchists headed by a central authority, seems counter intuitive, though.

Video clearly shows ununiformed people, presumably regular protesters, participating in the violence. And it shows that at a variety of locations not involved with the uniformed anarchists.

In any case, you are known by the company you keep, for right or wrong. The protesters and anarchists seem to united by a common enemy - Trump. I don't remember these anarchists protesting the previous President or his policies. If they are truly just against government in general, why weren't they against it when Obama was in charge? I wonder where they have been and why they appear now.