[MD]

The power struggle currently under way in Washington should frighten every American to their bones.

The "radical left" has declared war on the regime that wrested power from them, and are using every device at their disposal to undermine any safe transition of power.

They lost, and are demonstrating a resolve that could lead to unimaginable outcomes, not seen since 1859.

Their willingness to "burn down the house", in order to subvert and derail the fair elective outcome frightens me to the core.

are you all watching? Are you all not revolted?

If you are sitting at an extreme, shouting angrily at the shifting tides... beware. YOU are the ones displaying fascist and intolerant ideologies.

Beware!

[evilgenius]

Yeah, and saying no to everything Obama did for 8 years wasn't? What do you call it when they wouldn't consider his Supreme Court nominee?

This is a ridiculous screed. I'll tell you why. Anyone who launches a coup attempt against Trump would have it backfire in their face. If it failed, Trump would do what Erdogan did in Turkey. He would wind up much more solidly in power, and possibly president for life.

Being angry at obstruction which is based upon procedural machinations available to the opposition within the system is justified because you support the power in play. Extrapolating that to another level is simply hysteria, though.

[MD]

Yeah, and saying no to everything Obama did for 8 years wasn't? What do you call it when they wouldn't consider his Supreme Court nominee?

This is a ridiculous screed. I'll tell you why. Anyone who launches a coup attempt against Trump would have it backfire in their face. If it failed, Trump would do what Erdogan did in Turkey. He would wind up much more solidly in power, and possibly president for life.

Being angry at obstruction which is based upon procedural machinations available to the opposition within the system is justified because you support the power in play. Extrapolating that to another level is simply hysteria, though.

Your eighth sentence starts off fine, then ends in logical nonsense. After that, proclaiming it to be hysteria is just a blatant fallacy, try again. More BS. Try again.

[evilgenius]

Yeah, and saying no to everything Obama did for 8 years wasn't? What do you call it when they wouldn't consider his Supreme Court nominee?

This is a ridiculous screed. I'll tell you why. Anyone who launches a coup attempt against Trump would have it backfire in their face. If it failed, Trump would do what Erdogan did in Turkey. He would wind up much more solidly in power, and possibly president for life.

Being angry at obstruction which is based upon procedural machinations available to the opposition within the system is justified because you support the power in play. Extrapolating that to another level is simply hysteria, though.

Your eighth sentence starts off fine, then ends in logical nonsense. After that, proclaiming it to be hysteria is just a blatant fallacy, try again. More BS. Try again.

You're making this up as you go along.

[Ibon]

are you all watching?

Nope.

[MD]

Yeah, and saying no to everything Obama did for 8 years wasn't? What do you call it when they wouldn't consider his Supreme Court nominee?

This is a ridiculous screed. I'll tell you why. Anyone who launches a coup attempt against Trump would have it backfire in their face. If it failed, Trump would do what Erdogan did in Turkey. He would wind up much more solidly in power, and possibly president for life.

Being angry at obstruction which is based upon procedural machinations available to the opposition within the system is justified because you support the power in play. Extrapolating that to another level is simply hysteria, though.

Your eighth sentence starts off fine, then ends in logical nonsense. After that, proclaiming it to be hysteria is just a blatant fallacy, try again. More BS. Try again.

You're making this up as you go along.

And your point is?

[Cog]

What did the Republican Congress deny Obama? I must have missed that historic day.

[evilgenius]

Yeah, and saying no to everything Obama did for 8 years wasn't? What do you call it when they wouldn't consider his Supreme Court nominee?

This is a ridiculous screed. I'll tell you why. Anyone who launches a coup attempt against Trump would have it backfire in their face. If it failed, Trump would do what Erdogan did in Turkey. He would wind up much more solidly in power, and possibly president for life.

Being angry at obstruction which is based upon procedural machinations available to the opposition within the system is justified because you support the power in play. Extrapolating that to another level is simply hysteria, though.

Your eighth sentence starts off fine, then ends in logical nonsense. After that, proclaiming it to be hysteria is just a blatant fallacy, try again. More BS. Try again.

You're making this up as you go along.

And your point is?

Nice try, but you're the one who is supposed to be making a point. I'm criticizing you. Now, if you want to know specifically what my criticism is, I'm telling you that you are afraid. Your fear is guiding you. You seem to be allowing it to override your otherwise clearer view of reality.

[MD]

meh. more fallacies. try again.

try to address the original post, without inserting distractions.

[MD]

There's enough filibustering distractions going on from all directions. I'm not putting up with that bullshit here.

[KaiserJeep]

I find the idea that political extremism is either new or "more extreme" than in the past very amusing. Senabores and Congress Critters that could not agree used to settle their differences with duelling pistols and swords, on the "field of honor". When a group of Southern states secceeded from the Union, we fought the bloodiest war in our history to preserve the USA.

It never has been peaceful, people. What is different is that most of you are now old enough to take an adult's interest in politics, that's all.

[evilgenius]

meh. more fallacies. try again.

try to address the original post, without inserting distractions.

You're just like any conspiracy theorist, dismissive of criticism and short on facts. You can't get away with labeling a group as radical and saying they are willing to burn down the house and not provide even one example of how they are or are doing those things. Even when I called you on it you tried to refer to your hysteria rather than cite an example, let alone cotton onto a slippery slope argument. You're just blurting out fear.

I'm trying to get you to come down to earth and talk specifics. Why is the left radical? How are they demonstrating that they are willing to burn down the house? Are you afraid of a filibuster over Trump's Supreme Court nominee and extrapolating that into a larger scheme? What is it? What makes a filibuster any different than what happened over Merrick Garland? Who says that a filibuster would hold? The Senate can change those rules. I suppose you could be concerned that a change to the filibuster rules would change the existing order enough to label that burning down the house.

Maybe you are upset over the attention that Russia is getting? You seem to have reason, given the one resignation and the other pressure and call for resignation. But does that amount to burning down the house? Just talking to the Russians seems fairly innocuous. Colluding with them is different, but that's kind of like smoke right now. There isn't any proof of it. You shouldn't let your fear of pressure over it get the best of you. I don't necessarily agree with pstarr that it is a distraction. Trump's opposition thinks there is something there. But they're pretty weak and they could be just grasping at straws. Why would you get all lathered up over accusations that aren't likely to go anywhere?

You need to express yourself. You haven't given one concrete example. If what you really want is obeisance to your point of view, it would help if you stated your point of view and how it isn't being respected in some concrete manner. I understand the rhetoric of no. It works very well to command from a minority position. With it you don't necessarily have to express your opinions or positions, only your fears. But the rhetoric of no is for those in the minority. Your side won. You are going to have to get used to explaining yourself.

[Newfie]

MD,

I think you have a very good point. But as you can see not many, of either ilk, are willing to listen.

I dislike posting video links, but I don't have this info easily at my fingertips.

I think this video says a lot. Much good info in here.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 7831,d.amc

[Newfie]

Below are the links in that special. Just in case you want to check up yourself.

I have highlighted the citations especially relevant to this thread.

In this special episode filmed in front of a live audience, Adam brought historical perspective to the 2016 presidential race, revealed amazing stories about past White House occupants and explained why this year's elections should actually feel familiar, with one exception -- and it's not Trump. These are his sources.

Sources

"Callender wrote that Adams had a: '…hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.'"

James Callender. The Prospect Before Us. Printed for the author, 1800.

"Johnson bragged about his penis constantly… He nicknamed it 'Jumbo,' and when a colleague would approach him in the bathroom 'Johnson would sometimes turn to him with his penis in his hand, shaking it, as if we he was showing off…' and say, 'Have you ever seen anything as big as this?'"

Robert Caro. The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate. Knopf, 2002.

"If you were in the bedroom holding back when [LBJ] went into the bathroom, he would just call you in and say, 'Come on in! I haven't finished what I'm saying.' You get sort of used to this." - Doris Kearns Goodwin.

"Historians on Lyndon B. Johnson", The White House. C-SPAN, 1 Dec 2008

"[Wallace] was actually the most successful third party candidate of the last hundred years!"

U.S. Electoral College. "Historical Election Results: 1789–2012 Presidential Elections." U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, accessed 10 Oct 2016.

"In 1919, [Edith's] husband, President Woodrow Wilson, suffered a stroke. The cabinet was told that Wilson just had nerves and indigestion. But in reality, the dude was actually paralyzed. Or, as his doctor put it, 'My God! The president is paralyzed!'"

Kenneth R. Crispell and Carlos Gomez. Hidden Illness in the White House. Duke University Press, 1989.

"Edith controlled access to Wilson so thoroughly that she had, in many ways, de facto Presidential powers. Newspapers even called her 'the nation's first Presidentress' and 'Acting First Man.'"

Paul Brandus. Under This Roof: The White House and the Presidency. Lyons Press, 2015.

"The first woman to run for president was Victoria Woodhull in 1872. People found her so threatening, the press depicted her as Satan!"

Carol Felsenthal. "The Strange Tale of the First Woman to Run for President." Politico, 9 Apr 2015.

"The first woman to run for a major party nomination was Margaret Chase Smith in 1964. She ran as a Republican. And reporters found the very idea of her candidacy so ludicrous, they laughed when JFK tried to pay her a nice compliment."

"Press Conference, 14 November 1963," The White House Audio Collection, item no. JFKWHA–238. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, recorded 14 Nov 1963.

"But that was nothing compared to what Shirley Chisholm went through in 1972 when she became the first black woman to run for a major party nomination. She had no chance of winning. It was a symbolic candidacy. But despite that, people hated her so much, that there were multiple assassination attempts on her life."

Rajini Vaidyanathan. "Before Hillary Clinton, There Was Shirley Chisholm." BBC News, 26 Jan 2016.

"In fact, if Hillary Clinton wins, she won't even technically be the first American woman to become the President of a country, because Guyana elected an American woman president in 1997. Her name was Janet Jagen. She was born in Chicago, moved to Guyana, and was elected president there."

Robin Wright. "Hillary Wouldn't Be the First Female American President." The New Yorker, 1 Aug 2016.

"America ranks 83rd in representing women in national legislatures like Congress."

"Country/Economy Profile: United States," The Global Gender Gap Index. World Economic Forum, 2014.

"If he wins, Trump will be the first President ever who has never held public office or a position in the military."

Laura Koran and Ryan Browne. "Can Trump Be the First to Go Directly from Corner Office to Oval Office?" CNN.com, 12 Aug 2016.

"[LBJ] was so shameless, he talked about his own asshole on the phone and recorded it."

"Johnson Conversation with Joe Haggar." The Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Recordings, tape WH6408.16, call 4851. The Miller Center, recorded 09 Aug 1964.

"The Civil Rights program is a farce and a sham — an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty… I have voted against the so-called antilynching bill…" - Lyndon B. Johnson, 1948.

Robert Caro. The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Means of Ascent. Vintage Books, 1991.

"Everett, you come with me on this bill and 200 years from now schoolchildren will know only two names: Abraham Lincoln and Everett Dirksen." - Lyndon B. Johnson, reportedly spoken to Everett Dirksen, 1964.

"JFK & LBJ: A Time for Greatness," Secrets of the Dead, as told by Doris Kearns Goodwin. PBS, 4 Aug 2015.

"I'm sitting here with Charlie Halleck, now, and he's breathing down my neck… And I need to do anything I can for Charlie Halleck. Now isn't there something you can do?" - Lyndon B. Johnson, spoken to James Webb, 1964.

"Johnson Conversation with James Webb," The Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Recordings, tape WH6401.16, call 1421. The Miller Center, recorded 18 Jan 1964.

"A few days later, Webb called Johnson to let him know he was giving Halleck's district a series of NASA grants, contracts, and even a research facility that added up to over a million dollars."

Todd S. Purdum. An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties, and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Henry Holt and Company, 2014.

"Our political system is flooded with cash. In this election alone, over $1.6 billion has been raised!"

"2016 Presidential Race: Summary." OpenSecrets.org, Center for Responsive Politics, updated 11 Oct 2016.

"You have six months until the election. Break that down to having to raise $2 million in the next six months, and your job, new member of Congress, is to raise $18,000 a day." - Rep. David Jolly.

"Are Members of Congress Becoming Telemarketers?" 60 Minutes, contributed by Norah O'Donnell. CBS News, 24 Apr 2016.

"Jeb Bush and his SuperPAC raised over $155 million."

"Candidate Summary, 2016 Cycle: Jeb Bush (R)." OpenSecrets.org, Center for Responsive Politics, updated 21 Sep 2016.

"In 2011, the average voter turnout in mayoral elections was only one in five!"

Mike Maciag. "Voter Turnout Plummeting in Local Elections." Governing, Oct 2014.

"Over $1.5 million was spent running ads in this local election. Two years later, a lawsuit revealed that the group making the ads was bankrolled by a mining company owned by Chris Cline, an out-of-state mining billionaire with a vested interest in building mines in Wisconsin."

Theodoric Meyer. "In Wisconsin, Dark Money Got a Mining Company What It Wanted." ProPublica, 14 Oct 2014.

"Since 1994, the percentage of Republicans who say they view Democrats 'very unfavorably' has more than tripled. And the same is true for how Democrats view Republicans."

For the 1994 figures, see:

"Political Polarization in the American Public." Pew Research Center, 12 Jun 2014.

For today's figures, see:

"Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016." Pew Research Center, 22 Jun 2016.

"For most of the 20th century, there was actually such a thing as Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats."

Keith Poole. "Graphic Picture of a Polarized Congress." UGA Research 41.1 (2012): 32.

"I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." - Lyndon B. Johnson, spoken to Bill Moyers, 1964.

Bill Moyers. Moyers on America: A Journalist and His Times. New Press, 2013.

"By the '70s, the rift of polarization began to take hold."

Clio Andris, David Lee, Marcus J. Hamilton, Mauro Martino, Christian E. Gunning, and John Armistead Selden. "The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives." PLoS ONE 10.4 (2015): e0123507.

"The two sides now work together so little, the last few Congresses have enacted fewer laws than at any time since 1947 — at least!"

Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Calendars of the U.S. House of Representatives and History of Legislation, 113th Congress, Final Edition. U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2015.

"Among those highly engaged in politics 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats view the other party's policies as a threat to the country."

"62% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats say they are actually afraid of the other party."

"70% of Democrats feel that Republicans are more closed-minded than other Americans."

"And roughly 45% of Republicans said that they think Democrats are more lazy and immoral than other Americans."

"Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016." Pew Research Center, 22 Jun 2016.

"Partisan polarization is actually making you stupid… It's because of something called Identity-Protective Cognition. We all want to believe that when we're presented with strong, factual evidence, we'll change our beliefs accordingly. But researchers have found that is not true. Instead, when we make decisions about whether or not we believe new information, we do so based more on cultural identity than rational thinking."

Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Erica Cantrell Dawson, and Paul Slovic. "Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government." Behavioural Public Policy, forthcoming; Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 307, 3 Sep 2013.

"In 2015, Gallup found that there were more independents than there were Democrats or Republicans in America."

Jeffrey M. Jones. "Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows." Gallup, 11 Jan 2016.

"Are you a Democrat who wants paid family leave, but you can't get it done? Well, why don't you team up with the 73% of white evangelicals who want that, too!"

"Are you a conservative who wants to reduce immigration? Well, 33% of Democrats are with you on that."

"On Views of Immigrants, Americans Largely Split Along Party Lines." Pew Research Center, 30 Sep 2015.

[slackercruster]

Yeah, and saying no to everything Obama did for 8 years wasn't? What do you call it when they wouldn't consider his Supreme Court nominee?

This is a ridiculous screed. I'll tell you why. Anyone who launches a coup attempt against Trump would have it backfire in their face. If it failed, Trump would do what Erdogan did in Turkey. He would wind up much more solidly in power, and possibly president for life.

Being angry at obstruction which is based upon procedural machinations available to the opposition within the system is justified because you support the power in play. Extrapolating that to another level is simply hysteria, though.

Ahh...that is nothing.

The reps were not take to the streets when Obama was elected to remove him. The reps were quiet when Obama force-fed them his homosexual agenda and imported illegals as fast as humanly possible to get their vote. Obama has done more to ruin America than all his processors combined.

We now live in a world where people don't even know which bathroom to use and a mentally ill man with a penis is considered a woman. All thanks to Obama....just no comparison.

[ROCKMAN]

Interesting comments by all. Surprised someone didn't bring up the old line: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So would one man's political extremist be another man's rational activist?

[Cog]

There is a lot of freedom fighters until its time to do freedom fighter things.

[evilgenius]

Yeah, and saying no to everything Obama did for 8 years wasn't? What do you call it when they wouldn't consider his Supreme Court nominee?

This is a ridiculous screed. I'll tell you why. Anyone who launches a coup attempt against Trump would have it backfire in their face. If it failed, Trump would do what Erdogan did in Turkey. He would wind up much more solidly in power, and possibly president for life.

Being angry at obstruction which is based upon procedural machinations available to the opposition within the system is justified because you support the power in play. Extrapolating that to another level is simply hysteria, though.

Ahh...that is nothing.

The reps were not take to the streets when Obama was elected to remove him. The reps were quiet when Obama force-fed them his homosexual agenda and imported illegals as fast as humanly possible to get their vote. Obama has done more to ruin America than all his processors combined.

We now live in a world where people don't even know which bathroom to use and a mentally ill man with a penis is considered a woman. All thanks to Obama....just no comparison.

How much more Soviet Union are you prepared to go? You are basically asserting that people don't have rights when it comes to their self. They must be like you or they are aberrant. The Republicans didn't take to the streets because Obama wasn't after anything as basic as their rights. He was out to promote other people's, though. As with the abortion issue, the party of money, which doesn't have nearly the support it needs to maintain power when it exercises its most important issue, sought to propagandize and inflame people based upon how they feel about what other people do, or who they are. From something as seemingly innocuous as Coast to Coast Am to Rush Limbaugh to Alex Jones they have a machine in place for doing this. Most people listen to it and can't tell they are being duped because most people don't understand or care about others enough stand up for them when they are attacked. The attacks don't come as black and white either/or assertions most of the time. They are usually associated with something related to what the audience the show is aimed at is concerned with, like their jobs or their curiosity. They make it sound like whatever you might not have is those people's fault. In this way the right seeks to marginalize people of color, women, and people of sexual orientation other than heterosexual. They use association. I hope that one day you can understand that and break free from it.

[Shaved Monkey]

Political Extremism
The "radical left"... lol
Both US political parties are to the right of Australias right wing political party.