Actually yes he was. After his election in 2000 and the shit-show that was the Florida recount, Bush II was ridiculed and probably would have been impeached if it wasn't for 9/11. Trump doesn't have to worry about that second part since the Republicans control the house
That's what I was coming in here to say... I just think the real difference is the level to which "they," have been able to take the left-right paradigm since then. It really seems like a lot of people are 100% convinced that they're trying to stop a totalitarian fascist regime. That remains to be seen, but their fervency in their belief is what concerns me.
I totally agree with you about the push they seem to be making. I am not that old but i am old enough to remember a few presidencies clearly. I have never seen a divide in this country like I have seen now. I can remember when Obama took office how the right went crazy and pushed a narrative of conspiracy theories (muslim, birtherism, etc) that made it hard to level any legitimate criticism of Obama, and I feel the same is happening with Trump (ooooo RUSSIA).
I mean my god if anybody thinks that thousand dollar suited, slicked backed hair, NEW YORK CITY HUSTLER (I have met plenty of nyc cats, and all of them try to get over on people) is gonna do a damn thing besides line his pockets, I got some prime beach front property in the Sahara to sell you
Watch the sheriff joe arapaio press conference. The official long form birth certificate is a forgery: they found the source document. Does that mean he was born in Kenya? Not necessarily. But it does indicate some fuckery is about.
expansion of surveillance state, expansion of wars, closed door meetings with insurance execs before the healthcare bill is offered, war on whistle blowers, LEGITIMATE criticisms that both the left and right can agree on, and so many more that I can't think of off the top of my head, that get lost because the people who claim the conservative mantle got caught up in unverifiable distractions.
Ehh...I think we just need to wait and see. There are so many ppl waiting for him to do something even resembling exactly that, and I'd bet at least half of his voters don't 100% trust him. I'm not sure he needs pocket lining, and it's hard to get around the microscope that'll be on him the whole time. That's kind of the best thing about this...suddenly the media will be doing their job and actually scrutinizing the actions of government rather than selling them for once.
Actually their was quite a few reasons to impeach him, but let's see what I can remember off the top of my head and then you are welcome to research this yourself( this is conspiracy after all)
So during the 2000 election while Bush II was a candidate for presidency his brother John Ellis (Jeb) Bush Sr. was governor for the state of Florida and the Secretary of state for Florida (the person who runs and certifies the election for that state) was Katherine Harris. She also happen to be the Chair of the George Bush II Florida campaign and the night before the election "guaranteed" Bush II the win. The election was decided by less than a thousand votes in Florida. and impeached only means to be bought up on formal charges.
There is a reason why bush unconstitutionally went to the supreme court to stop the Florida recount vs. following the constitution and letting it go to the house. The democrats controlled the house and probably would have thrown the election Gore. Even after the election the Democrats controlled congress and then like now thought that the president was illegitimate. 9/11 solidified the Bush regime's grip on power and the 2002 mid-terms took away the Democrats control of the House (where impeachment has to take place)
I was no fan of many of Bush jr.'s post-9/11 decisions, but claiming that it was probable that he would have been impeached over the hanging chad fiasco is simply revisionist history.
Although unsatisfactorily for some, the election had been settled. Gore had conceded....Again, On what basis would Bush have been successfully impeached?
How old are you? I ask because I need to know if you were child when this went down and were you politically aware? this issue wasn't just a little unsatisfactory, there was a widespread belief held among Democrats that he STOLE the election, with many editorials and talking points coming from elected democrats to that effect.
Secondly you might of heard of a little thing called the Monica Lewinsky affair. when the republicans SUCCESSFULLY impeached (again that means to bring an official up on charges, it does not mean to force the abdication of office) President Clinton. which I think was more of a driving force for it then the actual charges themselves
Now do I think they would have been successful themselves? I don't know. But I AM certain had 9/11 not happened and the country not rallied behind the President to solidify his position, he would have been impeached
I'm 45...I know what impeach means. You said he would "probably" have been impeached if not for 9/11. You can be "certain" all you like, it doesn't change the fact that there was no legitimate basis to even bring impeachment proceedings, let alone be successful. Clinton was impeached for knowingly lying under oath. A completely different situation. I voted in that election, and lived through it as an adult... You may want to do more research on the matter.
Sorry about that dig at your age, I just needed to know who I am talking to before I went deeper. So what was the legitimate reason for Impeaching Clinton? Lying about a blowjob under oath. What would have been the democrats reasoning for Impeaching Bush II? colluding with the Fl sec of state to disqualify ballots and steal the alection
When you lie under sworn oath as POTUS, (no matter what it is for) that is an impeachable offense...You would need proof of Bush's "collusion", that was not found...Clinton lied under oath. You attempting to minimize it by stating what it was for, doesn't change that fact.
Actually , I am not minimizing it at all, I am putting it into perspective, Because the section of the constitution you are looking for is "high crimes and misdemeanors" which has NEVER been put to the test until Clinton came along. Does the President have the right to lie to a special prosecutor? Can they pardon themselves for crimes while committed in office? Nixon would have been the test case for that, had he not resigned and been pardoned by ford.
And the "proof" was Katherine Harris in her dual role as fl. Sec of State and Bush campaign chair for that state "guaranteeing" Bush the win
Lol...Your "proof" is not evidence of collusion by Bush. Hell, they couldn't even prove criminal wrongdoing just on Katherine Harris' part...As far as Clinton goes, no matter how you word it he lied under oath as POTUS. That is why he was successfully impeached.
and no matter how you try to unsee the fact that Clinton's Impeachment was politically motivated (which is what I was getting at) it was, I mean they spent nearly $80 million in taxpayer money, looked into damn near every aspect of his life, and the only thing they could get him on is lying about a blow job, and had the Democrats controlled the house, there would have been no impeachment. Stop trying to make this a left right debate. I don't like neither of them. But the facts that i am pretty sure we can agree on is A) there was WIDESPREAD discontent on the left due to the Florida election results. B) the recount was suspect ( I still don't know who won because of so many conflicting stories out there) and lastly C) the democrats controlled congress. Even if it wasn't over the election, I HAVEN'T met person yet who hasn't broken a single law. So i stand by my statement that had 9/11 not happened Bush II would have been Impeached
"Stop trying to make this a left right debate"...You brought up Clinton, not me. Bill lied under oath as POTUS. What he lied about is irrelevant, that is a crime....No collusion or criminal intent was found against Harris or Bush. Your claim that if not for 9/11, Bush would "probably" have been impeached, is simply false.
I brought up Clinton because of the political motivation that you seem to try your best not see. Because his crimes were only crimes because Are you trying to say that you are certain due to the political climate of the country he was not going to be impeached if 9/11 never happened?
For the most part Yes. The "probability" of it was next to nil...There was no crime proven against Bush as it pertained to the election. Clinton had been found to have committed a crime as POTUS...Have you not been reading the info contained in my replies to you?
how did they find the crimes? what started it? who was in charge of congress when they started the Clinton investigation, what was the political climate of the country when the cClinton investigation started?
Lol...If you don't think Dems tried to prove criminal collusion between Harris and Bush, (or even just on Harris' part) you're sadly mistaken. In the Monica situation it was obvious that Clinton was full of shit, and it was proven.
Not disagreeing on that. on any of that. but your acting like 9/11 didn't change Bush's standing with the American people or that the Dem's wouldn't have used his Impeachment proceeding to DRAG Bush II during the 2002 mid-terms, especially when their whole constituency thought he was illegitimate
You seem to be backtracking on your original premise that Bush "probably" would have been impeached if not for 9/11. That is what I originally refuted as revisionist history, and then backed up with facts....You appear to be deflecting from that argument, when you keep bringing up Bill Clinton.
Not at all. still where I am at. Bill Clinton's Impeachment is most of the reason I think Bush would have been Impeached. The rest of it is the election, And we are both engaging in revisionist history since 9/11 did happen, and while I have brought up several points of why I think they would have impeached him (the election itself, the political climate of the country that time, payback for the Impeachment of Clinton, Bush's perceived illegitimacy by the left) I had to read back and notice you don't actually refute any of what i said, never answered what i asked about Clinton's Impeachment, so I have to conclude you are more interested in proving me wrong then engaging in a healthy debate. that's cool
What are you not getting?...You need proof of wrongdoing to bring impeachment proceedings. The Dems tried and found none. You seem to want to move the "debate" to Clinton, (which you also lost) in some futile attempt to sidestep away from your original wrong contention.
Talking out of your ass. There was absolutely no talk of Bush being impeached before 9/11. Gore conceded and the election was awarded to Bush. You could say many saw his presidency as illegitimate because of how the election went down, but its just revisionist history to say that overall there was a chance he could have been impeached. You just straight up made that up.
would Bush have bounced back without 9/11? was there no calls for his Impeachment from NO sitting Member of congress? Would the democrats not have used his Impeachment proceedings during the 2002 mid-terms to bolster their own chances? So somebody conceding ends all questions on elections? And During his presidency were there not any actions taken to impeach Bush?
The only issue the Bush administration was having before 9/11 was that they hadn't done anything. Bush Jr. probably has the lease effective first 100 days in office than any other president. People were concerned that he wasn't really doing the job and was just sort of coasting through it.
And yes, when somebody concedes an election that means the election is over and it is awarded to the person who did not concede. Now you can have theories about why Gore did it. Maybe he was paid off, etc.
Furthermore, there are efforts to impeach every president. There's always going to be people that down right hate the president and resent that their choice candidate didn't get in. So there will always be people filling out petitions and organizing rallies, etc. But there were absolutely, no legitimate calls or reasons for Bush to be impeached. After 9/11 and its a completely different story...
W was made fun of viciously. Just based on W's of made up words alone sparked cackles of laughter at his expense. "Mission accomplished" hung above him in a gray cloud. And seemed people talked about him as an errand boy while Cheney was the brains and brawn of the org.
Was Bush accused of being racist and misyognist and a rapist though? I was young when bush jr got elected, but i remember everybody viciously making fun of him for coming off like he was a total idiot during his speeches. But I feel like the manner of insults and character assassination is totally different now
Because modern day snowflakes simply can't stand that they didn't get their way. Back in W's day, the Internet and social media weren't what they are today, so it's much more coordinated and focused now.
It wasn't quite the same since W basically stole the election and was appointed. Look up old videos, you can see people pelting his car with eggs on his way to the White House, they had to cut the progression short. I remember marching and protesting the war back in high school at the time. But that was a cause. It doesn't seem like these people protesting now are for a real cause, they've been swayed into it with false fears. And they're dividing the country with their identity politics. Those are some of my 'member berries.
People seem to forget that after W was elected the first time that Comedy Central did the slapstick comedy "That's My Bush" poking fun at his ineptitude. It was canceled right after 9/11. Then after the second election the released the cartoon Lil Bush. So Yes, Bush was roasted, in my opinion, worse than Trump.
People seem to forget that after W was elected the first time that Comedy Central did the slapstick comedy "That's My Bush" poking fun at his ineptitude. It was canceled right after 9/11. Then after the second election the released the cartoon Lil Bush. So Yes, Bush was roasted, in my opinion, worse than Trump.
W was ridiculed massively, but he didn't pick unnecessary fights like Trump does.
Trump does two things which intensify the mockery he receives. First of all he blows up any time any one makes fun of him. Second, and more importantly, he seeks fights with the press, with the intelligence agencies, and with his political rivals. Often completely unnecessary ones. Look at how he had his press secretary claim that Trump's inauguration was the largest ever, despite this being demonstrably untrue, and that if they did not report this there would be repercussions. Why would you pick a fight like that?
It's weird what he chooses to fight back against. He had his press secretary criticize media for lying about crowd size. But he doesn't do a thing when they attack his family. For example, people saying his son acts weird. Or his wife's clothing choices.
I guess you can't pinpoint where those insults come from but he never acknowledges them.
One indicator of crowd size — although it doesn’t tell the whole story — is the number of trips taken on D.C.’s Metro system.
As of 11 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Metro said it had recorded 193,000 trips. That’s about on par with the number of trips taken for President George W. Bush’s second inauguration in 2005. In 2013 during Obama’s second inauguration, the system had recorded about 317,000 trips. During Obama’s record-setting 2009 inauguration, the system had recorded 513,000 Metro trips by 11 a.m.
TL;DR Trump had same crowd size as Bush.
It was a cruddy rainy day. DC has the highest unemployment rate in the country for blacks so the Jobless had all the time in the world to show up during a morning with nice weather for the inauguration of the first black president. Most of the people who went to the Trump inauguration would have been people from out of town while most people who went to Obamas were the local blacks.
That's what I was coming in here to say... I just think the real difference is the level to which "they," have been able to take the left-right paradigm since then. It really seems like a lot of people are 100% convinced that they're trying to stop a totalitarian fascist regime. That remains to be seen, but their fervency in their belief is what concerns me.
Talking out of your ass. There was absolutely no talk of Bush being impeached before 9/11. Gore conceded and the election was awarded to Bush. You could say many saw his presidency as illegitimate because of how the election went down, but its just revisionist history to say that overall there was a chance he could have been impeached. You just straight up made that up.
52 comments
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
Don't ask John Lewis...He seems to have convenient memory loss.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
Actually yes he was. After his election in 2000 and the shit-show that was the Florida recount, Bush II was ridiculed and probably would have been impeached if it wasn't for 9/11. Trump doesn't have to worry about that second part since the Republicans control the house
n/a JwPATX 2017-01-22
That's what I was coming in here to say... I just think the real difference is the level to which "they," have been able to take the left-right paradigm since then. It really seems like a lot of people are 100% convinced that they're trying to stop a totalitarian fascist regime. That remains to be seen, but their fervency in their belief is what concerns me.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
I totally agree with you about the push they seem to be making. I am not that old but i am old enough to remember a few presidencies clearly. I have never seen a divide in this country like I have seen now. I can remember when Obama took office how the right went crazy and pushed a narrative of conspiracy theories (muslim, birtherism, etc) that made it hard to level any legitimate criticism of Obama, and I feel the same is happening with Trump (ooooo RUSSIA).
I mean my god if anybody thinks that thousand dollar suited, slicked backed hair, NEW YORK CITY HUSTLER (I have met plenty of nyc cats, and all of them try to get over on people) is gonna do a damn thing besides line his pockets, I got some prime beach front property in the Sahara to sell you
n/a mconeone 2017-01-22
Watch the sheriff joe arapaio press conference. The official long form birth certificate is a forgery: they found the source document. Does that mean he was born in Kenya? Not necessarily. But it does indicate some fuckery is about.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
expansion of surveillance state, expansion of wars, closed door meetings with insurance execs before the healthcare bill is offered, war on whistle blowers, LEGITIMATE criticisms that both the left and right can agree on, and so many more that I can't think of off the top of my head, that get lost because the people who claim the conservative mantle got caught up in unverifiable distractions.
n/a JwPATX 2017-01-22
Ehh...I think we just need to wait and see. There are so many ppl waiting for him to do something even resembling exactly that, and I'd bet at least half of his voters don't 100% trust him. I'm not sure he needs pocket lining, and it's hard to get around the microscope that'll be on him the whole time. That's kind of the best thing about this...suddenly the media will be doing their job and actually scrutinizing the actions of government rather than selling them for once.
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
Lol...Impeached for what?
n/a RedditBlowhard 2017-01-22
Exactly. There was nothing to impeach him for.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
Actually their was quite a few reasons to impeach him, but let's see what I can remember off the top of my head and then you are welcome to research this yourself( this is conspiracy after all)
So during the 2000 election while Bush II was a candidate for presidency his brother John Ellis (Jeb) Bush Sr. was governor for the state of Florida and the Secretary of state for Florida (the person who runs and certifies the election for that state) was Katherine Harris. She also happen to be the Chair of the George Bush II Florida campaign and the night before the election "guaranteed" Bush II the win. The election was decided by less than a thousand votes in Florida. and impeached only means to be bought up on formal charges.
n/a RedditBlowhard 2017-01-22
So what specifically would the charges have been against W?
You named some people that you have no proof did anything other than say things you don't like. What exactly would have been the charge against W?
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
I haven't met a politician yet that I like. and I am going off my memory of events that i haven't thought of since those days.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
There is a reason why bush unconstitutionally went to the supreme court to stop the Florida recount vs. following the constitution and letting it go to the house. The democrats controlled the house and probably would have thrown the election Gore. Even after the election the Democrats controlled congress and then like now thought that the president was illegitimate. 9/11 solidified the Bush regime's grip on power and the 2002 mid-terms took away the Democrats control of the House (where impeachment has to take place)
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
I was no fan of many of Bush jr.'s post-9/11 decisions, but claiming that it was probable that he would have been impeached over the hanging chad fiasco is simply revisionist history.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
see my reply to r/RedditBlowhard
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
Although unsatisfactorily for some, the election had been settled. Gore had conceded....Again, On what basis would Bush have been successfully impeached?
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
How old are you? I ask because I need to know if you were child when this went down and were you politically aware? this issue wasn't just a little unsatisfactory, there was a widespread belief held among Democrats that he STOLE the election, with many editorials and talking points coming from elected democrats to that effect. Secondly you might of heard of a little thing called the Monica Lewinsky affair. when the republicans SUCCESSFULLY impeached (again that means to bring an official up on charges, it does not mean to force the abdication of office) President Clinton. which I think was more of a driving force for it then the actual charges themselves
Now do I think they would have been successful themselves? I don't know. But I AM certain had 9/11 not happened and the country not rallied behind the President to solidify his position, he would have been impeached
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
I'm 45...I know what impeach means. You said he would "probably" have been impeached if not for 9/11. You can be "certain" all you like, it doesn't change the fact that there was no legitimate basis to even bring impeachment proceedings, let alone be successful. Clinton was impeached for knowingly lying under oath. A completely different situation. I voted in that election, and lived through it as an adult... You may want to do more research on the matter.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
Sorry about that dig at your age, I just needed to know who I am talking to before I went deeper. So what was the legitimate reason for Impeaching Clinton? Lying about a blowjob under oath. What would have been the democrats reasoning for Impeaching Bush II? colluding with the Fl sec of state to disqualify ballots and steal the alection
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
When you lie under sworn oath as POTUS, (no matter what it is for) that is an impeachable offense...You would need proof of Bush's "collusion", that was not found...Clinton lied under oath. You attempting to minimize it by stating what it was for, doesn't change that fact.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
Actually , I am not minimizing it at all, I am putting it into perspective, Because the section of the constitution you are looking for is "high crimes and misdemeanors" which has NEVER been put to the test until Clinton came along. Does the President have the right to lie to a special prosecutor? Can they pardon themselves for crimes while committed in office? Nixon would have been the test case for that, had he not resigned and been pardoned by ford.
And the "proof" was Katherine Harris in her dual role as fl. Sec of State and Bush campaign chair for that state "guaranteeing" Bush the win
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
Lol...Your "proof" is not evidence of collusion by Bush. Hell, they couldn't even prove criminal wrongdoing just on Katherine Harris' part...As far as Clinton goes, no matter how you word it he lied under oath as POTUS. That is why he was successfully impeached.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
and no matter how you try to unsee the fact that Clinton's Impeachment was politically motivated (which is what I was getting at) it was, I mean they spent nearly $80 million in taxpayer money, looked into damn near every aspect of his life, and the only thing they could get him on is lying about a blow job, and had the Democrats controlled the house, there would have been no impeachment. Stop trying to make this a left right debate. I don't like neither of them. But the facts that i am pretty sure we can agree on is A) there was WIDESPREAD discontent on the left due to the Florida election results. B) the recount was suspect ( I still don't know who won because of so many conflicting stories out there) and lastly C) the democrats controlled congress. Even if it wasn't over the election, I HAVEN'T met person yet who hasn't broken a single law. So i stand by my statement that had 9/11 not happened Bush II would have been Impeached
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
"Stop trying to make this a left right debate"...You brought up Clinton, not me. Bill lied under oath as POTUS. What he lied about is irrelevant, that is a crime....No collusion or criminal intent was found against Harris or Bush. Your claim that if not for 9/11, Bush would "probably" have been impeached, is simply false.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
I brought up Clinton because of the political motivation that you seem to try your best not see. Because his crimes were only crimes because Are you trying to say that you are certain due to the political climate of the country he was not going to be impeached if 9/11 never happened?
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
For the most part Yes. The "probability" of it was next to nil...There was no crime proven against Bush as it pertained to the election. Clinton had been found to have committed a crime as POTUS...Have you not been reading the info contained in my replies to you?
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
how did they find the crimes? what started it? who was in charge of congress when they started the Clinton investigation, what was the political climate of the country when the cClinton investigation started?
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
Lol...If you don't think Dems tried to prove criminal collusion between Harris and Bush, (or even just on Harris' part) you're sadly mistaken. In the Monica situation it was obvious that Clinton was full of shit, and it was proven.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
Not disagreeing on that. on any of that. but your acting like 9/11 didn't change Bush's standing with the American people or that the Dem's wouldn't have used his Impeachment proceeding to DRAG Bush II during the 2002 mid-terms, especially when their whole constituency thought he was illegitimate
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
You seem to be backtracking on your original premise that Bush "probably" would have been impeached if not for 9/11. That is what I originally refuted as revisionist history, and then backed up with facts....You appear to be deflecting from that argument, when you keep bringing up Bill Clinton.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
Not at all. still where I am at. Bill Clinton's Impeachment is most of the reason I think Bush would have been Impeached. The rest of it is the election, And we are both engaging in revisionist history since 9/11 did happen, and while I have brought up several points of why I think they would have impeached him (the election itself, the political climate of the country that time, payback for the Impeachment of Clinton, Bush's perceived illegitimacy by the left) I had to read back and notice you don't actually refute any of what i said, never answered what i asked about Clinton's Impeachment, so I have to conclude you are more interested in proving me wrong then engaging in a healthy debate. that's cool
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
What are you not getting?...You need proof of wrongdoing to bring impeachment proceedings. The Dems tried and found none. You seem to want to move the "debate" to Clinton, (which you also lost) in some futile attempt to sidestep away from your original wrong contention.
n/a rykorotez 2017-01-22
Talking out of your ass. There was absolutely no talk of Bush being impeached before 9/11. Gore conceded and the election was awarded to Bush. You could say many saw his presidency as illegitimate because of how the election went down, but its just revisionist history to say that overall there was a chance he could have been impeached. You just straight up made that up.
n/a dec8ur 2017-01-22
would Bush have bounced back without 9/11? was there no calls for his Impeachment from NO sitting Member of congress? Would the democrats not have used his Impeachment proceedings during the 2002 mid-terms to bolster their own chances? So somebody conceding ends all questions on elections? And During his presidency were there not any actions taken to impeach Bush?
n/a rykorotez 2017-01-22
The only issue the Bush administration was having before 9/11 was that they hadn't done anything. Bush Jr. probably has the lease effective first 100 days in office than any other president. People were concerned that he wasn't really doing the job and was just sort of coasting through it.
And yes, when somebody concedes an election that means the election is over and it is awarded to the person who did not concede. Now you can have theories about why Gore did it. Maybe he was paid off, etc.
Furthermore, there are efforts to impeach every president. There's always going to be people that down right hate the president and resent that their choice candidate didn't get in. So there will always be people filling out petitions and organizing rallies, etc. But there were absolutely, no legitimate calls or reasons for Bush to be impeached. After 9/11 and its a completely different story...
n/a EricCarver 2017-01-22
W was made fun of viciously. Just based on W's of made up words alone sparked cackles of laughter at his expense. "Mission accomplished" hung above him in a gray cloud. And seemed people talked about him as an errand boy while Cheney was the brains and brawn of the org.
n/a mconeone 2017-01-22
Made fun of like people make fun of Trump being orange. What we're seeing now goes way beyond anything I witnessed in the 2000s.
n/a magnora7 2017-01-22
Yeah it's very weird to see the MSM make hitler comparisons like it's no big deal. It seems any restraint has gone out the window
n/a The_Watterboy 2017-01-22
Was Bush accused of being racist and misyognist and a rapist though? I was young when bush jr got elected, but i remember everybody viciously making fun of him for coming off like he was a total idiot during his speeches. But I feel like the manner of insults and character assassination is totally different now
n/a mconeone 2017-01-22
Agreed. The message was not even close to alarmist as we see now.
If anything it parallels the lead up to the Iraq war after 9/11.
n/a RedditBlowhard 2017-01-22
Because modern day snowflakes simply can't stand that they didn't get their way. Back in W's day, the Internet and social media weren't what they are today, so it's much more coordinated and focused now.
n/a greetingearthlings 2017-01-22
Not even close.
n/a LupoScuro 2017-01-22
It wasn't quite the same since W basically stole the election and was appointed. Look up old videos, you can see people pelting his car with eggs on his way to the White House, they had to cut the progression short. I remember marching and protesting the war back in high school at the time. But that was a cause. It doesn't seem like these people protesting now are for a real cause, they've been swayed into it with false fears. And they're dividing the country with their identity politics. Those are some of my 'member berries.
*Also, fuck you grandma.
n/a Ghettohippie40 2017-01-22
People seem to forget that after W was elected the first time that Comedy Central did the slapstick comedy "That's My Bush" poking fun at his ineptitude. It was canceled right after 9/11. Then after the second election the released the cartoon Lil Bush. So Yes, Bush was roasted, in my opinion, worse than Trump.
n/a Ghettohippie40 2017-01-22
People seem to forget that after W was elected the first time that Comedy Central did the slapstick comedy "That's My Bush" poking fun at his ineptitude. It was canceled right after 9/11. Then after the second election the released the cartoon Lil Bush. So Yes, Bush was roasted, in my opinion, worse than Trump.
n/a 50000hungryamericans 2017-01-22
certainly everyone remembers the hit T.V. show "that's my bush"
n/a 50000hungryamericans 2017-01-22
one of these days laura.. im gonna punch you... in the face
n/a P_Alleline 2017-01-22
W was ridiculed massively, but he didn't pick unnecessary fights like Trump does.
Trump does two things which intensify the mockery he receives. First of all he blows up any time any one makes fun of him. Second, and more importantly, he seeks fights with the press, with the intelligence agencies, and with his political rivals. Often completely unnecessary ones. Look at how he had his press secretary claim that Trump's inauguration was the largest ever, despite this being demonstrably untrue, and that if they did not report this there would be repercussions. Why would you pick a fight like that?
n/a mastigia 2017-01-22
Yeah, it's fuckin great.
n/a blakdart 2017-01-22
I think Trump is a man who just loves to soak up attention good or bad.
He was a celebrity after all , but he does not degrade himself to the point of crotch shots for attention.
n/a worktheshoot 2017-01-22
It's weird what he chooses to fight back against. He had his press secretary criticize media for lying about crowd size. But he doesn't do a thing when they attack his family. For example, people saying his son acts weird. Or his wife's clothing choices.
I guess you can't pinpoint where those insults come from but he never acknowledges them.
n/a blakdart 2017-01-22
One indicator of crowd size — although it doesn’t tell the whole story — is the number of trips taken on D.C.’s Metro system.
As of 11 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Metro said it had recorded 193,000 trips. That’s about on par with the number of trips taken for President George W. Bush’s second inauguration in 2005. In 2013 during Obama’s second inauguration, the system had recorded about 317,000 trips. During Obama’s record-setting 2009 inauguration, the system had recorded 513,000 Metro trips by 11 a.m.
It was a cruddy rainy day. DC has the highest unemployment rate in the country for blacks so the Jobless had all the time in the world to show up during a morning with nice weather for the inauguration of the first black president. Most of the people who went to the Trump inauguration would have been people from out of town while most people who went to Obamas were the local blacks.
n/a FartOnToast 2017-01-22
Because some are some meaningless he can't be calling all of the out. It'd be literally like babysitting a child.
n/a JwPATX 2017-01-22
That's what I was coming in here to say... I just think the real difference is the level to which "they," have been able to take the left-right paradigm since then. It really seems like a lot of people are 100% convinced that they're trying to stop a totalitarian fascist regime. That remains to be seen, but their fervency in their belief is what concerns me.
n/a rimper 2017-01-22
Lol...Impeached for what?
n/a rykorotez 2017-01-22
Talking out of your ass. There was absolutely no talk of Bush being impeached before 9/11. Gore conceded and the election was awarded to Bush. You could say many saw his presidency as illegitimate because of how the election went down, but its just revisionist history to say that overall there was a chance he could have been impeached. You just straight up made that up.