If it's going to fail in the House, that's a useful vote. It gives us a list of people with D affiliations that it's time to primary.
If it's going to fail in the Senate, that's also a useful vote. It becomes fodder for tying each and every last Republican Senator to Trump and demonstrating that literally nothing is going to get between them and their love of Trump. (And if any Democrats are stupid enough to vote the same, then they get to go on the list I mentioned above.)
Either way, they should proceed. You can say "but it won't pass the Senate", but that's not stopping the House from passing legislation that's obviously DOA the minute it hits the Senate. If the bar for doing anything was "only if it can pass the Senate", then the House would be doing absolutely nothing, and yet they're not.
Politicians rely on looking strong to their constituents, your stance would do this for candidates running for president and the outsiders like Justice Democrats. That move would make them look strong, it won't for House leadership. It's not like that is news for anyone who has followed politics once Trump to elected. Everyone knows what he's done and whether the GOP support him and they do. Brazenly.
Sacrifice by itself won't do anything significant, all that does is make you weaker while the other guy lives to fight another day. That's why getting him out at the ballot box is less risky and shows more strength to the populace.
Those bills passing can be framed as progress, that's not the same as impeachment.
It's enough to make you think that Pelosi just really, really doesn't want to do it.
No politician wants to be caught looking weak on the national stage, and you're asking Pelosi to sacrifice herself for nothing.
Leaders lead.
We need leaders
The context is how political leaders lead in parliaments and congresses, and they don't do it like that. However, there are people in leadership who can: you want
Adam Schiff to do that, the House Intelligence Chairman.
You're more than welcome to primary and challenge her Speakership elections, of course. I suggest next time the left put someone up there to fight unlike in '19. Something which has been missing from these threads, as though a nameless saviour will materialise out of nowhere and solve everyones problems with her leadership.
how am I supposed to give an answer about the hypothetical future effects of inaction today? I think her refusal to lead on this has caused harm and we may well feel that harm for some time. There's no real way for one of us to say definitively who is right yet.
You're not operating on nothing, you have plenty of modern history to come to a conclusion. This is a skill politicians have to use regularly or they end up not being politicians.
