US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening

[Double 0]

The people are getting the wrong message. They are getting a read of "we gave Dems more power. And they do nothing with it."

That is a message Pelosi is building indirectly.

That's what happens when you are shitty messagers.

At this rate, if they do push for impeachment, those Dems who plan on saying no are forfeiting Congress.

 

[Kirblar]

Kirbs you're being unfair here. Nancy sitting here saying "we're not gonna do thing because no GOP support" is feckless, irresponsible and quite frankly cowardice.

If she won't lead, get out of the way.

Click to shrink...

No, I absolutely am fucking not. "Trump's actively sought out election interference from foreign countries, is enriching his own businesses, putting kids in cages, etc. etc." is not fucking less of a scandal than someone having a different fucking opinion on how to handle a GOP-controlled hyper-politicized Senate that prior to now, had a 0% chance of conviction.

I think Ukraine is likely going to change the calculus significantly. Where previously I was fine with slow moving stuff because I wanted BENGHAZI as the strategy, i no longer think that's the case and you need to force them to vote. That doesn't mean a fucking difference of opinion is a bigger scandal than the enormity of Trump's heinous shit. It's pathetic myopia from people used to blaming their own side for why they lose.

 

[Royalan]

The man who telegraphed his criminal behavior before he was even elected continuing that criminal behavior is not a scandal. It's only a scandal if you a) never believed him; b) never believed the people who were shouting from the mountain tops about him; c) believed the mythical power of "The Office" would change him; or d) think that every corrupt white man, despite how unrepentant they are, are deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

I've been saying for months now that acting surprised at Trump's behavior is past the point of being cute. It's almost become a form of gaslighting. This man tells us who he is every day. He shows us there's no bottom every day. Start believing him.

But never, in even my most cynical moods, did I imagine the following:

a) Evidence of criminal behavior: no action from a Dem controlled House.
b) Constant breaking of the emoluments clause: no action from a Dem controlled House.
c) The long-awaited release of the Mueller Report detailing multiple instances of clear obstruction: no action from a Dem controlled House.
d) Trump guiding his cabinet to seize land for his wall by any means necessary, and if they get in legal trouble he will pardon them. Let's be clear: directing and encouraging criminal behavior from cabinet officials on the promise of a presidential pardon: no action from a Dem controlled House.
e) Trump stooge Lewandowski clowning a Dem controlled committee at trial, a CLEAR instance of contempt, and then using that clear instance of contempt to LAUNCH A CAMPAIGN FOR A SENATE SEAT: no action from a Dem controlled House.
f) Potentially sending our troops to fight in a conflict over SA oil interests: no action from a Dem controlled House.
g) Trump once again, blatantly, without remorse or fear of repercussion, ATTEMPTING A BLACKMAIL AN ALLY NATION INTO INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS BEFORE A NATIONAL ELECTION: no action from a Dem controlled House.

And if it isn't clear, when I say "no action from a Dem controlled House" I am focusing solely on this: A House Majority Leader too chickenshit to do what her job calls her to do.

THAT is surprising.
THAT is a scandal.

Nancy Pelosi, whether we win or lose in 2020, should be forced to step down from the speakership. There is no more defending her.

 

[JABEE]

Nancy Pelosi doesn't give a shit. It's about protecting hegemony. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TheHunter]

^

What Royalan said.

 

[TheHunter]

How you can all sit here and defend being "politically safe" when the other side is sitting there hurling dirty bombs and IEDs is beyond me.

 

[JABEE]

How you can all sit here and defend being "politically safe" when the other side is sitting there hurling dirty bombs and IEDs is beyond me.

Click to shrink...

Pelosi doesn't want to be left holding the bag when our constitutional checks fail. Not an ounce of political capital wasted on the life of the Republic.

Honor doesn't mean shit. It's about PR and raising money on wedge issues she can go to donors to say she fought for.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It's a delicate balance. You don't want to let the Republicans off the hook, but all the same, at some point DOG BITES MAN and REPUBLICAN BITES AMERICA just aren't news stories any more. It's not scandalous when a Republican does something that fucks over large swathes of the country or embraces criminality or perpetuates hate; it's just a sign that today is a day ending in Y.

It's not even a media capture problem. It's just the unending deluge of shit covering up everybody's windscreens.

Demand better from the Democrats, even as you make sure to never forget that the Republicans are some of the worst people in the world. I guess that's the balance.

 

[Double 0]

With the way Dems are talking out of turn right now (it's not just AOC), either an impeachment announcement comes next week or Pelosi's in danger of revolt.

 

[Ogodei]

The argument's moot because removal from office isn't going to happen and the caucus has too many vulnerable members to make a show impeachment politically viable (where it would do more damage to marginal Senate R's than it would for marginal House D's).

I think Pelosi's being unnecessarily hostile to the idea and should be playing more coy with it than seeming to discourage it. But my first statement here is the only absolute truth. You know removal from office isn't going to happen, so the *only* question here is what's in it for the Democratic party?

Is it fair that the question of morality is pushed aside? No. But that's politics.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Moral victories aren't really victories if you don't win anything?

 

[Autodidact]

It's about PR and raising money on wedge issues she can go to donors to say she fought for.

Click to shrink...

Oh yes, "wedge issues" such as LGBT rights, voting rights, background checks, and prescription drug prices that the House has addressed.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

The man who telegraphed his criminal behavior before he was even elected continuing that criminal behavior is not a scandal. It's only a scandal if you a) never believed him; b) never believed the people who were shouting from the mountain tops about him; c) believed the mythical power of "The Office" would change him; or d) think that every corrupt white man, despite how unrepentant they are, are deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

I've been saying for months now that acting surprised at Trump's behavior is past the point of being cute. It's almost become a form of gaslighting. This man tells us who he is every day. He shows us there's no bottom every day. Start believing him.

But never, in even my most cynical moods, did I imagine the following:

a) Evidence of criminal behavior: no action from a Dem controlled House.
b) Constant breaking of the emoluments clause: no action from a Dem controlled House.
c) The long-awaited release of the Mueller Report detailing multiple instances of clear obstruction: no action from a Dem controlled House.
d) Trump guiding his cabinet to seize land for his wall by any means necessary, and if they get in legal trouble he will pardon them. Let's be clear: directing and encouraging criminal behavior from cabinet officials on the promise of a presidential pardon: no action from a Dem controlled House.
e) Trump stooge Lewandowski clowning a Dem controlled committee at trial, a CLEAR instance of contempt, and then using that clear instance of contempt to LAUNCH A CAMPAIGN FOR A SENATE SEAT: no action from a Dem controlled House.
f) Potentially sending our troops to fight in a conflict over SA oil interests: no action from a Dem controlled House.
g) Trump once again, blatantly, without remorse or fear of repercussion, ATTEMPTING A BLACKMAIL AN ALLY NATION INTO INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS BEFORE A NATIONAL ELECTION: no action from a Dem controlled House.

And if it isn't clear, when I say "no action from a Dem controlled House" I am focusing solely on this: A House Majority Leader too chickenshit to do what her job calls her to do.

THAT is surprising.
THAT is a scandal.

Nancy Pelosi, whether we win or lose in 2020, should be forced to step down from the speakership. There is no more defending her.

Click to shrink...

Nailed it on the head. Thank you for putting it so effectively, Royalan!

With the way Dems are talking out of turn right now, either an impeachment announcement comes next week or Pelosi's in danger of resignation.

Click to shrink...

Do you really think Pelosi would resign over this? I'm not trying to be rude here, but I just don't see it. After all... why would she? Pelosi's whole thing here seems to be that she's totally convinced she's doing the right thing and that everyone else who's crying out for impeachment and other serious means of holding the Trump administration to task are out of touch with reality, so I doubt she'd feel shamed or any sort of personal pressure to relent the position of Speaker.

The argument's moot because removal from office isn't going to happen and the caucus has too many vulnerable members to make a show impeachment politically viable (where it would do more damage to marginal Senate R's than it would for marginal House D's).

I think Pelosi's being unnecessarily hostile to the idea and should be playing more coy with it than seeming to discourage it. But my first statement here is the only absolute truth. You know removal from office isn't going to happen, so the *only* question here is what's in it for the Democratic party?

Is it fair that the question of morality is pushed aside? No. But that's politics.

Click to shrink...

If we don't do this now, then when are the built-in means of checks and balances ever going to be utilized properly moving forward? Will an impeachment actually work? Maybe not, but by sabotaging it at every turn, Pelosi is effectively weakening Congress's ability to hold the Executive Branch accountable.

 

[konka]

Kinda weird that there is so much Warren talk here when she is still way behind Biden in almost every poll.

 

[JABEE]

Oh yes, "wedge issues" such as LGBT rights, voting rights, background checks, and prescription drug prices that the House has addressed.

Click to shrink...

That's good, but people keep talking about the feasibility of removal from office, but all of those things aren't happening without GOP votes.

Congress has a duty and responsibility to hold the President to account and fight to achieve transparency and fairness before the eyes of the people.

 

[Madison]

Wow, that AOC tweet is quite something.

I cant believe how on point it is

We are honestly lucky to have her

 

[JABEE]

Wow, that AOC tweet is quite something.

I cant believe how on point it is

We are honestly lucky to have her

Click to shrink...

The truth is sometimes uncomfortable and that's a good thing.

 

[Kirblar]

The argument's moot because removal from office isn't going to happen and the caucus has too many vulnerable members to make a show impeachment politically viable (where it would do more damage to marginal Senate R's than it would for marginal House D's).

I think Pelosi's being unnecessarily hostile to the idea and should be playing more coy with it than seeming to discourage it. But my first statement here is the only absolute truth. You know removal from office isn't going to happen, so the *only* question here is what's in it for the Democratic party?

Is it fair that the question of morality is pushed aside? No. But that's politics.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. "What best leverages this politically" is unfortunately the correct answer here.

Kinda weird that there is so much Warren talk here when she is still way behind Biden in almost every poll.

Click to shrink...

Because Bernie and Biden are showing massive issues underneath the surface and you can't win with 30% of the vote.

 

[ZeroRed]

The argument's moot because removal from office isn't going to happen and the caucus has too many vulnerable members to make a show impeachment politically viable (where it would do more damage to marginal Senate R's than it would for marginal House D's).

I think Pelosi's being unnecessarily hostile to the idea and should be playing more coy with it than seeming to discourage it. But my first statement here is the only absolute truth. You know removal from office isn't going to happen, so the *only* question here is what's in it for the Democratic party?

Is it fair that the question of morality is pushed aside? No. But that's politics.

Click to shrink...

Saying Congress did its defined job to the best of its ability.
Exposing the Senate for the monsters that occupy it, and getting that on that record.
Putting an asterisk next to Trump's name in the history books.
And reinforcing to the Democratic base that the elected D's who have some power listened to them.

 

[Kirblar]

If we don't do this now, then when are the built-in means of checks and balances ever going to be utilized properly moving forward? Will an impeachment actually work? Maybe not, but by sabotaging it at every turn, Pelosi is effectively weakening Congress's ability to hold the Executive Branch accountable.

Click to shrink...

They've never worked in the past! The one time we went to impeachment for a legitimate reason, the president survived by a single vote! Because it's a political process. Nixon resigned when his party was going to throw him under the bus to memory hole him and salvage the next few elections.

 

[Blue Skies]

At

The argument's moot because removal from office isn't going to happen and the caucus has too many vulnerable members to make a show impeachment politically viable (where it would do more damage to marginal Senate R's than it would for marginal House D's).

I think Pelosi's being unnecessarily hostile to the idea and should be playing more coy with it than seeming to discourage it. But my first statement here is the only absolute truth. You know removal from office isn't going to happen, so the *only* question here is what's in it for the Democratic party?

Is it fair that the question of morality is pushed aside? No. But that's politics.

Click to shrink...

This is similar to how I see it.
you either, do the whole clown show and MAYBE end up looking bad in the eyes ofvoters when it eventually fails.
Or, you just inch close to it for as long as you can, keeping the dems riled up and ready to mobilize and vote, and you do it months before the election, keeping the emmeory of trump impeachment Fresh in everyone's minds as they go to the booths

 

[Gotchaye]

And if it isn't clear, when I say "no action from a Dem controlled House" I am focusing solely on this: A House Majority Leader to chickenshit to do what her job calls her to do.

THAT is surprising.
THAT is a scandal.

Nancy Pelosi, whether we win or lose in 2020, should be forced to step down from the speakership. There is no more defending her.

Click to shrink...

I think it's important to be explicit about what it is you're calling for here. You spend most of the post lamenting "no action" and then you sort of purport to clarify what you mean but you don't actually say what specific thing you think Pelosi should do. So let's say it: you want the House to hold a show vote declaring that they think Trump did high crimes that will at most lead to a handful of Senate Republicans agreeing that they think he did high crimes, and then Trump continuing to be president until at least January 2021 just as if the House didn't take that vote.

Now, I agree with Kirblar that the Ukraine thing seems like something that may swing the political calculus here in favor of impeachment -- it's a big, easy to grasp high crime that sort of ties everything bad about Trump together -- but it remains a merely political calculus. When the only effect of what you're doing is on how a couple of swing voters swing in 2020, and there's even a significant amount of uncertainty about just how that's going to play out, it's kind of bizarre to treat it as some big scandal that people come to a different answer on this question of political strategy.

I'm certainly willing to listen to an argument that there is some moral imperative about impeachment that goes beyond "I think (for not-great reasons) that this will help/hurt in 2020 and so we ought (not) to do it", but I don't really see that anyone's made that argument. Mostly we get this: rhetoric that conflates impeachment with "action". "Action" is obligatory, so we've got to do it. But action is effectual. The rhetoric is a lot less compelling when we're explicit that what we're talking about is a procedural vote that can be used in some political ads.

If you want impeachment because you think it will result in Trump getting convicted and removed from office, I think you have far too much faith in Republicans. If you want impeachment because you're very confident that it will help in 2020, I think it's just wrong to be that confident but it's not a crazy thing to try to do. If you want impeachment because it will bring you great personal satisfaction, then that's fine but it's obviously a matter of personal taste. If you want impeachment because there is some moral consideration that's prior to electoral considerations, then I'd like to hear it. But people talk like it's either the first or the last and then don't explain further.

 

[Double 0]

Nailed it on the head. Thank you for putting it so effectively, Royalan!



Do you really think Pelosi would resign over this? I'm not trying to be rude here, but I just don't see it. After all... why would she? Pelosi's whole thing here seems to be that she's totally convinced she's doing the right thing and that everyone else who's crying out for impeachment and other serious means of holding the Trump administration to task are out of touch with reality, so I doubt she'd feel shamed or any sort of personal pressure to relent the position of Speaker.



If we don't do this now, then when are the built-in means of checks and balances ever going to be utilized properly moving forward? Will an impeachment actually work? Maybe not, but by sabotaging it at every turn, Pelosi is effectively weakening Congress's ability to hold the Executive Branch accountable.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I edited that the second I posted it. Revolt/outrage is way more accurate.

Either way people are pissed and political calculus isn't gonna cut it. Those moderate Ds are just gonna have to deal; they may sink the rest of them.

 

[TheHunter]

Much like the electoral college being a brakestop on candidates like Trump if you aren't going to impeach now why does it even exist.

You don't get to complain about all these wonderful bills you're passing and then shit all over holding evil accountable.

You just look like an out of touch asshole.

 

[jtb]

I feel like 2010 completely did a number on everyone who was in Congress at that time, and it seems like that has completely shaped Pelosi's world view and approach to Trump. (Which is as good a reason as any for new leadership, but I digress.)

I'm a little surprised by just how inept Pelosi's political response has been on impeachment/oversight/whatever -- maybe this is rose tinted glasses but pre-2010 Pelosi was the progressive vanguard and now she's the strongest advocate for inaction and taking a small-c conservative approach to literally everything.

 

[Double 0]

I feel like 2010 completely did a number on everyone who was in Congress at that time, and it seems like that has completely shaped Pelosi's world view and approach to Trump. Which is as good a reason as any for new leadership, but I digress.

Click to shrink...

Nah, she was always this gun shy about impeachment. It just that Trump makes it a way bigger topic than W did. Even though he earned it too.

 

[Kirblar]

Much like the electoral college being a brakestop on candidates like Trump if you aren't going to impeach now why does it even exist.

You don't get to complain about all these wonderful bills you're passing and then shit all over holding evil accountable.

You just look like an out of touch asshole.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't? It functionally only exists if the President's party is willing to dump him.

We need to ratchet things on them to the point we're damaging their senators up for reelection so that they have to consider it and get caught in a catch 22.

 

[Royalan]

I think it's important to be explicit about what it is you're calling for here. You spend most of the post lamenting "no action" and then you sort of purport to clarify what you mean but you don't actually say what specific thing you think Pelosi should do. So let's say it: you want the House to hold a show vote declaring that they think Trump did high crimes that will at most lead to a handful of Senate Republicans agreeing that they think he did high crimes, and then Trump continuing to be president until at least January 2021 just as if the House didn't take that vote.

Click to shrink...

You don't need to tell me to be explicit, because I've been explicit.

For what honestly has to be the 1,263,383,263rd time someone in this thread has had to point out that nobody is under any delusions about what the Senate would do, I'm not treading that ground again. We've been there. You know what people are arguing.

This isn't about what the Senate would do. This is about what a Dem controlled House did. Did they brave the storm and do what's right? Or did they cower, crunch numbers, and determine that upholding our Democracy wasn't polling well enough to be worth it?

You demean it by calling it a "show vote." So tell me, what the hell are all those bills Nancy's passing to not even be brought up for a vote by Mitch and not make a single headline?

 

[Soul Skater]

Kinda weird that there is so much Warren talk here when she is still way behind Biden in almost every poll.

Click to shrink...

*Warren losing in second place in poll to Biden*

She's losing by less than she was losing last time! TIME TO GET IN LINE BEHIND PRESIDENT WARREN

*Bernie losing in second place in Poll to Biden*

LOL, Bernie is CANCELED. This opens the path to Warren!

 

[JABEE]

I feel like Trump is already really unpopular and impeaching Trump will mobilize people. It will force Trump to react and solidify Trump's offenses in the mind of the public more than waiting on a tome to drop from the ether.

Impeachment is different than the slow news drop. Public sentiment can drastically change and I think it's worth a shot. I don't know how it would backfire and make Trump more popular.

Remove all of that, I also think it is Congress's job to investigate and go forward with establishing charges if illegal actions can be proven which I believe this to be the case.

 

[Autodidact]

I think it's important to be explicit about what it is you're calling for here. You spend most of the post lamenting "no action" and then you sort of purport to clarify what you mean but you don't actually say what specific thing you think Pelosi should do. So let's say it: you want the House to hold a show vote declaring that they think Trump did high crimes that will at most lead to a handful of Senate Republicans agreeing that they think he did high crimes, and then Trump continuing to be president until at least January 2021 just as if the House didn't take that vote.

Now, I agree with Kirblar that the Ukraine thing seems like something that may swing the political calculus here in favor of impeachment -- it's a big, easy to grasp high crime that sort of ties everything bad about Trump together -- but it remains a merely political calculus. When the only effect of what you're doing is on how a couple of swing voters swing in 2020, and there's even a significant amount of uncertainty about just how that's going to play out, it's kind of bizarre to treat it as some big scandal that people come to a different answer on this question of political strategy.

I'm certainly willing to listen to an argument that there is some moral imperative about impeachment that goes beyond "I think (for not-great reasons) that this will help/hurt in 2020 and so we ought (not) to do it", but I don't really see that anyone's made that argument. Mostly we get this: rhetoric that conflates impeachment with "action". "Action" is obligatory, so we've got to do it. But action is effectual. The rhetoric is a lot less compelling when we're explicit that what we're talking about is a procedural vote that can be used in some political ads.

If you want impeachment because you think it will result in Trump getting convicted and removed from office, I think you have far too much faith in Republicans. If you want impeachment because you're very confident that it will help in 2020, I think it's just wrong to be that confident but it's not a crazy thing to try to do. If you want impeachment because it will bring you great personal satisfaction, then that's fine but it's obviously a matter of personal taste. If you want impeachment because there is some moral consideration that's prior to electoral considerations, then I'd like to hear it. But people talk like it's either the first or the last and then don't explain further.

Click to shrink...

Excellent post.

I've said before that impeachment is useful insofar as it weakens him for the election next year. And if you've reached the conclusion that it will hurt our prospects, obviously you don't support it. I don't think necessarily think that, but I don't immediately jump down the throat of anyone who does and start calling them ~~~complicit~~~ in the crimes that Republicans are committing.

 

[jtb]

It doesn't? It functionally only exists if the President's party is willing to dump him.

We need to ratchet things on them to the point we're damaging their senators up for reelection so that they have to consider it and get caught in a catch 22.

Click to shrink...

Richie Neal doesn't even want to get Trump's tax returns. Why pretend that Dems need to turn up the heat on Senate Rs when House D leadership (not the caucus) aren't even pretending to do that? Inaction on impeachment clearly isn't about building a case, it's about running out the clock.

If Pelosi ruled it off the table it would be a horrible miscalculation imo, but it would be less politically disastrous than the current trajectory.

 

[Ogodei]

Saying Congress did its defined job to the best of its ability.
Exposing the Senate for the monsters that occupy it, and getting that on that record.
Putting an asterisk next to Trump's name in the history books.
And reinforcing to the Democratic base that the elected D's who have some power listened to them.

Click to shrink...

Does that asterisk win us or lose us the presidency and the whole of congress next year? That's the only pertinent question.

There's grounds for debate as to whether impeaching Trump is good politics, both for the presidential GE and for maintaining control of the House under an R gerrymander. The question is, do you trust the caucus? With the additional question being, is the caucus taking cues from Pelosi on this or is Pelosi taking her cues from the caucus?

This is a show impeachment, make no bones about it. You're not getting removal unless Trump slips below 50% approval with GOP voters (or at least below 50% strong approval). To that end its only utility is the potential boon it makes for the next election. If this sounds unfair, that's because it is.

I'm right there with you all in hating that fact. I'm not trying to say that the pro-impeachment side is unrealistic. We're just rightfully mad and wish that we lived in a more just universe where bad actions could be directly punished. That anger is hard to reconcile (and I don't doubt that my own escalating anger issues have been due to grappling with this savage truth in part).

 

[TheHunter]

You don't need to tell me to be explicit, because I've been explicit.

For what honestly has to be the 1,263,383,263rd time someone in this thread has had to point out that nobody is under any delusions about what the Senate would do, I'm not treading that ground again. We've been there. You know what people are arguing.

This isn't about what the Senate would do. This is about what a Dem controlled House did. Did they brave the storm and do what's right? Or did they cower, crunch numbers, and determine that upholding our Democracy wasn't polling well enough to be worth it?

You demean it by calling it a "show vote." So tell me, what the hell are all those bills Nancy's passing to not even be brought up for a vote by Mitch and not make a single headline?

Click to shrink...

Bingo.

 

[Tfritz]

*Warren losing in second place in poll to Biden*

She's losing by less than she was losing last time! TIME TO GET IN LINE BEHIND PRESIDENT WARREN

*Bernie losing in second place in Poll to Biden*

LOL, Bernie is CANCELED. This opens the path to Warren!

Click to shrink...

to be quite honest if i were a bernie supporter i probably wouldn't try to throw shade at another candidate's supporters being all "my candidate is losing by less than expected and that's great!"

 

[Gotchaye]

You don't need to tell me to be explicit, because I've been explicit.

For what honestly has to 1,263,383,263 someone in this thread has had to point out that nobody is under any delusions about what the Senate would do, I'm not treading that ground again. We've been there. You know what people are arguing.

This isn't about what the Senate would do. This is about what a Dem controlled House did. Did they brave the storm and do what's right? Or did the cower, crunch numbers, and determine that upholding our Democracy wasn't polling well enough to be worth it?

You demean it by calling it a "show vote." So tell me, what the hell are all those bills Nancy's passing to not even be brought up for a vote by Mitch and not make a single headline?

Click to shrink...

I mean, those are show votes too, obviously. The whole point of them is to sort of maneuver for political advantage by being able to point to something and say "look we're trying to do something" or "this is what we stand for" or "here's proof we want to do the things we say we want to do".

But you're doing it again. You're asserting that impeaching is "doing what's right" and then not bothering to actually explain what makes it obligatory. Yes, Trump has done high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, it would be fantastic if he were removed from office ASAP. Why does it follow that impeachment is obligatory?

 

[Tfritz]

But you're doing it again. You're asserting that impeaching is "doing what's right" and then not bothering to actually explain what makes it obligatory. Yes, Trump has done high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, it would be fantastic if he were removed from office ASAP. Why does it follow that impeachment is obligatory?

Click to shrink...

uh

 

[Chained Prometheus]

They've never worked in the past! The one time we went to impeachment for a legitimate reason, the president survived by a single vote! Because it's a political process. Nixon resigned when his party was going to throw him under the bus to memory hole him and salvage the next few elections.

Click to shrink...

Which only happened after an arduous and lengthy impeachment investigation began that progressively informed the public of what Nixon was involved with and ultimately his own guilt in it. That political pressure from within his own party didn't just come out of nowhere!

You don't need to tell me to be explicit, because I've been explicit.

For what honestly has to be the 1,263,383,263rd time someone in this thread has had to point out that nobody is under any delusions about what the Senate would do, I'm not treading that ground again. We've been there. You know what people are arguing.

This isn't about what the Senate would do. This is about what a Dem controlled House did. Did they brave the storm and do what's right? Or did they cower, crunch numbers, and determine that upholding our Democracy wasn't polling well enough to be worth it?

You demean it by calling it a "show vote." So tell me, what the hell are all those bills Nancy's passing to not even be brought up for a vote by Mitch and not make a single headline?

Click to shrink...

Thank you!

 

[Soul Skater]

to be quite honest if i were a bernie supporter i probably wouldn't try to throw shade at another candidate's supporters being all "my candidate is losing by less than expected and that's great!"

Click to shrink...

I'm not throwing shade as much as I am saying it's probable both factions of Warren and Bernie supporters are spinning results assuming Biden isn't even there and are competing against each other even though they really aren't

 

[TheHunter]

I mean, those are show votes too, obviously. The whole point of them is to sort of maneuver for political advantage by being able to point to something and say "look we're trying to do something" or "this is what we stand for" or "here's proof we want to do the things we say we want to do".

But you're doing it again. You're asserting that impeaching is "doing what's right" and then not bothering to actually explain what makes it obligatory. Yes, Trump has done high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, it would be fantastic if he were removed from office ASAP. Why does it follow that impeachment is obligatory?

Click to shrink...

Because he broke the law and no one should be above the law.

Unless apparently it makes someone somewhere uncomfortable.

 

[Tfritz]

like am i reading that post right, did you really say "yes trump does crimes and should be removed from office but you're not explaining why he should be impeached"

 

[Royalan]

But you're doing it again. You're asserting that impeaching is "doing what's right" and then not bothering to actually explain what makes it obligatory. Yes, Trump has done high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, it would be fantastic if he were removed from office ASAP. Why does it follow that impeachment is obligatory?

Click to shrink...

You lost me there, bruh.

 

[Autodidact]

If Pelosi ruled it off the table it would be a horrible miscalculation imo, but it would be less politically disastrous than the current trajectory.

Click to shrink...

I also wonder about statements such as this one. Trump's approval continues to be lousy. He continues to lose to Biden, Warren, and Sanders in head-to-head polling. Democrats still lead by a healthy margin on the GCB. House Republicans keep retiring. Mitch is still cagey about a number of Senate races. Our party and all its branches (DCCC, DSCC) are still swimming in money. We have great recruits for a number of races. Privately Trump's own people acknowledge an uphill battle next year. The economy looks increasingly wobbly. He's far underwater in MI, WI, and PA. Impeachment still polls fairly poorly (yes, yes, I know, because WE NEED TO LEAD).

Where is the actual evidence our current trajectory is politically disastrous? Taken objectively, everything looks fairly good for us at this moment in time.

 

[Gotchaye]

You lost me there, bruh.

Click to shrink...

I'm trying to make it as easy as possible. How can I clear this up? Tfritz has accurately read my post but does not believe that anyone would be stupid enough to say what I said. I am that stupid.

Like, really spell it out for me. Why is it obligatory to impeach a president who has committed high crimes and who needs to be removed from office? I guess the thing I wasn't explicit about is that everyone seems to agree that impeaching him isn't actually going to cause him to be removed from office. Does that help?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Show votes are obligatory.

 

[Royalan]

I also wonder about statements such as this one. Trump's approval continues to be lousy. He continues to lose to Biden, Warren, and Sanders in head-to-head polling. Democrats still lead by a healthy margin on the GCB. House Republicans keep retiring. Mitch is still cagey about a number of Senate races. Our party and all its branches (DCCC, DSCC) are still swimming in money. We have great recruits for a number of races. Privately Trump's own people acknowledge an uphill battle next year. The economy looks increasingly wobbly. He's far underwater in MI, WI, and PA. Impeachment still polls fairly poorly (yes, yes, I know, because WE NEED TO LEAD).

Where is the actual evidence our current trajectory is politically disastrous? Taken objectively, everything looks fairly good for us at this moment in time.

Click to shrink...

Because Democrats doing their jobs in congress shouldn't be determined by whether or not it's politically advantageous to do so.

Because this is the mindset that guided too many people in power in the lead-up to the 2016 elections.

Because nobody knows exactly what Trump and Republicans are going to do to fuck with 2020, so best to play offense instead of constantly playing defense.

 

[TheHunter]

If every decision we made in our lives we're based on "political calculus" you wouldn't be allowed to marry if you were gay. We wouldn't have the ACA.

Why are those instances ok but not this one?

 

[Royalan]

I'm trying to make it as easy as possible. How can I clear this up? Tfritz has accurately read my post but does not believe that anyone would be stupid enough to say what I said. I am that stupid.

Like, really spell it out for me. Why is it obligatory to impeach a president who has committed high crimes and who needs to be removed from office? I guess the thing I wasn't explicit about is that everyone seems to agree that impeaching him isn't actually going to cause him to be removed from office. Does that help?

Click to shrink...

You're basically asking "Why checks and balances?"

 

[shinra-bansho]

If every decision we made in our lives we're based on "political calculus" you wouldn't be allowed to marry if you were gay. We wouldn't have the ACA.

Why are those instances ok but not this one?

Click to shrink...

Gay marriage was decided in the courts... And there was definitely political calculus involved. Lol.

 

[ZeroRed]

Does that asterisk win us or lose us the presidency and the whole of congress next year? That's the only pertinent question.

There's grounds for debate as to whether impeaching Trump is good politics, both for the presidential GE and for maintaining control of the House under an R gerrymander. The question is, do you trust the caucus? With the additional question being, is the caucus taking cues from Pelosi on this or is Pelosi taking her cues from the caucus?

This is a show impeachment, make no bones about it. You're not getting removal unless Trump slips below 50% approval with GOP voters (or at least below 50% strong approval). To that end its only utility is the potential boon it makes for the next election. If this sounds unfair, that's because it is.

I'm right there with you all in hating that fact. I'm not trying to say that the pro-impeachment side is unrealistic. We're just rightfully mad and wish that we lived in a more just universe where bad actions could be directly punished. That anger is hard to reconcile (and I don't doubt that my own escalating anger issues have been due to grappling with this savage truth in part).

Click to shrink...

This is why you do it.

Maybe the process takes 3-6 months. Maybe in that time it's getting enough TV and constituent attention where there's a buzz and a layer of pressure that turns a few shaky R's in the Senate. No one thinks Trump would actually get impeached in the current Senate (I certainly don't) but you fucking do it because it should happen. If our government operates on Nihilistic hypothesis then (and I don't mean this ironically), but what is the point?

 

[Kirblar]

If every decision we made in our lives we're based on "political calculus" you wouldn't be allowed to marry if you were gay. We wouldn't have the ACA.

Why are those instances ok but not this one?

Click to shrink...

Those things involved going to people with the power to change them who were willing to change them.

We already know what the people with power will do here.