US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening

[JesseEwiak]

See, here's the thing. I agree that it's easier for the GOP to sell their shit...because their voters are fucking morons. lol. Like, they're just not bright. They are spoon fed shit and they eat it up.

Click to shrink...

I actually think this isn't true.

The problem isn't that Republican voters are idiots being tricked by tricksters like Mitch McConnell and Roger Ailes.

The truth is, billionaires, rural voters in Kentucky, and small business owners in Wisconsin all agree on one thing - liberals are evil and must be destroyed. As a result, as long as the goal of destroying liberals is paramount, it doesn't matter what lies as a conservative you have to believe, as long as it's in service of destroying the liberals. Your average Trump voter knows he's lying and a bullshitter, but he doesn't care, because he's own the libs, and owning the libs has been the core function of conservatism for the past fifty years.

Thus, the Obama -> Trump voters in 2016, who got tricked by his talk about Social Security and trade, when Trump focused on tax cuts, repealing the ACA, and being mean to brown people were like, "WTF", then voted for Democrat's in 2018, while the ones that were like, "yes, let's own the libs" continued to vote for the GOP in 2018.

 

[Kraid]

It's also REAL hard to sell "We're impeaching him so he can't cheat." That's just a terrible message and a real stinker of a plan.

Click to shrink...

I mean "he self-impeaches every day" is an even more terrible message and a much stinkier plan. I don't think that the 2020 election will be free and fair as is, so leaving it to the will of the people is a non-starter.

And... it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to get people on board with it if they drag his corruption into the light through the impeachment process.

 

[MetalGearZed]

I actually think this isn't true.

The problem isn't that Republican voters are idiots being tricked by tricksters like Mitch McConnell and Roger Ailes.

The truth is, billionaires, rural voters in Kentucky, and small business owners in Wisconsin all agree on one thing - liberals are evil and must be destroyed. As a result, as long as the goal of destroying liberals is paramount, it doesn't matter what lies as a conservative you have to believe, as long as it's in service of destroying the liberals. Your average Trump voter knows he's lying and a bullshitter, but he doesn't care, because he's own the libs, and owning the libs has been the core function of conservatism for the past fifty years.

Thus, the Obama -> Trump voters in 2016, who got tricked by his talk about Social Security and trade, when Trump focused on tax cuts, repealing the ACA, and being mean to brown people were like, "WTF", then voted for Democrat's in 2018, while the ones that were like, "yes, let's own the libs" continued to vote for the GOP in 2018.

Click to shrink...

I would posit that Ailes/Fox News and etc., are what planted the "Libs are an evil that must be destroyed" seed in the first place, and those outlets reinforce it on the daily basis. And in my experience, the "average" Trump voter does not believe that he is a liar, and rather believes that the librul msm just regularly takes him out of context. "He was joking!" "Stop taking him literally!"

They go through Olympic level gymnastics to deny that he's a racist*, lying, ass-wipe conman, because they've convinced themselves that he is basically a spectre of god.

*(Some like the racism, some deny its existance, most of them manage to do both!)

I do agree though that the majority of Trump's wealthier, more powerful supporters see him for exactly who he is and are just fine with it.

 

[JustinP]

This debate hinges on the fact that impeachment is a two step process with the final step relying on republicans in the senate to do the right thing. You know what house democrats can do without needing senate republicans to do the right thing?

Hold trump admin officials in contempt and throw them in jail. This power has been upheld by the supreme court over and over again. In 2007, "The Congressional Research Service issued a report in July that confirmed Congress's inherent contempt powers. It explained how they work: "The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the sergeant at arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail.""

In 1821, the supreme court reasoned that without this power, congress would "be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." -- what foresight!

There's been some talk -- Nadler said back in April: "Someone is in contempt of Congress, you send the Sergeant at Arms and you arrest them. Alternatively you fine him $20,000 a day, whatever. We could do this." Since then, multiple witnesses have either refused to show up or refused to answer questions. There's rumors they're considering contempt for Lewandowski. No mention of fines or jail, though -- could just be the toothless kind of contempt they've used before against Barr (which relies on Trump's DoJ to prosecute, unlike congress' inherent contempt powers). But why let Trump dictate who has to comply with a house subpoena?

Why haven't house democrats revived their inherent contempt powers? It's certainly not because of senate republicans.

Click to shrink...

Not only are Democrats failing to uphold impeachment norms, but they're basically setting the norm that a Republican President can decide who has to comply with congressional subpoenas. And the arguments over this stuff being show votes that don't actually have consequences because of senate republican dereliction don't apply here, so what gives? What's the common thread here?

 

[Deleted member 283]

I mean "he self-impeaches every day" is an even more terrible message and a much stinkier plan. I don't think that the 2020 election will be free and fair as is, so leaving it to the will of the people is a non-starter.

And... it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to get people on board with it if they drag his corruption into the light through the impeachment process.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's the thing.... It's hard to even make a "terrible messaging" point when what Pelosi is doing right now definitely qualifies. Not just 'self-impeaching" bit also her saying impeachment isn't happening while Nadoer says it is. Don't know what to call that if not terrible messaging. Don't know who that's supposed to appeal to be sure it just seems like a surefire way of annoying/confusing everyone honestly.

 

[TheHunter]

Yeah, that's the thing.... It's hard to even make a "terrible messaging" point when what Pelosi is doing right now definitely qualifies. Not just 'self-impeaching" bit also her saying impeachment isn't happening while Nadoer says it is. Don't know what to call that if not terrible messaging. Don't know who that's supposed to appeal to be sure it just seems like a surefire way of annoying/confusing everyone honestly.

Click to shrink...

It's called poor leadership.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Eagerly awaiting the campaign trail moments where Trump brags that Congress impeached Clinton and that means he is way bigly more innocent than Clinton. Listen, you can hear what he'll say, in his very own voice, in your head. It is coming.

Having an impossible time believing that even one anti-impeachment advocate is anything but a troll or just completely lacking in the ability to think critically.

 

[rickyson33]

Eagerly awaiting the campaign trail moments where Trump brags that Congress impeached Clinton and that means he is way bigly more innocent than Clinton. Listen, you can hear what he'll say, in his very own voice, in your head. It is coming.

Having an impossible time believing that even one anti-impeachment advocate is anything but a troll or just completely lacking in the ability to think critically.

Click to shrink...

and if he is impeached he'd just brag after the senate refused to convict him that he was voted innocent and despite the impeachment witchhunt he ended up with a total exoneration

that sounds like a hell of a lot more focused of a narrative than comparing himself to a president from 20 years ago to me but maybe i'm just too "lacking in the ability to think critically"

 

[Dahbomb]

So is the President of the US (the position not Trump specifically) just a King at this point? If the current laws stand then any future president can simply abuse power at their will (assuming opposing party controls more than 60% of both House and Senate) with no repercussions.

Thing is that I don't even think if the conditions are favorable for an impeachment that an actual impeachment would lead to a full conviction. Mostly because of egos. America doesn't want to seem like a country that voted for a conman/sociopath/tyrant. That's why Nixon reigned and was pardoned afterwards. It's not just an embarrassment for the party but an embarrassment for the whole country.

That said as an American... I am already damn embarrassed of this country and its "democracy" as it is.

 

[TiC]

and if he is impeached he'd just brag after the senate refused to convict him that he was voted innocent and despite the impeachment witchhunt he ended up with a total exoneration

that sounds like a hell of a lot more focused of a narrative than comparing himself to a president from 20 years ago to me but maybe i'm just too "lacking in the ability to think critically"

Click to shrink...

He can say and already has said that the Mueller Report not leading to any charges or impeachment proves it was all a witchhunt and completely clears him of any wrongdoing.
We can go all day with what bullshit he will spout, it is not an argument but an inevitable fact no matter what happens.
The Dems not impeaching him sends a message to uninformed/moderate voters that we just like accusing him of crimes but we can't prove it. Which differs from the Senate voting not to impeach in what way exactly?

 

[rickyson33]

So is the President of the US (the position not Trump specifically) just a King at this point? If the current laws stand then any future president can simply abuse power at their will (assuming opposing party controls more than 60% of both House and Senate) with no repercussions.

Thing is that I don't even think if the conditions are favorable for an impeachment that an actual impeachment would lead to a full conviction. Mostly because of egos. America doesn't want to seem like a country that voted for a conman/sociopath/tyrant. That's why Nixon reigned and was pardoned afterwards. It's not just an embarrassment for the party but an embarrassment for the whole country.

That said as an American... I am already damn embarrassed of this country and its "democracy" as it is.

Click to shrink...

someone much smarter than Trump is gonna test out his playbook on this stuff sooner or later that's for sure

that worries me much more than anything Trump can do

 

[Scottt]

It's easy to imagine him on a stage saying, "If I was so guilty, why didn't they impeach me?"

The common ground in this argument is that the constitution, which was framed as an ethical document, has been broken. One argument is that, despite its having been broken, the crisis will be overcome through an election--but that only adheres to an unbroken constitution. Another argument is that since it has been broken, it must be adhered to through impeachment, because that is an ethical act. The first is very hopeful to rely on some rules being followed after many others were broken. The second is the sentiment of Ocasio-Cortez's statement. Twenty years from now, abandoning the ethical requirement to enforce the constitution will be a bigger scandal.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Trump will say whatever he says regardless of what happens in the House.
Eyeroll.

 

[JesseEwiak]

So is the President of the US (the position not Trump specifically) just a King at this point? If the current laws stand then any future president can simply abuse power at their will (assuming opposing party controls more than 60% of both House and Senate) with no repercussions.

Thing is that I don't even think if the conditions are favorable for an impeachment that an actual impeachment would lead to a full conviction. Mostly because of egos. America doesn't want to seem like a country that voted for a conman/sociopath/tyrant. That's why Nixon reigned and was pardoned afterwards. It's not just an embarrassment for the party but an embarrassment for the whole country.

That said as an American... I am already damn embarrassed of this country and its "democracy" as it is.

Click to shrink...

The POTUS, if he has support of Congress and the Courts, has always been a King - other President's just didn't have the want or need to prove it. Trump isn't anything special - he's just exposing the enormous holes in our constitutional republic that quickly form when people are willing to take off the guardrails.

 

[Pooh]

A "strong statement" is worth less than the paper it's printed on. But to circle back to something: the idea that we can somehow score political points by pointing to the Senate and saying "See, the GOP protected Trump!" ignores the fact that the GOP gets to crow "See? We voted him INNOCENT. Like in a trial, it's over and done.." You cannot tout the importance of the former without acknowledging the political downside of the latter. The impeachment asterisk by his name is irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

... As opposed to Trump AND the GOP saying, "See? They didn't even impeach me because I am INNOCENT and there is nothing there except for Fake News and Witchhunts and the Phony Mueller Report!"

That is far, far, FAR worse.

The impeachment asterisk by his name isn't irrelevant at all. It's a signal to those voting Democratic that the party is doing everything in their power to protect our democracy. That's what gets people in the fight, gets them to donate to the party, gets them out there canvassing and registering voters and driving people to the polls and getting their friends and family involved and being PROUD of it.

Nobody is going to buy the GOP saying "we voted him innocent" like it means anything, either. But you can bet that there are plenty of Republicans in both the House AND the Senate that Do Not want to be on the record as supporting Trump and carrying that legacy permanently.

And lastly, you can bet your ass that Trump himself doesn't find that "asterisk" by his name to be irrelevant.

And because it belongs in this thread

 

[shinra-bansho]

The public is already interested in voting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/

There's absolutely no basis to the idea that there are all these people waiting to be enthused about voting by an impeachment vote.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016d-2c33-d547-a36f-6ffb488e0001

Voter top priorities are healthcare and immigration.
Voters think Congress is prioritizing investigating Trump over... healthcare and immigration.

 

[Malleymal]

what will negatively happen when impeachment proceedings start? Trump and every suck up republican already acts like his is being impeached. They echo every dame statement he makes as if he is the victim. Every single day.

Who are these people that will magically vote for trump because they see this horrible "I" word? This Dems in red states will never be safe at all if some think that "holding the president of the United States accountable" is a deal breaker. Who voted for democrats on 2018 to play defense and keep punting for good field position? Not me.

Part of Trumps gameplan to steal another election is out in the open. Just imagine the shit that is coming down the pipeline. He has court cases waiting for him if he leaves the office. There is no way That he does Not steal this election again. All while democratic leadership sits by scared to control the narrative.

I used to think that pelosi was strategically holding off, and it would all come down on trump, but with recent democrats speaking out, that was all a joke.

What in the house actually doing? Serious question. I know that they are passing bills, but those are sitting on Moscow Mitch's desk. What has actually been accomplished?

 

[Ac30]

Dream to wake up to Warren's polls numbers in IA.

But the media has successfully muddied the waters so much with that Biden story that more people will now be wondering about what Biden did than bother looking into the gross abuse of executive power.

Rudy played them very well. Fucking complicit idiots.

 

[TheHunter]

Correction, the NYT usuals muddied the waters.

Everyone else has been pointing out how impeachable this all is. And asking more questions of trump.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm just going to cross-post this, because the argument that passing articles of impeachment will force GOP Senators to vote to acquit him is also flawed.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try," which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command...
Senate leadership can seek to have the rules "reinterpreted" at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment "trial" fully consistent with current rules—or even any trial at all. A chair's ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.

Click to shrink...

Mitch McConnell has shown he generally does not give a shit, given his history with Obama's empty SCOTUS seat, I don't know why anyone would be optimistic he wouldn't abuse the rules of the Senate and the wording that does not compel him to do anything.

On the argument that voting to impeach, with the knowledge that there will be no trial or the trial will definitely result in acquittal, is important for upholding norms:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/should-house-impeach-if-senate-wont-convict

The Democratic members of Congress might well feel compelled by their base to move forward with an impeachment even if the prospects of a conviction in the Senate seem slim, but they should at least understand what, if anything, they might be accomplishing by doing so.

If the entire purpose of impeachment is to remove Trump from office, and he remains in office after the attempt, then the impeachment has obviously failed.

If the goal is to stop a string of abusive behavior that can no longer be tolerated or checked by other means, then an impeachment that ends with the abusive official still in office has failed.

If the goal is to address a basic incompatibility between the behavior of an officeholder and the expectations of the office, and that incompatibility remains at the end of the process, then the impeachment has failed.

If the goal of an impeachment is to stop an officeholder from continuing to exploit his or her governmental office for personal gain, and the officer continues to be able to aggrandize him- or herself at the public expense, then the impeachment has failed.

Click to shrink...

On the other hand, if the point of an impeachment effort is less to remove a particular individual from office than to establish or reinforce the proper expectations of officeholding, then the ultimate fate of the impeached officer is of less importance than the message sent by the impeachment. Impeachments can be, and have been, a vehicle for constructing, consolidating and reinforcing an important set of constitutional norms. They are a means for asserting that some behavior is beyond the pale. An impeachment can send the strongest possible message that some behavior is to be condemned and should not be imitated by others—that even though a high government official has engaged in some behavior, this behavior should be understood as disgraceful rather than exemplary.

Click to shrink...

That said, there are risks involved in using the impeachment power as a tool for supporting constitutional norms. An impeachment might divide the country rather than unify it around those norms and, as a consequence, might leave norms in a weaker state than they otherwise would be. The overall message of an impeachment might be misread if the Senate refuses to convict, leaving friends of the impeached officer to argue that the target of the impeachment was in fact vindicated by the Senate's action. An impeachment is a high-stakes confrontation, and advocates of impeachment should consider the consequences of losing as well as the potential benefits of winning. If the goal of an impeachment is to bolster constitutional norms, then the fight over the legacy of the impeachment will be as important as the battle over the impeachment itself.

Click to shrink...

If an impeachment is come to be seen as mere partisan showboating, then it will be worse than useless. Officers must fear impeachments as politically costly and reputationally damaging, even if they are survivable.

An impeachment that only seems to redound to the political benefit of the impeached official is more likely to subvert norms than reinforce them, and more likely to embolden norm breakers than chastise them.

Click to shrink...

I mean ultimately the check and balance is broken anyway, as already noted. As long as the President holds the sway of one chamber of Congress.

But as to whether it is necessary and sufficient to re-establish norms about expected behaviour, there is zero indication that it would do the latter with Trump and anyone who follows in his mold, provided they know they have the support of a chamber of Congress, and there is not much indication that the former is needed, as pretty much everyone recognises that Trump is an aberration even as GOP corruption goes.

 

[Tzarscream]

Hi guys, regular Brexit thread poster here, I have a question.

Can somebody simply explain to me why Dems have not tried to impeach Trump? Is it the thought that it could politically damaging to them? What do they hope to gain by not trying to impeach?

 

[TheHunter]

Hi guys, regular Brexit thread poster here, I have a question.

Can somebody simply explain to me why Dems have not tried to impeach Trump? Is it the thought that it could politically damaging to them? What do they hope to gain by not trying to impeach?

Click to shrink...

The idea is it will hurt Trump district Dems.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hi guys, regular Brexit thread poster here, I have a question.

Can somebody simply explain to me why Dems have not tried to impeach Trump? Is it the thought that it could politically damaging to them? What do they hope to gain by not trying to impeach?

Click to shrink...

1. Impeachment will not remove him from office (we need the Republican controlled Senate to convict him after the House impeaches)
2. There is a risk impeachment galvanizes Trump's base and results in him being reelected
3. There is a risk impeachment puts Democrats in "Swing" districts in a tough vote

You can certainly debate the merits of these points but this is the basic argument. It doesn't actually do anything besides send a message and, you know, force us to comply with our constitutional duties.

I'm not sure what I think.

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

Not only are Democrats failing to uphold impeachment norms, but they're basically setting the norm that a Republican President can decide who has to comply with congressional subpoenas. And the arguments over this stuff being show votes that don't actually have consequences because of senate republican dereliction don't apply here, so what gives? What's the common thread here?

Click to shrink...

Bush did this, too. The reason they get away with this is due to the fact the politicians can put this in court, and wait it out so it becomes pointless. The GOP are really good at doing this.

 

[Commedieu]

1. Impeachment will not remove him from office (we need the Republican controlled Senate to convict him after the House impeaches)
2. There is a risk impeachment galvanizes Trump's base and results in him being reelected
3. There is a risk impeachment puts Democrats in "Swing" districts in a tough vote

You can certainly debate the merits of these points but this is the basic argument. It doesn't actually do anything besides send a message and, you know, force us to comply with our constitutional duties.

I'm not sure what I think.

Click to shrink...

How can you write #2 / #3seriously when he's inviting Russia to hack our election and the senate won't secure our elections?

Democrats with this dumbass logic deserve to have Trump rule for the next 4 years.

It's all the most mark ass arguments.

Also the entire backdrop of the Pearl clutching, is him taking over all forms of government. And the only plan is to do nothing and hope to win a even more rigged scenario than the admin opened with?

Amazing.

 

[Deleted member 8257]

Senate GOP are not going to impeach Trump even if he used the n word, pee tape is released, or was even caught molesting underage girls in Epstein's island. They will simply stand by Trump's defense and back him up. There does not exist a scenario where they break with him. The point is to start impeachment regardless and conduct oversight. Call witnesses and obtain documents.

 

[shinra-bansho]

How can you write #2 / #3seriously when he's inviting Russia to hack our election and the senate won't secure our elections?

Democrats with this dumbass logic deserve to have Trump rule for the next 4 years.

It's all the most mark ass arguments.

Also the entire backdrop of the Pearl clutching, is him taking over all forms of government. And the only plan is to do nothing and hope to win a even more rigged scenario than the admin opened with?

Amazing.

Click to shrink...

What exactly do you think holding a floor vote on articles of impeachment would do with regard to any of that?

(Notwithstanding, the generic House ballot currently well-favours the Democrats, the Senate has a slim chance of flipping, and while I don't think the WH is a shoe-in for any of the candidates, it's still favourable.)

 

[Tamanon]

Voting on impeachment will have no impact without an investigation. We are doing the investigation now.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Most active PoliERA weekend ever?

I want to point out that this hubbub flared up becuase a reporter asked an aide if this changed Pelosi's mind. Given that there are investigations ongoing, the only thing that really means is whether this has convinced her to call a vote. At this point, a vote is still premature.

 

[Y2Kev]

How can you write #2 / #3seriously when he's inviting Russia to hack our election and the senate won't secure our elections?

Democrats with this dumbass logic deserve to have Trump rule for the next 4 years.

It's all the most mark ass arguments.

Also the entire backdrop of the Pearl clutching, is him taking over all forms of government. And the only plan is to do nothing and hope to win a even more rigged scenario than the admin opened with?

Amazing.

Click to shrink...

OK so what does impeachment do to that? Voting fixes the senate.

I don't believe our elections are rigged. Well, not on a large scale. That explains 2018.

 

[Kusagari]

2. There is a risk impeachment galvanizes Trump's base and results in him being reelected

Click to shrink...

Shinra just posted an article above to show why impeachment won't benefit Dems because everyone else is already enthused to vote, but for some reason impeachment is at risk to galvanize Trump's base even more.

Dems never seem to think or bother with what will galvanize their own base, even though there are far more Dems in this country than Republicans and people who don't vote overwhelmingly lean Dem, but only fret about what will galvanize the right.

 

[Y2Kev]

You just posted an article above to show why impeachment won't benefit Dems because everyone else is already enthused to vote, but for some reason impeachment is at risk to galvanize Trump's base even more.

Dems never seem to think or bother with what will galvanize their own base, even though there are far more Dems in this country than Republicans and people who don't vote overwhelmingly lean Dem, but only fret about what will galvanize the right.

Click to shrink...

I haven't posted an article here I think ever.

I think I stipulated "you can argue the merits" in that I was not arguing the merits.

I don't think it's quite so open and shut or else the entire party would be for it.

 

[Royalan]

Shinra just posted an article above to show why impeachment won't benefit Dems because everyone else is already enthused to vote, but for some reason impeachment is at risk to galvanize Trump's base even more.

Dems never seem to think or bother with what will galvanize their own base, even though there are far more Dems in this country than Republicans and people who don't vote overwhelmingly lean Dem, but only fret about what will galvanize the right.

Click to shrink...

It also leaves Dem enthusiasm in the hands of Trump. Which, fine, he's not likely to stop being an explosive moron anytime soon.

But, it's again Dems playing defense. It is, again, Dems expecting the wind to naturally blow their way. It is, again, an utter lack of leadership. Add it is, again, a ripe environment for Dems to be caught flat footed.

You know, just like 2016. The last time Dems were projected via polling to win the Presidency.

 

[Madison]

You would think that the "lets just focus on winning the presidential election" idea would change after losing the last one

 

[Y2Kev]

You would think that the "lets focus on winning the presidential election" idea would change after losing the last one

Click to shrink...

That can never change. Why would that ever change? It always has to be priority #1.

 

[OmniOne]

This debate hinges on the fact that impeachment is a two step process with the final step relying on republicans in the senate to do the right thing. You know what house democrats can do without needing senate republicans to do the right thing?

Hold trump admin officials in contempt and throw them in jail. This power has been upheld by the supreme court over and over again. In 2007, "The Congressional Research Service issued a report in July that confirmed Congress's inherent contempt powers. It explained how they work: "The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the sergeant at arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail.""

In 1821, the supreme court reasoned that without this power, congress would "be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." -- what foresight!

There's been some talk -- Nadler said back in April: "Someone is in contempt of Congress, you send the Sergeant at Arms and you arrest them. Alternatively you fine him $20,000 a day, whatever. We could do this." Since then, multiple witnesses have either refused to show up or refused to answer questions. There's rumors they're considering contempt for Lewandowski. No mention of fines or jail, though -- could just be the toothless kind of contempt they've used before against Barr (which relies on Trump's DoJ to prosecute, unlike congress' inherent contempt powers). But why let Trump dictate who has to comply with a house subpoena?

Why haven't house democrats revived their inherent contempt powers? It's certainly not because of senate republicans.

Click to shrink...

I think this is one of the biggest issues. Remove Trump from the question.

Congress won't even bother to hold any other person accountable.
If people in his orbit started to get inherent contempt other people in the executive might rethink THEIR actions. It would maximize some pressure.

 

[_Karooo]

Silly to worry about impeachment. Republicans do not win elections, Democrats lose them.

 

[Chaos Legion]

Pelosi is still BAE, but I'm not a fan of her timidness regarding impeachment.

That said wasn't the only person to run against her for Speaker one of the guys running for president that I couldn't select from a lineup?

 

[The Namekian]

You would think that the "lets just focus on winning the presidential election" idea would change after losing the last one

Click to shrink...

That was the same argument when the Republicans pulled that bullshit with Garland. "We can't fight for this seat, that would break norms...... let's wait until the 2016 election"

Dem leadership's problem is they all got scared for life after Reagan and always believe some silent majority is out there waiting to vote against them in mass if they stand up for what they claim to believe in.

 

[Royalan]

Dem leadership's problem is they all got scared for life after Reagan and always believe some silent majority is out there waiting to vote against them in mass if they stand up for what they claim to believe in.

Click to shrink...

Bingo.

Meanwhile, Black and Brown folk are just chopped liver.

 

[Tamanon]

Pelosi is still BAE, but I'm not a fan of her timidness regarding impeachment.

That said wasn't the only person to run against her for Speaker one of the guys running for president that I couldn't select from a lineup?

Click to shrink...

Correct. Nobody else really wants the job, as it's definitely a thankless one.

 

[Y2Kev]

That was the same argument when the Republicans pulled that bullshit with Garland. "We can't fight for this seat, that would break norms...... let's wait until the 2016 election"

Dem leadership's problem is they all got scared for life after Reagan and always believe some silent majority is out there waiting to vote against them in mass if they stand up for what they claim to believe in.

Click to shrink...

I don't really understand. What did you want the Democrats (in minorities in both houses) to do about Garland? Have Obama appoint him via executive order?

Democratic VOTERS don't give a shit about the Supreme Court. That's the problem. Not that "dem leadership" didn't do anything.

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

That can never change. Why would that ever change? It always has to be priority #1.

Click to shrink...

Pelosi's strategy has been about getting congress seats.

 

[Albert]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you're saying. However, Pelosi needs to go.

That's not impotent rage. That is my observation of a leader who instigated what almost became a party-wide Twitter beef because she couldn't help but blab about members of her own caucus to Maureen Dowd over tea and chocolates. She was directly responsible for one of the lowest moments for this party.

Pelosi is a treasured California Dem. But she's been on my side-eye list since she had the nerve to come for Queen Maxine (who, damn, just looks more prophetic by the day). Her latest actions, culminated by this week, are the sign of a leader who is no longer effective. Again, win or lose in 2020, I would wholeheartedly support any effort to see her out. Which is sad for me, coming for a person who actually supported and argued for her return to the speakership.

Click to shrink...

What's really sad is that it only ended because of Trump's massive ego. It would have lasted so much longer if he weren't himself. Knowing that the Democratic Party is led by someone who's so wildly incompetent that she had to be saved by Trump's stupidity of all things is soul-crushing.

Much like how Trump can't help but make everything about himself, Pelosi can't help but bash outspoken women of color during interviews. She hasn't done in a while, but she'll be back.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Shinra just posted an article above to show why impeachment won't benefit Dems because everyone else is already enthused to vote, but for some reason impeachment is at risk to galvanize Trump's base even more.

Dems never seem to think or bother with what will galvanize their own base, even though there are far more Dems in this country than Republicans and people who don't vote overwhelmingly lean Dem, but only fret about what will galvanize the right.

Click to shrink...

I actually don't think it does much to either base, really.
Based on Monmouth polling:

If your member of the House of Representatives voted in favor of impeachment, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for him or her in 2020, or would it have no significant impact on your vote?
More / Less / No Impact
GOP: 6% / 49% / 40%
Ind: 21% / 25% / 50%
Dems: 43% / 8% / 47%

Click to shrink...

If your member of the House of Representatives voted against impeachment, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for him or her in 2020, or would it have no significant impact on your vote?
GOP: 35% / 7% / 52%
Ind: 14% / 28% / 52%
Dems: 5% / 44% / 48%

Click to shrink...

For the most part, most people don't care enough to have it affect their vote.
It only really gets interesting in swing districts, where you would force Dems in closer seats to take a position that will displease one or other group.
For swing districts the first question gets:
25 / 28 / 44
The second gets:
10 / 34 / 50

Also, a bunch of Dems are basically living in fantasy land about what would happen if impeachment articles went to the Senate:

As you may know, impeachment is a two-step process...If the House does pass articles of impeachment, how likely is it that the Senate will actually vote to remove President Trump from office – very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all?
10% / 18% / 26% / 45%

Click to shrink...

28% think that it is somewhat to very likely that the Senate would remove Trump.
26% are realistic enough to accept that they aren't likely to.
And only 45% live in reality where there is zero chance to remove him.

Anyway Trump's mere presence is enough to galvanise the base and everyone already knows he's corrupt, they know he's a sexual assaulter, they know he's a compulsive liar. None of this needs an impeachment vote to prove to Democrats, and nothing about an impeachment vote will make the GOP voters care about any of that as long as they can appoint another SCOTUS judge.

The current generic congressional ballot is already strongly in the Democrats favour; loss aversion is a thing at play I guess. If there are even odds of a 1% gain in this versus a 1% loss, I would still see a better path as just continuing with investigations.

Also, I view this through an entirely political lens, because despite protestations it really is just a political issue, even moreso when there are no real punitive consequences.

 

[Plinko]

Let's say Pelosi's plan is to just wait for the election.

Hypothetical: Trump and the GOP spin machine effectively crank up the "socialist" rhetoric, suppress/scare independent voters, and Trump beats Warren.

Then what? Because it looks a hell of a lot worse and more petty trying impeachment after you lost an election than it would have when the crimes were actually being done.

 

[Y2Kev]

Let's say Pelosi's plan is to just wait for the election.

Hypothetical: Trump and the GOP spin machine effectively crank up the "socialist" rhetoric, suppress/scare independent voters, and Trump beats Warren.

Then what? Because it looks a hell of a lot worse and more petty trying impeachment after you lost an election than it would have when the crimes were actually being done.

Click to shrink...

I think the door is closed until / unless they find something new.

 

[Royalan]

Democratic VOTERS don't give a shit about the Supreme Court. That's the problem. Not that "dem leadership" didn't do anything.

Click to shrink...

And yet, Republican voters, who are apparently morons who don't care about anything (as someone a few pages ago put it), can be made to care about SCOTUS, conservative judges, and the long game.

Is it because they paid extra attention in Civics class? Or is it because their party, if they understand nothing else, understands clearly that if you want your voters to care about something, you have to make them care?

Let's call this feckless "waiting for the voters to care on their own before we make a move" strategy what it plainly is: a lack of leadership.

Pelosi's strategy has been about getting congress seats.

Click to shrink...

And can we explore how bad she is at that, apparently? I mean, it's often forgotten, in all the talk of Pelosi's innate brilliance and superior strategical mind, that this IS the first time that Democrats have regained control of the House since 2010.

 

[Y2Kev]

And yet, Republican voters, who are apparently morons who don't care about anything (as someone a few pages ago put it), can be made to care about SCOTUS, conservative judges, and the long game.

Is it because they paid extra attention in Civics class? Or is it because their party, if they understand nothing else, understands clearly that if you want your voters to care about something, you have to make them care?

Let's call this feckless "waiting for the voters to care on their own before we make a move" strategy what it plainly is: a lack of leadership.




And can we explore how bad she is at that, apparently? I mean, it's often forgotten, in all the talk of Pelosi's innate brilliance and superior strategical mind, that this IS the first time that Democrats have regained control of the House since 2010.

Click to shrink...

I think it's absurd to suggest Republican voters don't care about anything and I would not agree with that characterization. The republican party is a much narrower tent than the Democratic one. It's not hard to see what motivates their voters. They're an older, whiter party with differential voting rates that help them tremendously.

You didn't answer the question, by the way. What should Democrats have done about Garland? "Lead" on Garland?

Is it Pelosi's job to Lead on Garland? Or should Schumer have been Leading on Garland? Or maybe Hillary should have been Leading on Garland? Or maybe everyone should have been Leading on Garland. I'm entirely unconvinced that the average democrat cares at all about what leadership thinks. That's why Shinra's data shows that basically no one gives a crap about what their rep does on impeachment.

edit: Pelosi isn't the DCCC. I don't understand this argument either.

 

[TheHunter]

Schumer doesn't really do the whole lead thing.