Yeah, that’s a non-starter.
Congress’s job to hold the executive branch accountable. I think we have strong evidence of what happens when you don’t. People think they are invincible and become more blatant and confident with their crimes. Why on earth would we want congress to not use one of their most important tools in being a coequal branch. If you don’t have the votes, you don’t have the votes but that is no excuse not to try to present the best case you can to the American public and the congressional body. Impeachments don’t have to be a spectacle. They don’t have to be drawn out. You can do others things too. But you have to do your job. Otherwise you are saying corruption is okay.
All good ideas.
Naw. It did not take long for the world to forget Thatcher or Boris. Nor Nixon.
trump can not operate much without a budget, and enough GOPs will crossover if trump vetoes every budget.
And trump will not be able to fill any SCOTUS vacancies- that is huge. Alito and Johnson may not last another two years.
And the War Powers act requires a war continuance by Congress.
No. They want a better economy.
Right.
Right.
Yep.
Good points.
Maybe Hegseth. But unless we have the votes in the Senate, do not bother.
It is not, and in reality it can not.
We don’t have the 67 votes to impeach anyone.
Thomas Massie filed eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth in September.
Those articles may get voted on during the lame-duck session this month. Could be interesting.
More likely, Hegseth will be gone before the vote.
We don’t need 67 votes to impeach, we need 67 votes to convict and remove.
If I ran the party and had the ability to force my will on its members I would have the following priorities
- Party Unity - Decision making about the party agenda happens behind the scenes in vape filled rooms, with horse trading between the various factions to decide the agenda, keeping political realities in mind. Once a agenda that most legislators can get behind is established, the party members fall in line.
- The agenda only includes things with are supported by at least half of the voting public or which will manage to get past a presidential veto, either by having Trump sign it, or by bringing in enough Republicans to override his VETO. This will undoubtedly perturb a lot of the progressive wing, but there is not a lot of use in virtue signalling if it doesn’t go actually do anything other than provide evidence that Democrats are out of touch with the American people and only Trump’s veto saved us. We will have to wait until 2028 for any chance of real progress.
- Do what you can with the economy but recognize that legislative action are of limited utility. Its easy to develop policy that will kill the economy (as evidenced by the last two years) but not so easy to develop policy that saves it. The best we can probably do is stop banging our head against the wall by reining in Trumps more harmful policies, and then hope that it heals on its own.
- The one area that voters said they cared more about than affordability is corruption. Taking care of the should be our main message. Outside of the 1% there is no other side to this agendea This means putting forth binding rules to stop it in all branches of government. It may get vetoed or shot down by the Supreme court but at least we tried. It will also most surely piss off the donor class, but Musk’s millions have shown that voter motivation beats dollars.
- As part of the anti corruption crusade making the investigation and exposing of Trump’s corruption the top story, and further degrading his approval. If it gets low enough it may be that even the Republicans figure that its better to cut him off than run with his albatross around their necks. Currently polls show that a bit over 50% of the public supports his impeachment. If we can get this up to close to 60% it could become a net positive for Democrats, and who knows they might even be able to find a dozen or so Republicans to join them.
Excerpt:
” There are plenty of ways Trump could act out: issuing fresh threats against Canada, launching new attacks on U.S. alliances, or colluding with Russia or China at the expense of Ukraine or Taiwan. But to turn those threats into policy would require serious effort, such as repositioning U.S. troops or painstakingly negotiating with other great powers.”
”The two places where Trump can inflict the most damage are Iran and Cuba. According to The New York Times, the Trump administration and Israel have drawn up plans for fresh strikes on Iran as soon as the midterms are over. A last-ditch effort to compel Tehran to surrender is unlikely to work and would put at risk the global economy and the security and stability of Persian Gulf allies. Trump might also try to force regime change in Cuba. Military action against both adversaries would only require Trump to give his say-so. With no election on the horizon, all that constrains the president abroad is the sense of his own legacy.”
In general I think the Dems need to angle toward laying off of the investigation and punishment of Trump and his minions. For now. Democrats have a lot of political capital after this election and I’d hate to seem them squander it all by moving aggressively to punish Trump.
Better to kind of ignore him until he’s gone and signal to the GOP and the rest of the world that the USA, needs to regroup a bit, but that can’t get going until Trump’s gone so be patient.
In the mean time, Congress can work on finally making some economic changes for all Americans. Get those GOP centrists and the independents on our side.
A few GOP folks now clearly see the handwriting on the wall and it says “DUMP TRUMP NOW before it’s too late.” I think some of them will start moving away soon, it’s the smart bet. When they do so the Dems need to really push for rapprochement with those GOPers who will move. That’ll mean something to GOP voters, too.
If the Democrats actually want to help themselves, they should propose and vote on a constitutional amendment to limit the pardon power – say with a rule that you cannot pardon yourself, your family, and anyone who ever worked for yourself or your family. Let the GOP vote no if they wish.
Would this be a repudiation of Biden? Yes, and that would help the Democrats politically. Yesterday they mostly won because the GOP brand is tarnished. My modest proposal would help build the Democratic brand among centrists without losing progressive support.
Why do this stuff? Because the only way to stop Trump dictatorship is to elect a Democratic president in 2028, preferably with a Democratic congress. Do what will help.
It would be vetoed.
It would also be a reputation of Abraham Lincoln, and Bill Clinton.
But I do not blame Biden, trump and co was after his family with all sorts of trumped up 
charges. I mean what happened to Hunter was totally bogus and purely political.
True.
The top two items sound like an agenda of a follower and not a leader. It is okay for party members to disagree sometimes. It reminds people that their elected officials are actual people and not a robotic voice for the Democratic party. And sometimes your job is not just to do whatever is popular. Sometimes your job is to convince the public that your unpopular idea is the right one. You have to pick your spots but we would never have gay marriage if people had this attitude. Absolutely agree with the corruption parts though.
I think that signals to the country and world that you can be as corrupt as you want and we won’t even try to hold you accountable.
Yes. Trump already posted a VETO hat on Truth Social. If Democrats are unwilling to pass any bills that would be vetoed, it will terribly split the party.
I do not consider vetoes politically harmful. It’s not like being acquitted of a crime in a senate trial.
Certainly not Lincoln. Even low info voters know that social standards change.
Bill Clinton would get over it. What’s he going to do? Change parties?
When you are in the President’s family, expect heightened legal scrutiny. You would have a hard time convincing the median voter that Hunter did not get a sweetheart deal from his Dad.
P.S. Thanks for going along with me (“True”) on my last point of the earlier post.
If they can get the 2/3 vote necessary to push forward a Constitutional amendment, it will be by definition veto-proof.
I’m not sure it gets ratified in 37 states, but worth trying.
This I totally agree with.
But impeachment? I’d rather Dems concentrate on your list and maybe investigate insider trading with Trump tariffs and others making buck from them. Or crypto. Go after the money.
Proposed constitutional amendments cannot be vetoed. But they do need to be approved by 2/3 of each house of congress and 38 states.
I woke up this morning with a ghastly thought. Suppose Trump, in a fit of pique, decides to nuke Iran. Then Putin does the same in The Ukraine. Then what?
There is no way to repairing the damage done to the US reputation in Canada. Someone wrote in our local newspaper that any time a couple million voters decide to do so they will put a nutcase in the white house who will ignore any previous agreement. One thing that foreign governments are likely to insist that any agreement be ratified as a formal treaty otherwise it is meaningless without formal power.
Another thing I fear is that Trump has put the economy on a path to collapse and the Ds will be blamed for not having forestalled it.
BTW, I expect to hear that Alito has retired any day now.
Presidents have no role in constitutional amendments, and the difficulty in getting 3/4 (38 states) to ratify is a hill that will never be climbed again.
Even if Alito and Thomas retired tomorrow, anyone who would replace them could not possibly be worse, so I’m not worried about that. They can stay in their jobs until Jan 3 and then they can quit and Democrats can vote down whoever gets nominated.
What they can do is pass a bill to raise the minimum wage, restore Medicaid and USAID, and cut all funding for vanity projects. Also create a bipartisan committee to recommend a rescue of Social Security when the last T-bills in the trust fund are redeemed early in the next decade. Make Republicans vote on these things.
The most important anti-imperial-presidency measure would be to require committee approval for nuclear (or biological) war. But I fear it is a hopeless proposal.
If the Trump years have taught us anything, it’s that the presidency has become too powerful. This didn’t start with Trump, but he has brought it to its natural culmination with his disdain for the norms that had restrained previous chief executives.
I think the Democrats should start working to put constitutional limits on the president. Two examples of low-hanging fruit include the following:
- Eliminate the pardon power. Why? Because what some framers of the Constitution feared has come to pass: that an unscrupulous president might order his underlings to commit federal crimes and then be pardoned by that same chief executive, thereby shielding their crimes. Impeachment is evidently no deterrent against this. I think there could be bipartisan support for this, considering that presidents of both parties have issued controversial pardons.
- Make it clear with a Constitutional amendment that the president is not above the law. Maybe call it the “No Kings” amendment. The purpose of the amendment would be to counteract the horrendous Trump v. United States Supreme Court decision.
And while I’m at it:
- Propose a Constitutional amendment allowing limits to be placed on campaign contributions and corporate expenditures in politics, thereby counteracting the Citizens United decision.