Which “truth” is that?
I disagree with her on this one. But the fact that the question’s already come up says a great deal, doesn’t it?
My point is, I don’t want to wait until after some difficult-to-reverse foreign policy disaster before replacing Trump with the comparatively sane Pence. I don’t want to wait until after Trump’s signed a peace deal that recognizes Russian control of half of Ukraine (is that so improbable? I don’t think so) or until after Putin picks off Estonia while Trump is accidentally-on-purpose slow to react.
We should not have any uncertainty about these things. The fact that Trump has gone out of his way to create this uncertainty is a high crime AFAIAC. We should not have to wait until one of these kinds of things actually comes to fruition before removing him.
With Nixon, it wasn’t like Nixon’s henchmen were going to be committing more crimes while the impeachment process played out. It wasn’t like Reagan’s team was going to sell more arms to Iran to fund the Contras once we knew it had happened. And if Clinton got any more blow jobs while his impeachment played out, maybe Sally Quinn would have gotten a more advanced case of pearl-clutching. There was no hurry about seeing the process work itself through, no danger that more bad shit would happen.
This is different. Trump won’t be happy if there’s an investigation, but knowing he’s under investigation won’t make him behave more circumspectly. He doesn’t recognize the usual political norms. He will run whatever stop signs he feels like running. If he wants to give Putin a country or two, he will.
I don’t want us to impeach him afterwards. I want to prevent, not punish.
First things first. If I remember the procedure correctly, the first thing the Democrats will need to do is elect more Democrats to Congress. Isn’t there another general election in 2018? I’m pretty sure there is. Can you wait that long? Will you be eligible to vote?
Another possibility would be to continually insult/attack the very voters that Democrats would require in order to regain control of both houses of the U.S. Congress. That tactic didn’t seem to work so well for the last few general elections. But I’m sure it can’t fail this time. :rolleyes:
The election between presidential terms is called a “mid-term,” in contrast to a presidential term election which is called a “general election.”
Also, because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a pretty decent margin, it follows that Democrats do not actually need any Trump voters in order to take back the House of Representatives.
(Of course, winning Trump voters will help!)
I remember seeing the first “IMPEACH CLINTON!!” bumper sticker in 1992, before Bill Clinton had even taken office. It seems to be a standard reaction whenever a bunch of people don’t like who won the Presidental election.
Frankly, if a “normal”* GOP candidate (say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio) had beaten Hillary, and become president, while liberals would not be happy at all about that presidency, and would certainly have been doing what they could to fight against the new president’s programs (much as conservatives fought against Obama’s programs from the start), I really don’t think that we would have been seeing any kind of serious impeachment talk.
But, Trump’s first month in office has been erratic, vindictive, corrupt, and, frankly, looks to a lot of people (not just liberals) as borderline crazy. And that’s why.
-
- Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, for several reasons, and even I, as a liberal, readily noted all along that any other GOP candidate should have absolutely wiped the floor with her in a general election.
(post shortened)
Who is this “us” you’re referring to? How many normal people actually want to put this country thru an impeachment based on your feelings of impending doom?
if you’re gonna fight this battle, you damn sure better win it because, at this point, Trump would love a call for impeachment because it would galvanize his base. Honestly the left is its own worst enemy when fighting Trump.
The general election held between presidential election years (aka mid-term election) is still considered a general election. A general election as opposed to a primary election or a caucus.
Was there a national popular vote for POTUS? When did they change the rules?
As you no doubt remember, the Democrats also lost control of both houses of Congress. Currently, under the generally accepted and long standing rules, the elected Republicans will act as the majority party until at least 2019. Until that time, and even after, the U.S. House will still require actual evidence of an impeachable offense before they start legal proceedings.
I doubt that RTFirefly feelings will be very persuasive.
And Trump is their best ally. Which is why I think impeachment is a bad if satisfying idea. I think policy would not change much because I’m of the belief that Pence is the one doing the actual presidenting already, but Pence wouldn’t be handing the Democrats ammunition on a daily basis like Trump is. A Pence administration would be as bad as a Trump administration, but this fact wouldn’t be on such open display. It’d be more like the torturer Bush’s administration.
And that won’t do.
Now, if there was a way to get rid of Trump and Pence and everyone they’ve brought with or would like to bring with them into the White House, that would be worth pursuing.
(post shortened)
I watched the Democrats eat their own when they thought Bernie might win the Democrat nomination. It doesn’t matter which Republican beat Hillary, they would still be subjected to the same treatment.
That’s a silly conclusion to draw. The Democrats didn’t win the House in 2016, but you don’t think they need any more voters to take it in 2018?
FYI, I believe Democrats actually lost the House of Representatives vote by ~1 million (cite).
With all due respect to the OP, why don’t you talk about a 25th amendment solution? I am no Trump fan, but even I feel like the well is being poisoned when impeachment is thrown out without hard evidence of high crimes (there sure is a lot of smoke and I’m pretty sure it is because there is real fire burning).
Trump’s base is only embolded by hyperbole. Frankly, Trump provides such ripe material, one shouldn’t have to use hyperbole.
I’ll just say that I strongly disagree. If there were a Republican in the White House today who was governing like an adult (even if liberals disagreed strongly with his policies), and who wasn’t facing repeated stories about unseemly (and possibly illegal) ties to a foreign power, you would not be seeing this kind of talk.
And, conversely, if Clinton was now in the White House, and the same sorts of stories had come out about her having ties to a foreign power, the GOP would have been demanding her head on a platter (and, rightly so). Part of the reason that liberals are so incensed right now is that most of the Republicans in Congress appear to have their heads in the sand over all of this.
Weren’t you trying this shit back when Bush was President - “if he does something illegal it will be too late, so we have to impeach him now.”
Hillary lost the fucking election. Get over it.
That doesn’t follow, because Hillary lost the election. Since turnout in midterm elections is historically lower than in Presidential election years, you need everyone who voted in red states that voted Democratic, plus the Trump voters who voted in those states. If the same patterns evince themselves in 2018, the Dems lose, or at least do not take over the House.
Regards,
Shodan
To me it says that the liberal base has gone nuts, and even Pelosi recognizes that (and the harmful effects it’s likely to have on their hopes for future electoral victories).
For what it’s worth (and I doubt it’s worth anything to doorhinge, solely because of political affiliation), a leading historian and author claims that Trump’s term will be the second shortest in history.
No, not really. It’s being brought up by Maxine Waters-- the perennial outlier.
I don’t agree that that is a proper use of the impeachment process.
That doesn’t necessarily follow, since the House elections depend on the distribution of those votes. Hillary won a lot of her popular vote advantage in CA (in places like SF and LA where the districts are already won by House Democrats, so more votes there are "wasted).
I can’t read the article (BI doesn’t like Ad-Blocker), but is there any reason to think that this particular leading historian’s crystal ball is any better than anyone else’s?
ETA: We’ll know for sure he’s wrong if Trump is still President on August 8th, right? That’ll be 200 days and he’ll have surpassed Garfield, right?
OK, set aside the Russia thing for a moment. How about any of his tax offenses? We can start with his illegal nonprofit, the investigation of which is currently on indefinite hiatus for no clear reason.