This is such a bizarre hypothetical. A sustained invasion of US territory is most likely to be accomplished by aliens (the outer space kind), to give you some idea of the odds, but if some earthly nation we’re foolish enough to try it, I’m sure President Trump would be delighted to order the military to slap the shit out of them and enjoy the approval ratings jump that would accompany such an action.
ETA: to put it in perspective, the military, under President Trump killed a few hundred Russians for trying to invade our corner of fuckin’ Syria! The idea that he’d “roll over” if they invaded Alaska is laughably absurd.
Yeah, um… you do understand, that’s kind of literally how hypotheticals work? Imagining the chain of events to get us to a certain outcome? There are no realities in which Trump’s delusional, fanatical base abandons him unless we inject some absurd contingencies.
You might reflect a bit on the different uses of ‘hypothetical’ vs. ‘prediction’. I know, I know, you’re just saying.
If they can’t be bothered by a president who supplicates to Vladimir Putin and risks tossing away NATO, then I have a hard time believing they’d be remotely bothered by losing Guam or anything that Trump offers up to Putin short of authorizing the possession of their family farms, their SUVs, or their gun collections.
I believe Louis Gohmert, of TX 1st District (Greater Metropolitan Tyler, Texas), esteemed colleague, also shares that opinion. Not everybody knows that, but now you do.
I would not use the word “concerned”, and I think he’s likely to get re-elected regardless of whether they impeach him or not, so, overall, I guess I’d rate that a “disagree”.
One thing I would say is that it would be wrong to hold back impeachment as a way of reversing the next election, should Trump win it.
So that means that if we’re going to impeach him for things we already know about, the time to do it is in 2019, not in 2021. (If evidence is found later of additional crimes we don’t now know about, they’d be fair game.)
I agree with you (except perhaps with the phrasing of “additional crimes”), but the Dems are no more likely to get to 67 Senate votes in 2021 than they are in 2019, at least based on what we already know about, so it doesn’t really matter.
Impeachment proceedings matter, even if they don’t culminate in the removal of a President. They should be treated as serious business, and should not become just another political cudgel.
Trump has intensified the radicalization of the Republicans and the far right, and in doing so he has also inspired a similar radicalization among the left. This is how polarization can be used to a political group’s advantage, and in this case, I think it works to the advantage of republicans. When people point out that Trump’s approval rating is historically low, they’re missing an important point, which is that we are now living in the age of fringe politics. The days of a politician of any kind getting 60% or higher are gone for the foreseeable future because neither the far right nor the far left want a moderate. They want crusaders and warriors for their cause. A moderate would be considered compromising on virtue. We saw this on the political right wing in the years leading up to Trump, and we’re beginning to see the reaction among progressives. This is how radicalization and polarization can be a successful tactic if political candidates and parties can capitalize on it.
I say it works to the republicans advantage simply because they have a demographic majority that they can exploit. It’s easier to break the progressive left because they can be divided in different ways. They can be divided and conquered over differences on race, gender, and other forms of identity. Once conservatives become more fully aware of these vulnerabilities, I suspect that they will exploit them with behavior that we thought was a part of our past. They’ll do it because it’ll give them power, and that’s all the justification they would need in the end - in their minds anyway.
Yes, but by 2010, the tea party had become a strong political force and was no longer just a fringe. That the GOP nominated Mitt Romney in 2012 isn’t what’s important to consider; what’s important is how Mitt Romney in 2012 was quite different than Mitt Romney in 1994, and he had become more of a hardliner between 2008 and 2012. Take his position on abortion, for example, or his position on healthcare. Obamacare was really Romneycare in a different form.
By 2016, it didn’t matter how much the standard bearers of the GOP changed their positions - the conservatives were done with them. The two top candidates were Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who was an arch conservative and had positions that were just as hard-line as Trump’s. But this was something that occurred over a period that began in the early 1990s and really got going from 2009 onward.
The position that Democrats are in now is that Biden, a moderate, is currently a favor to win not only the Democratic party’s nomination but also to beat Trump. And I suppose that could still happen, but Trump is going to continue to radicalize the Republican party because it is what he needs to do to survive: he needs to throw meat to his pet lions and wolves. But a byproduct is that this will, in turn, fuel outrage and a desire on the left to radicalize in return, which will put extreme pressure on people like Biden who want to try to remain above the fray and try to unite the different factions on the left. This will put people like Biden and Pelosi - and even Sanders - in the position of trying to fend off calls for impeachment. This might make the candidates behave in unexpected ways, and it would work to Trump’s advantage.