In pre-Trump days, I generally made it a policy to address the good arguments that I disagreed with, rather than the low lying fruit. It’s more interesting that way. And I tried to leave the snark for round 3 or so.
For good and bad reasons (generally bad in this thread) things changed for me with Trump. I honestly don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider his Presidency to be a potential national emergency. To give this claim some degree of legitimacy, note that I vocally prefer if Pence gets the position, despite the fact that he is more evangelically conservative than any preceding President. I don’t like Pence. But I believe he would be constrained by institutional considerations in a way that Trump is not.
Trump’s authoritarian tendencies are also a concern, though I hasten to add that they were quickly contained by a vigilant opposition. But recall that his first step was to stop green card holders from returning to the US, a blatantly illegal and extra-judicial act. That motivated me to demonstrate in my local airport, in a way that halving legally admitted residents would not. I honestly didn’t care all that much whether immigration was doubled or halved, though like this center-leftist I am currently inclined to draw a line at obvious racial engineering.
I’m not signing on with the OP, except to agree that it’s important to think strategically, and not enter articles of impeachment because it will make you feel good. But I say sure, such a stunt looks like a waste of time now, but 6 or 18 months can be a long time in politics. Recall that the GOP doesn’t really like Trump, though they think Pence is just dandy. Recall that Trump is emotionally weak in certain ways. I think it’s far from certain that Trump will stand for re-election in 2020.
This is a warning for personal insults. I know you’ve taken a break from posting recently and have returned for which I’m glad, but this not even close to okay for this forum. Please do not do this again. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
Never mind DACA, immigration reform has the votes in the House. It has popular support, crossing both parties. But it doesn’t have the support of a majority of the Republican congress. Boehner followed the Hastert Rule, and apparently so does Ryan (except when they don’t). There are plenty of laws that could be passed in a bipartisan fashion but they first must come up for a vote.
In other words, Republicans are wedded to obstructionism in a way that Democrats are not. Talking of compromise or give and take marks you as a RINO and guarantees a primary challenge. Republicans believing in the ordinary and necessary legislative process lost leverage years ago. The only way forward I see is for the GOP to go the way of the Whig Party. Specifically they need to collapse and be replaced by something else.