Actually, people like Trump are the cause of their problems.
I have no hope for these people. Nothing will change their minds. They voted for the piece of shit in the first place. They now feel like they have a voice for racism and misogyny.
Trump, the ‘billionaire’ plays the poor me card. They will follow his ‘lead’.
Perhaps the anti-abortion bills will bite them all in the ass as women stop listening to their ‘men’. (No offence to thinking women).
Trump wants an impeachment because he loves gladiator politics - it’s entertainment, and it’s his nature to fight people. But in the authoritarian’s playbook, impeachment has another added benefit: it puts vulnerable moderate democrats in a position where they have to join with democrats to impeach a president from the opposition party. Although we heard a lot about new-wave Democrats like AOC, a lot of other Democrats won seats and helped the party re-take the House by being moderate and essentially pledging not to be hard partisans. By acting outrageous, he puts Democrats in a position where they almost have to be partisan. Polarization works by breaking down your enemies, dividing and conquering.
More like Fatal Attraction.
Man Rule #1: Don’t stick your dick in the crazy.
The Kim Davis Principle is alive and well. County clerks, ambulance drivers, just about anyone can join in on the fun now and refuse those in need. Not putting money on this suit actually going anywhere.
Yes. It will be a victory lap for the ages—Trump will adore it.
That will take about ten seconds.
MITCH McCONNELL: “Our President is being attacked by partisan hacks who have never been able to adjust to the loss they were handed by the American People, in their wisdom, in 2016. It’s time to put this disgraceful episode to bed and get back to the good work of helping our President make this nation great.” (He calls for the vote.)
my emphasis
Yep.
The entire ‘refusal to comply with subpoenas’ thing is expressly designed to force the Democrats to start impeachment proceedings. The fires are being stoked by paid social influence workers, preying on an American populace that has no idea that “impeachment” isn’t synonymous with “removal from office.” How many people are enraged that Nancy Pelosi, who they believe has the power to remove Trump, is refusing to do so? I don’t know, but the number must be in the millions.
Trump would love to be adored by all (and thereby avoid the annoyance of having ‘was impeached’ being written next to his name). But if all goes well–and it probably will!–he’ll be able to decree what’s in the history books. So that’s okay.
Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! It’s the best way to ensure the Presidency-for-Life of Donald J. Trump!
Here’s a helpful video explaining why a president stonewalling Congressional oversight is an impeachable offense.
I hope some military members start refusing to kill because it “goes against their religion”.
So, Sherrerd, what is your advice? Continue to run investigations that can’t go anywhere because Trump won’t cooperate, and nobody will make him? Continue playing safe political games until the next election, and hope that the Democratic party’s unwillingness to protect the nation from an out-of-control Executive will impress the swing voters and the MAGAts? Further emboldening Trump to continue to break the law, obstruct justice, and (quite possibly) refuse to recognize the results of the next election? Don’t say he won’t - he’ll likely come up with some bullshit “reasoning”, and the Democrats will (again) open investigations, give sad speeches on the floor, and continue to NOT use the powers enumerated to them.
Nope. Attack with the impeachment inquiries, and when they find sufficient cause, begin impeachment proceedings.
Do you really think him “winning” the trial in the Senate will move the voters one way or another? His core will stand by him no matter what, those opposed to him will be heartened and outraged anew, and the swing voters…well, either they’ll see the Senate’s leadership for what it is, or they won’t. I suspect Clinton got his post-impeachment boost because everyone could see it for the partisan bullshit it was; once some verifiable facts of high crimes and misdemeanors come out of the inquiry, it’ll be much harder to excuse Trump, or dismiss it as partisan gamesmanship.
Anyway, Sherrerd, that’s what I think should be done. What do you propose?
Article from 538:
Would Democrats Really Face A Backlash If They Impeached Trump?
From the end:
Emphasis mine.
Individual 1’s campaign pollster took a contract to work for the primary opponent of a sitting GOP Senator. The GOP campaign committee took it as an offense.
Trump campaign and Senate GOP clash over president's pollster - POLITICO?
Maybe Individual 1 will turn the Republican Senators against him single-handed.
Exactly. And I’m not holding my breath. I swear that Republicans, collectively, must have the I.Q. of a radish.
I get what the article is saying, and to a large extent I would agree that attitudes toward Trump and his malfeasance are baked into the cake, particularly when analyzed along party lines. But there’s a soft center of independent voters, many of whom lean one way or the other on a consistent basis but who aren’t necessarily as partisan as some of the party activists. It’s those voters who matter, and they are the ones who can be influenced by what would turn into a political circus.
I can actually see some advantages to initiating impeachment. In some ways, it’s almost as though the pre-impeachment process has already begun anyway, so some might argue why not just go ahead and get it on? I get that line of thinking. I just think that there’s a difference between investigating and actually calling it an impeachment and actually starting the process of removing a sitting president, which is a big deal because in effect, we’re talking about reversing the outcome of the last election.
My personal view is that it’s risky to push for reversing the outcome of an election until and unless it is clear that an overwhelming majority of people have no problem with it. And right now, most of the polling suggests that voters don’t want him removed, despite the fact that he’s arguably the least popular president in recent memory. Trump clearly believes that he benefits from polarizing the electorate and manufacturing his own crises. I don’t think there’s much Democrats can do to remove him from office except to let the people tire of this shit, and that will probably only happen in significant numbers when people feel like they’re paying a personal price for it.
What facts will come out in the inquiry that otherwise won’t come out? Nobody who works in the executive branch is going to help out and testify in any of the investigations, regardless of whether they call it impeachment or not. Trump wants it to be called an impeachment so that he can better validate his otherwise baseless claims that he’s being the target of a political hit job. Moreover, many of the Democrats who won seats did so in part by pledging to be above politics. An impeachment is going to be an unwelcome political circus, and an unnecessary one.
People sometimes point out that Nixon was popular and impeachment made him much less so, and that’s true. But that was a different time. The nature of the American electorate has changed. We’re much more fractious now. People consume information differently than they did in the early 1970s. People have more than 4 or 5 channels to watch on TV, which is why even if the proceedings are covered on live TV throughout the day, it’s not going to be nearly as big a deal now as it was back then. Moreover, there’s a better chance that it’ll be filtered through the bias of whatever networks or websites they’re watching/reading.
Let Donald Trump fuck things up badly enough so that even many of those who voted for him demand his removal. It’ll happen soon enough, I think.
But the fact is, the swing-voter character should have been written out of our election dramas years ago. Like “Rockefeller Republicans” or “Yellow Dog Democrats,” “swing voter” is a persona from a political landscape that simply no longer exists.
Let’s start with those “Reagan Democrats.” Chasing Reagan Democrats is folly because they’re literally dead. The average 45-year-old union worker who pulled the lever for the Gipper in 1980 is, statistics tell us, no longer with us. Whatever logic there was to Bill Clinton and Dick Morris trying to win them over with a diet of crime bills, school uniforms, and welfare reform no longer applies. (It’s interesting that we never hear about “Obama Republicans.” Barack Obama won a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2008 than Ronald Reagan did in 1980, and won states that Bush-Cheney carried in 2004.)
Moving to the suburbs, the supposed home of the swing voter, not to mention all kinds of micro-trendy constituents Democrats have been told to court, such as “Soccer Moms” and “Security Moms.” It turns out that suburbs are no longer particularly politically “independent.” They are now, in fact, mostly Democratic. Designing a strategy to appeal to voters who are maybe moderate, but honestly, mainly marginalized Republicans in areas that now have a plurality of Democrats, seems like a good way to depress Democratic turnout.
Like… Maybe there’s a handful of people in the rust belt who would be super turned off by impeachment proceedings (even though, for whatever reason, they aren’t bothered by Trump constantly shouting about how there’s a deep state coup against him - seriously, anyone watching Fox News probably already believes that there’s a huge conspiracy to oust Trump, and impeachment proceedings probably aren’t gonna shift that needle). But there’s little to no evidence indicating that those swing voters are actually, y’know, a thing.
They’re absolutely a thing. Just because they’re small in number doesn’t mean they’re not important. If swing voters didn’t matter, states like OH, FL, PA, NC, and WI wouldn’t matter, but they do. They sometimes change hands.
The other more fundamental problem I have with impeachment is that it really should be rarely used. We should use it when the people are clearly ready to throw someone out of office and don’t want to wait until the next election to do it. Some people, myself included, will suggest that people sometimes don’t know what’s best for them - I’m pretty elitist myself. But the reality is, impeachment is a popular will type of mechanism.
I think the real reason impeachment exists is to prevent a president from going completely rogue, like so far off the rails that he threatens to start nuking other countries to create a distraction - that kind of shit. But if we’re concerned that he’s violating the norms of the office, all I can say is show me that voters are particularly concerned about it. I mean, isn’t that why they voted for him? People voted to disrupt and for someone who said he was going to do all kinds of wild and crazy crap, and he’s following through on a lot of it.
THat’s why I say that we need evidence that people are having a change of heart and that people don’t want him there in the office anymore. And I think that moment will come when they feel like they’re the ones personally paying the price for their own stupid votes. It sucks we have to wait for that awakening, but welcome to democracy. Ignorance has a price tag after all.
I agree.
It’s been a long time since I expected any sort of competency out of this administration. As in “since never.”
Why do you hate radishes?
Anyone who says, or believes, that Trump wants televised impeachment hearings to fire up his base is not paying attention to what Trump is saying and doing. Did y’all just see that impromptu press conference he had?
Seriously, arguing against impeachment is living in your head. The man knows he’s fucked, the only thing which will enable him is moral cowardice on our part.