Which is why I asked the question I just asked.
Nope. It “implies” that I recognize that the GOP controls Congress and that impeachment isn’t going to happen based on Trump’s action so far. And if the Democrats can flip the House in 2018, they still have to convict in the Senate to remove Trump; which is another political impossibility. But actually, I don’t think even the Democrats would impeach Trump. I’ll believe that when I hear it from Nancy Pelosi. So far, she’s on record as opposing impeachment. If that changes, then there will be facts on the ground that will change my expectation. Of corse you still have to convict in the Senate. Do you think that will happen?
I don’t think impeachment is the way to get rid of Trump in the same way I don’t think we can find a spell to do it in one of the Harry Potter books.
Democrats in office haven’t been talking about impeachment at all until the last day or two, and even then it’s very cautious and vague statements.
Some Democratic and liberal voters have, but I see no evidence that any more have been pushing this than Republican voters who pushed for Obama to be impeached.
Dems last night on cable shows were very reluctant to use the “I-word”.
Do you remember the James Randi $1 Million Challenge?
The jist of it was (they gave up a few years ago) that Randi has a million bucks in a trust that will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities - mind reading, ESP, psychokinesis, stuff like that. All a person has to do it show it is agree to a test with Randi (or his people) - settle on a clear test, that both agree on, that would prove the ability. Then the test is run, and if they can do it, they get handed a check for a million dollars.
No one has ever won it.
The thing is, they haven’t actually run the test that often because most people refuse to quantify what their paranormal ability is. They’ll start off saying they can move stuff or read minds or what have you, but when push comes to shove they refuse, when it’s time to agree on the conditions of the test, to quite say what they’re capable of. Very few people ever actually agreed to a formal test. Thousands of people approached Randi saying they could do it, but 95% of them or more backed out when he started talking turkey about setting up a test.
Trumpists are like that.
I’ve asked Trumpist after Trumpist, ever chance I get “what would it take?” They NEVER answer the question directly. Never. No Trumpist will ever unambiguously say “I will stop supporting Donald Trump if he does/fails to do X.” They just won’t directly answer that question, because I think, even if it might be subconscious, they know he will probably fail the test, and they prefer instead to project upon him what they want him to be.
If you had gotten a real Trumpist (which Bricker is not, so insert your true red Trumpist of choice here) two months ago “Well, what if Trump invited Russians into the Oval Office, with only Russian media allowed to be present, and gave them really sensitive intelligence information that we wouldn’t even share with a close ally? Would that make you finally distrust him?” or “What if he fired the Director of the FBI to try to stop an active investigation into his own campaign?” you might think they’d say “Gosh, yes, at that point.” But you would not have gotten an answer. No straight answer, anyway; they’ll say
- Never happen that a stupid thing to ask
- Clinton would do that why aren’t you talking about Clinton
- There’s no ties to Russia
- This is irrelevant, the important thing is we stop the Mexicans
Etc., etc. They will not agree to a test.
In the next few weeks if we have unquestionable, documented evidence Trump pressured James Comey to end the Russia investigation, an act that clearly should result in his impeachment and conviction, Trumpists will not care. They will claim it’s fake news, or that obstruction of justice is not a crime, or Clinton, or whatever. But the hell of it is you won’t be able to back and say “But you said this would be enough to make you want Trump out,” because Trumpists don’t agree to tests.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’ll believe that when I hear it from Nancy Pelosi. So far, she’s on record as opposing impeachment.
[/QUOTE]
Pelosi isn’t stupid. She knows as well as you and I do that the Republicans will not impeach Trump for 99% of all impeachable offenses; he could rape and murder a teenaged girl and they’ll say it’s fake news.
Impeachment is a one shot deal; if they try to impeach Trump and fail, they don’t politically have a second chance. To attempt impeachment now would be insane because there isn’t the political will to do it, and there isn’t enough evidence yet to do it. There may be a lot of evidence built up in the next few months but the political will has to be developed from that.
Impeachment only happens if a sufficient number of Republicans are worried about losing their jobs. Right now there is no evidence Trump’s obvious criminality and ineptitude are threatening GOP politicians. But people are getting pissed off about other issues, and it that builds up, increasing evidence of Trump’s betrayals and crimes will force a lot of Republicans to decide it’s safer to look good than to feel good. Truly hard core Trumpists aren’t sufficiently numerous to guarantee election in many districts and states presently held by Republicans.
The Democrats can’t throw the touchdown pass now, because no one’s open. They have to wait until the time is right. If they’d tried to impeach Nixon in December 1973, they would have failed, the chance would have gotten by them, and Nixon would have served out his term.
I think asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn is a bridge too far even for Republicans. This is going more quickly than anyone could have forseen two weeks ago. The memos will be subpoenaed, Comey will testify, and the house of cards collapses. I predict resignation by July 1.
That implies you support Trump!!
I’d need evidence rising to the level of probable cause that Trump had violated the criminal law of the United States.
For the president it God damned well should be. Especially on the scale Trump does it.
I realize it’s not but on matters of policy and national security is it really that unreasonable to hold the president liable to the truth?
Please see post 268.
Do you argue that my answer there is not a straight answer?
Remember when you predicted Chris Christie would be “gone by Easter” or something like that?
This just in : Congressman Al Green (D-Texas) has vowed to call for impeachement on the floor today.
And I predict we’ll add this to your list of confident, failed predictions.
Let’s see which one of us has a better understanding of the political sphere, as measured by the ability to correctly predict future events.
Did the case of Richard Nixon rise to that level, in your opinion? Do you think he should have been impeached/convicted had he not resigned?
I suspect that there’s not a lot of drive to impeach Trump because leadership Democrats think having him in office will destroy the Republicans. His behavior stirs up the Democratic base, and demoralizes marginal Republicans, in a way that President Pence probably wouldn’t. I’m sure Democratic leadership supports investigating (and leaking!) Trump’s actions, but I wouldn’t be super surprised if they didn’t join Republicans if any Republicans moved to impeach. They’d probably be super happy to sit on the sidelines and watch the Republican party disintegrate.
There are enough hardcore Trumpets in most red districts to guarantee non-election to any Republican who offends them to the point where they stay home or vote third-party.
I’ve got five hundred bucks says you’re wrong.
-
You are underestimating Trump’s core support to a truly bizarre degree. There is no chance in hell that in six week any significant number of Trumpists will be converted. None.
-
You are wildly overestimating Republican patriotism. Republicans don’t value America over their jobs and their agenda; it’s much more important to them to hurt gay people than it is to help other Americans. They will NOT impeach unless not doing so is a risk to their re-election chances.
-
You don’t seem to understand Donald Trump. There isn’t a hope in hell Donald Trump resigns in six weeks. Have you not been watching this guy?
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
There are enough hardcore Trumpets in most red districts to guarantee non-election to any Republican who offends them to the point where they stay home or vote third-party.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t really matter, because you don’t need it to be unanimous.
To get an impeachment vote, you only need a simple majority in the House and 2/3rd to convict in the Senate. To flip the House, therefore, you need to get just 24 Republicans out of 241 to flip, which is a small number; there are far, far more than 24 Republican districts where Trumpists are not sufficiently numerous to overwhelm the swing voters in the 2018 midterms if the evidence against Trump is really, really crushing. (I am assuming Democratic unanimity, which is a reasonable prediction of an impeachment vote occurs only after damning evidence comes out.)
To get him convicted, you need 67 Senators, so you need to flip 19 Republicans. Again, with damning evidence, you certainly have 19 Senators in sufficiently purple or blue states that they would fear for their jobs if they were openly supporting a criminal. There are GOP Senators in Illinois, Maine, Nevada, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina and many other states that aren’t Christian-solid-red like Idaho who could find themselves in a position where supporting Trump would cost them more votes than it was worth.
But the evidence must be very publically damning. It has to make voters angry. We have not seen that yet.
Re the phrase “Watergate on meth”
Gee, it’s like you primed the pump. 
BobLibDem, November 4th, 2014:
McConnell faced Democratic Alison Grimes, the Kentucky Secretary of State, in the general election. He won 56% to 41%, an over 15 percentage points victory and his second-largest margin of victory for any of his senate races. In other words, it wasn’t even close.
Also for 2014:
You predicted Colorado incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Udall to beat Republican then-Congressman Cory Gardner. Gardner beat incumbent Udall.
You predicted Iowa Democrats would retain Tom Harkin’s seat. Democrat Bruce Braley, the Congressman for Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, lost to Republican State Senator Joni Ernst.
In Georgia, you predicted a Democratic Senate win, but what happened was that David Perdue, a Republican with no prior elected office to his name, beat Michelle Nunn, a Democrat with no prior elected office to her name (except than Sam Nunn is her father).
If I recall correctly, the only one you got right in that thread was Michigan Democratic Congressman Gary Peters winning the Senate seat against Republican Terri Land.
Is there any failure point at which you’d say to yourself, “Perhaps my predictive powers are not as keen as I’d thought they were?” Or does the litany of incorrect predictions simply not bother you at all?
Absolutely.
Nixon violated several criminal laws. I absolutely agreed he should have been impeached.