This is the issue. Senate Republicans didn’t spontaneously form from the ether. The beliefs they push in the Senate are not just their own; they belong to their constituents. The solution is to change the beliefs of those constituents so that they are in line with reality, so that they can elect politicians whose policies are also in line with reality. The only way to do this is education.
No one made that claim here.
Joe Biden never called for Trump to be flayed alive:
I have now proven conclusively that there is nothing to the claim that Joe Biden called for Trump to be flayed alive; hopefully that puts that to rest for good.
found it on youtube. starts at 5:39 Georgia Secretary of State’s office holds a news conference after leaked Trump call | FULL EVENT - YouTube
very well done, mr sterling.
Look at like when Gov. Ryan (R, Criminal, Il.) put a moratorium on the death penalty. It was great news, but it was easy to say: “Yeah, but he’s George Ryan!” In the end, I went with: “He stopped putting people to death.”
I “find” this argument troubling.
Heey, any of you’s guys got a link for that Gabriel Sterling thing? It sounds interesting.
(NM I see it a few posts above this.)
In that analogy, there might actually be a chance that the further white criminals would be convicted, if the evidence was strong enough. In this case, conviction is impossible. And, in fact, prosecutors are not supposed to bring anything to trial if they do not believe there will be a conviction.
Impeachment is a political process. There very much IS a cost to impeaching Trump again. It expends political capital on something that has no possibility of occurring. Not being convicted only emboldened Trump and energized his followers–it made things worse. Sure, it was worth trying once, as maybe the Republican Senators would care enough about the country to convict. But they didn’t. But to do it again, and embolden him and his followers again?
Trump will be out of office soon. Within 16 more days, there will no longer be any reason that he can’t be given an actual, non-political trial for his actions. That’s the appropriate punishment at this point.
Impeachment exists to get the criminal out of office. If they won’t be removed and are going to soon leave of office anyways, it serves no purpose. Any actual prosecution for said crimes can still happen once they are out.
Using your logic, they should have still impeached Nixon. His resignation shouldn’t have mattered. He committed the high crime, so the House should impeach to follow the Constitution. But they didn’t, because the worst thing they could do he was willing to do himself.
I could maybe get behind impeaching a lame duck president for a sufficiently horrible crime less than a month before they leave office if the Senate had any chance to convict. There could be some value in sending the message. But the only message here would be “House Democrats again fail to actually remove Trump from office.” And, honestly, “And it was stupid because he was going to leave soon anyways.”
An officeholder does not necessarily need to be a criminal to be impeached.
In any event, in addition to removal from office, there is a second possible penalty for an officeholder who is impeached and convicted: disqualification from holding any federal office in the future.
In the present case under discussion, such a penalty would serve a very useful purpose in 2024.
Actually, I’ve believed that for the past 46 years. And the fact that they didn’t was one of the things that made it easier for Nixon to convince a shitload of people over the next 20 years that he was railroaded.
First, political capital. There’s a pretty good debate going on ‘Election Twitter’ and places like that over whether that means a blessed thing. My take is, maybe it once did, back in the day when parties were more fluid: in order to pass something that pleased one part of your coalition, you’d have to displease another part. That would constitute ‘spending political capital’ to accomplish something. The way the parties are now…nah.
Second, energizing. After tomorrow, that won’t matter much, will it?
Damn. He’s my new hero.
I am unfamiliar with leadstories dot com, and ain’t about to click it, but you feel pretty good about the phone call do ya?
Trump supporters, really, when your praise for your hero amounts to: “You know, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a crime.” you should think about that.
It was “Perfect”
Guess I’m less concerned with internet hygiene. I clicked on it. The debunking is pretty much limited to the word “invent”
The problem with that analogy are that those are unrelated. If George Ryan was for the death penalty, but stopped it because there was no legal way to perform them, then they’d be analogous. In our case in Georgia, Raffensperger has shown to be perfectly willing to help Republicans win using every legal means necessary, including massive disenfranchisement efforts. The fact that he stops short of breaking the law to achieve this is the only redeeming quality here. If there were a legal avenue for Republicans to win, he would have jumped on it.
Perhaps it’s different to outsiders, but as a Georgian, seeing my fellow citizens being disenfranchised en mass is horrifying. Since Shelby County v. Holder, there seems to be a race to the bottom by several states doing their damndest to make sure as few black voters as possible are able to cast a vote. Unfortunately, Georgia is winning that race. Hell, the crap pulled by Kemp and Raffensperger are the reason that you know Stacey Abrams’ name.
A couple of years ago, the United States Commission on Civil Rights put out a document titled “An
Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access in the United States” (warning, humongous 400+ page PDF). On page 369 they document the five primary methods by which disenfranchisement is taking place and show which states use which methods. Georgia is the only state to be guilty of all five methods.
Again, Raffensperger has shown a willingness to do everything in his power to ensure that Republicans win as many elections in Georgia as possible. The only thing that he has seemed unwilling to do is to go to jail for that cause. He’s not a hero, he’s not showing honor, he’s not pro-democracy. He’s simply against going to jail.
He’s doing the right thing in this one specific instance, but since the alternative is jail time, I’m not ready to laud his actions.
It’s like how mob bosses never say “kill”. They say “take care of”.
I got you. And respect what drives your opinion.