# Trump tells Congreswomen go back where you came from **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 14, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068 "2019-07-14T15:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/321 "2019-07-19T19:51:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > ISTM it’s more likely he gets a _state_-level indictment from New York than a House impeachment for (fill in your own long list). It is going to be \*very \*hard for his loyalists to explain away a criminal indictment beyond his own pardon power or his personal-lawyer AG’s whitewash power. Fake News! Hillary’s emails! Deep State! Send Her Back! Trump loyalists like simple slogans. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/322 "2019-07-19T20:01:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > How would a Indictment that doesnt bring a conviction- or perhaps not even a trial- be a 'tool to stand up to trump with"? It would only ensure he gets re-elected. “Oh, please dont throw me in that briar patch!” > > Impeachment- _without a conviction-_ does nothing but make the Impeachers look foolish. Look at Bill Clinton. His popularity went up. > > Now, if we could possibly get a conviction, then great. Do you think the Senate will vote to convict? In reverse order: [ul] [li]I don’t think the Senate will vote to convict.[/li][li]Clinton’s may have gone up but you can’t compare the two, just because each was an impeachment. The situations are entirely different, and the US is a different place now.[/li][li]By definition, any impeachment is a “standing up” against someone. And while it’s possible that Trump’s popularity may go up, this is by no means a given. If the number of people who decide to vote for the Democrat candidate goes up more due to their outrage that results because of what they learn during the trial exceeds the number of people who decide to vote for Trump because they don’t like the fact he was put through an impeachment and then acquitted, then it’s a win for the Dem side. This is not an impossibility.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/323 "2019-07-19T20:04:12Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Not quite correct, though I realize it’s hard to keep up with posts across threads. > > My position is that impeaching before the case has been made to impeach, and impeaching about things that aren’t likely to get a lot of traction, may well lead to his re-election. I was not really in favor of impeachment immediately following the release of the Mueller report, but I was absolutely ready to have impeached over the citizenship question, had Trump defied the Court. FWIW, I am definitely less hesitant, and more open to, impeachment than I was even a month ago. We’re getting to a point where we may have no choice, whether people are ready for it or not. Thanks for the correction. You won’t be surprised, I don’t think, to hear that I think the point where we have no choice passed weeks ago. > [@](#): > > I think people have accepted that Trump is a shady dealer, and people are probably too cynical to see the report objectively - they’ll see it however they want. I have no idea what most people who aren’t paying attention very much think about Trump. Anyway, I’d say the vast majority of the public has no idea what’s even in the report. This is exactly why we need the impeachment trial. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/324 "2019-07-19T20:08:55Z")
Here is what is being ignored in all of this impeachment talk. The point is the actual charges and evidence presented. That’s it. That’s the ENTIRE point. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. No one really cared about that as a “crime”, it was clearly a political stunt. But if Congress holds hearings and presents to America a long list of emoluments violations, sexual assaults, tax fraud, charity fraud, ad nauseum, do you really think that most Americans won’t care? Oh sure, the die hard Trumpies will excuse it and hand wave it away. But do you think middle America will? And if the Senate refuses to convict him of obvious crimes, do you think that will allow him to claim vindication? Because the bottom line fact is that even if he isn’t convicted in the Senate and removed from office, he WILL be convicted of those things in a court of law after he is President. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/325 "2019-07-19T20:26:20Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Here is what is being ignored in all of this impeachment talk. > > The point is the actual charges and evidence presented. > > That’s it. That’s the ENTIRE point. > > Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. No one really cared about that as a “crime”, it was clearly a political stunt. > > But if Congress holds hearings and presents to America a long list of emoluments violations, sexual assaults, tax fraud, charity fraud, ad nauseum, do you really think that most Americans won’t care? Oh sure, the die hard Trumpies will excuse it and hand wave it away. But do you think middle America will? > > And if the Senate refuses to convict him of obvious crimes, do you think that will allow him to claim vindication? Oh, he will, he is that kind of an asshole. But on the other points you made, I agree 100%. > [@Chimera](#): > > Because the bottom line fact is that even if he isn’t convicted in the Senate and removed from office, he WILL be convicted of those things in a court of law after he is President. I will add that seeing the House Republicans support the racist statements of the president was a good way to tell many moderates the type of rascals they have as representatives, I do want the ones in the Senate to vote with what will be the worst angels of their nature so as to let others know what senators are rascals too. Then throw the rascals out. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/326 "2019-07-19T20:53:32Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Because the bottom line fact is that even if he isn’t convicted in the Senate and removed from office, he WILL be convicted of those things in a court of law after he is President. Not if the President who succeeds him is a Republican, who will grant him blanket immunity. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/327 "2019-07-19T20:59:06Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Not if the President who succeeds him is a Republican, who will grant him blanket immunity. Also, the obstruction of justice charges will also be past their 5-year statute of limitations if Trump serves two terms - I’m not sure about the other crimes/potential crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/328 "2019-07-19T23:18:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > How would a Indictment that doesnt bring a conviction- or perhaps not even a trial- be a ' **tool to stand up to trump with"?** It would only ensure he gets re-elected. “Oh, please dont throw me in that briar patch!” > > Impeachment- _without a conviction-_ does nothing but make the Impeachers look foolish. Look at Bill Clinton. His popularity went up. … Yes, impeachment now will be ‘_235 Democrats voted to do this thing they hoped would shame Trump but it amounts to nothing except that now they can’t hold hearings anymore, because McConnell has scheduled the “trial” to take place at 3am on Sunday night, and then the vote to acquit Trump promptly at 9am Monday morning_.’ But the “impeach now” demands are filled with stirring language (such as I emphasized where you quoted it in your post): [ul] [li]tool to stand up to Trump with![/li][li]a sword, with which to uphold the Constitution![/li][li]doing What’s Right![/li][li]holding Trump accountable![/li][li]puts a check on Trump![/li][li]stops Trump from running rampant![/li][/ul] …and so on and so on. And of course that party-line vote, which leads to Glorious Acquittal, does _none_ of those things. All those things are lovely dreams that have nothing to do with reality. Trump would not be held in check by the fact that 235 Democrats declared their distaste for him. That might change. Impeachment must remain on the table. I have higher hopes for revelations from the Epstein case than for the Mueller testimony as far as moving the needle—though of course Trump is currently working very hard to get us into war with Iran, which would eclipse every other topic. I also have higher hopes for ElvisL1ves’ ‘state charges’ idea than for any haranguing of the House to DO SOMETHING, because the states actually have a better chance of Doing Something that Barr can’t undo. We shall see. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/329 "2019-07-19T23:21:04Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > But if Congress holds hearings and presents to America a long list of emoluments violations, sexual assaults, tax fraud, charity fraud, ad nauseum, do you really think that most Americans won’t care? Oh sure, the die hard Trumpies will excuse it and hand wave it away. But do you think middle America will? I won’t predict if they will or will not care, but this is what I’m talking about. There is reason to think that they will, given what they will hear, thus the idea that impeachment will inevitably help Trump’s chances is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/330 "2019-07-19T23:22:12Z")
on 2nd thought Trump says he has no problem with the chants at the NC rally. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/331 "2019-07-19T23:29:40Z")
That’s because he’s a racist shitbag. Republicans love him, and fear him. It’s shameful. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/332 "2019-07-19T23:39:49Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > But the “impeach now” demands are filled with stirring language (such as I emphasized where you quoted it in your post): > > [ul] > [li]tool to stand up to Trump with![/li][li]a sword, with which to uphold the Constitution![/li][li]doing What’s Right![/li][li]holding Trump accountable![/li][li]puts a check on Trump![/li][li]stops Trump from running rampant![/li][/ul] …the “impeach now” demands are actually more like this: > [@Elizabeth Warren](#): > > You know, when the Mueller report came out, I sat down to start to read it. > > I read all day into the night into the wee hours of the morning and > > finished out the next day. And after I finished 448 pages, I realized > > three things, I mean, that we`re just unmistakable in that report. > > Part one, a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 elections in order > > to help Donald Trump get elected. Part two, Donald Trump as a candidate > > welcome to that help. And part three, when our federal government tried to > > investigate parts one and two, Donald Trump did everything he could to > > derail, push aside, and otherwise obstruct that investigation. > > And Mueller makes these facts absolutely clear in his report. It is pretty > > clear when you read it that the only reason is I read it that he did not > > actually bring an indictment because he clearly has all the facts is he was > > following the Justice Department of the Trump administration saying a > > sitting president cannot be criminally indicted. > > But he served up on a silver platter all of those facts to the United > > States Congress. Because in a constitutional system with checks and > > balances, it`s up to Congress to make sure that the president is not above > > the law. Or like this: > [@Justin Amash](#): > > Here are my principal conclusions: > > 1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report. > 2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct. > 3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances. > 4. Few members of Congress have read the report. > > … > > Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment. > > … > > In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence. > > … > > Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct. > > … > > While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct. > There is nothing wrong with opposing the calls for impeachment. For the longest time I too, opposed impeachment. But the case for impeachment cannot be distilled down to a “list with exclamation marks”. Your list does not accurately represent the case for impeachment. The “impeach now demands” are largely unpartisan, unemotional and non-political. The “don’t impeach demands” are almost entirely political: because the demands are almost entirely predicated on what effect impeachment will have on the next election. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/333 "2019-07-20T01:00:55Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But the case for impeachment cannot be distilled down to a “list with exclamation marks”. Your list does not accurately represent the case for impeachment. If I’d written ‘this is all there is to the case for impeachment’ or ‘this sums up the case for impeachment’ or anything remotely close to those statements, you might have a point. As it is, though: no. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The “don’t impeach demands” are almost entirely political: because the demands are almost entirely predicated on what effect impeachment will have on the next election. No, the “don’t impeach” demands are about getting rid of Trump and of as many of his enablers as possible. The idea that getting rid of malefactors through the electoral process is somehow dishonorable, has to be the most bizarre trope being pushed by the enemies of democracy. I respect Warren, but if pressed—at least out of the hearing of donors and activists—she’d admit that the remarks you quoted have very little to do with the practical task at hand: getting rid of Trump and his enablers. Her words, again: > [@](#): > > But he served up on a silver platter all of those facts to the United States Congress. Because in a constitutional system with checks and balances, it`s up to Congress to make sure that the president is not above the law. > **[Warren calls for President Trump impeachment. TRANSCRIPT: 5/7/19, All In w/...](https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2019-05-07-msna1227631)** > > Guests: Elizabeth Warren, Neal Katyal, Ilya Marritz, Chris Murphy, Jon Tester, ChuckSchumer “Up to Congress to make sure that the president is not above the law”—yes, sure. Of course. _ **And how will that take place, exactly?** _ What will happen if another member of the House introduces articles of impeachment? …A vote by 235 Democrats in the House. (A vote that, by the way, the majority of Americans still oppose.) Trump gets to talk about the sore-loser, hack, weakling Democrats, who took their little vote, with the only result being his glorious vindication by the Senate. Declared innocent of all charges! _And in what way does that “make sure that the president is not above the law”?_ Warren knows this. Warren is smart. I wouldn’t like to say that she’s politically calculating, but all successful politicians have to be, well, politically calculating. They have to know how to get the headlines and how to win over those who are paying attention sixteen months before an election: the activists. And this is what she’s done. My evidence: \*\*If Warren truly believes that impeaching now is the “right thing to do,” \*\*where are her public statements urging House members to vote for Rep. Green’s articles of impeachment? Where, on Warren’s site, does she voice support for Green’s initiative? Where is she on the record, from the moment Green filed on Tuesday night, saying that **Now Is the Time**? If she believed that impeaching now was smart, why _wouldn’t_ she be on the record calling for support for Green? Elizabeth Warren knows that impeaching now would help Trump—if she _didn’t_ know that, she’d have been all over the media, urging support for Green, calling for votes on his articles. _If she believed that impeaching now was smart, she’d have done all she could to make sure that happened on Wednesday._ Impeaching now is the wrong thing to do. It may become the right thing to do later. But “the right thing to do” is defined by its probable consequences. Responsible people don’t act without considering the consequences of their action. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/334 "2019-07-20T01:16:35Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > Also, the obstruction of justice charges will also be past their 5-year statute of limitations if Trump serves two terms - I’m not sure about the other crimes/potential crimes. Well…IANAL, but I do know that a lot of statute of limitations laws have a provision that stops the clock when a person is outside of the relevant jurisdiction and therefore beyond the reach of the court. I’m not sure that federal SOL law even has that provision but if it does a smart lawyer might be able to argue that, given the OLC opinion that a sitting president can’t be indicted, trump potentially could trigger that particular provision and still be indictable even after leaving office following a (please God, hypothetical) second term. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/335 "2019-07-20T01:25:12Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … > There is nothing wrong with opposing the calls for impeachment. For the longest time I too, opposed impeachment. But the case for impeachment cannot be distilled down to a “list with exclamation marks”. Your list does not accurately represent the case for impeachment. The “impeach now demands” are largely unpartisan, unemotional and non-political. The “don’t impeach demands” are almost entirely political: because the demands are almost entirely predicated on what effect impeachment will have on the next election. And what other reason is there? You’d rather have a nice little show to maybe embarrass trump- who is about embarrassment, and then have him gloating about it for four more year in the White House? The only reason for or against Impeachment is to get Trump out. Right now, Impeachment wont do that, in fact quite likely the opposite. But sure, you can have your months of drama on live TV at the hearings, then watch trump walk to re-election in 2020. I’d prefer to get him out of office, then have him arrested and put in prison. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/336 "2019-07-20T02:39:36Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > If I’d written ‘this is all there is to the case for impeachment’ or ‘this sums up the case for impeachment’ or anything remotely close to those statements, you might have a point. As it is, though: no. …your list wasn’t even an accurate summation of the arguments for impeachment from the people in this very thread. > [@](#): > > No, the “don’t impeach” demands are about getting rid of Trump and of as many of his enablers as possible. As I said: **political**. Why can’t you admit that? > [@](#): > > The idea that getting rid of malefactors through the electoral process is somehow dishonorable, has to be the most bizarre trope being pushed by the enemies of democracy. Impeachment doesn’t stop “getting rid of malefactors through the electoral process.” What on earth is this bizarre trope you are talking about? What is bizarre are all these strawman arguments you keep throwing out there. Nobody is aruging that “getting rid of malefactors through the electoral process is somehow dishonorable”. > [@](#): > > I respect Warren, but if pressed—at least out of the hearing of donors and activists—she’d admit that the remarks you quoted have very little to do with the practical task at hand: getting rid of Trump and his enablers. Her words, again: > > [http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2019-05-07](http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2019-05-07) > > “Up to Congress to make sure that the president is not above the law”—yes, sure. Of course. _ **And how will that take place, exactly?** _ > > What will happen if another member of the House introduces articles of impeachment? …A vote by 235 Democrats in the House. (A vote that, by the way, the majority of Americans still oppose.) Trump gets to talk about the sore-loser, hack, weakling Democrats, who took their little vote, with the only result being his glorious vindication by the Senate. Declared innocent of all charges! > > _And in what way does that “make sure that the president is not above the law”?_ So your opposition to impeachment is political. Gotcha. Trump is already smack-talking the Democrats. They haven’t stopped. They won’t stop. In the hearings the other day they were blaming the Democrats for the lack of beds on the border. Because they didn’t specifically fund an increase in beds. You can’t let them dictate what you do. > [@](#): > > Warren knows this. Warren is smart. I wouldn’t like to say that she’s politically calculating, but all successful politicians have to be, well, politically calculating. They have to know how to get the headlines and how to win over those who are paying attention sixteen months before an election: the activists. And this is what she’s done. Or the simpler explanation: what she said is what she mean. I’ve quoted her words. I have no reason to doubt that she actually did sit down to read the entirety of the Mueller Report and when she finished reading it she concluded that we should proceed with impeachment. > [@](#): > > My evidence: \*\*If Warren truly believes that impeaching now is the “right thing to do,” \*\*where are her public statements urging House members to vote for Rep. Green’s articles of impeachment? Where, on Warren’s site, does she voice support for Green’s initiative? Where is she on the record, from the moment Green filed on Tuesday night, saying that **Now Is the Time**? My evidence: the words she actually said. > [@](#): > > If she believed that impeaching now was smart, why _wouldn’t_ she be on the record calling for support for Green? > [@Warren on the 18th](#): > > This president is desperate. Calling out his racism, xenophobia, and misogyny is imperative. But he’s trying to divide us and distract from his own crimes, and from his deeply unpopular agenda of letting the wealthy and well-connected rip off the country. We must do more. > > We must call out those who remain silent. **We must initiate impeachment proceedings to hold him accountable.** And we must build an unstoppable grassroots movement that resoundingly defeats not just Trump, but complicit Republicans everywhere. > > [@](#): > > Elizabeth Warren knows that impeaching now would help Trump—if she _didn’t_ know that, she’d have been all over the media, urging support for Green, calling for votes on his articles. _If she believed that impeaching now was smart, she’d have done all she could to make sure that happened on Wednesday._ So you’ve deduced Warren is secretly on your side now? Is that where we are at? Really? She’s on the record. She doesn’t have to issue a statement “worded exactly the way you want it worded” to prove otherwise. > [@](#): > > Impeaching now is the wrong thing to do. I disagree, as do many others. > [@](#): > > It may become the right thing to do later. But “the right thing to do” is defined by its probable consequences. And there are possible consequences of not impeaching. Every decision has consequences. > [@](#): > > Responsible people don’t act without considering the consequences of their action. Responsible people don’t shirk from the duties of their office. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/337 "2019-07-20T02:49:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And what other reason is there? You’d rather have a nice little show to maybe embarrass trump- …I’m not after a “show”, and I don’t want to “embarass Trump.” > [@](#): > > who is about embarrassment, and then have him gloating about it for four more year in the White House? Just a couple of days ago the President of the United States presided over the equivalent of a white supremacist rally where the crowd yelled “send her back” to thunderous applause. I’m not really worried about the President “gloating.” > [@](#): > > The only reason for or against Impeachment is to get Trump out. Incorrect. I’ve cited both Warren and Amash: they’ve argued for impeachment on many different grounds, none of them predicated on “getting Trump out.” > [@](#): > > Right now, Impeachment wont do that, in fact quite likely the opposite. Except most of those making an argument for impeachment aren’t making it on the grounds of “getting Trump out.” > [@](#): > > But sure, you can have your months of drama on live TV at the hearings, then watch trump walk to re-election in 2020. But sure, we can not impeach and watch this clown-show continue on live TV then watch Trump walk to re-election in 2020. > [@](#): > > I’d prefer to get him out of office, then have him arrested and put in prison. Everyone of us here would prefer him out of office. How we get to that point is debatable. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/338 "2019-07-20T02:50:30Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > on 2nd thought Trump says he has no problem with the chants at the NC rally. Like we didn’t see this coming. He changed his mind the moment that he saw images of Omar being greeted by hundreds of supporters and the moment she defied him and said that she would be his “nightmare.” All of this aside, the thought that crossed my mind today was what would happen if there were a terrorist attack in this country? What would happen if there were a another Paris-style attack, but here? By demonizing people like Omar and Tlaib, we could have our very own Dreyfus affair. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/339 "2019-07-20T03:15:50Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > \ > > Incorrect. I’ve cited both Warren and Amash: they’ve argued for impeachment on many different grounds, none of them predicated on “getting Trump out.” > > \ And yet you conveniently overlook to mention the fact that Amash voted _against_ Al Green’s articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Why do you suppose that is? You keep making these arguments about what’s “political.” I submit to you that what’s “political” is simply what’s reality. When you can explain how to overcome [the math](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/16/1872094/-Pelosi-Isn-t-Calling-for-an-Impeachment-Vote-Because-Math) (Daily Kos), you may actually have something useful to say. The needle _is_ moving. That’s the idea, and it’s working. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068/340 "2019-07-20T03:40:38Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > And yet you conveniently overlook to mention the fact that Amash voted _against_ Al Green’s articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Why do you suppose that is? …there was nothing _convenient_ about it. You didn’t have to ascribe a motive to me not including something I didn’t even know about. His vote (on this particular measure) doesn’t change his arguement. DrDeth said “The only reason for or against Impeachment is to get Trump out.” Amash’s twitter post was proof that DrDeth’s argument was incorrect. > [@](#): > > You keep making these arguments about what’s “political.” I submit to you that what’s “political” is simply what’s reality. Nope. \*\*Political \*\*is the correct word for what I’m describing. Wanting not to impeach because someone thinks it might result in Trump winning again is as political as someone thinking impeaching might result in Trump losing. Neither is a “reality-based opinion.” > [@](#): > > When you can explain how to overcome [the math](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/16/1872094/-Pelosi-Isn-t-Calling-for-an-Impeachment-Vote-Because-Math) (Daily Kos), **you may actually have something useful to say.** I’m not clicking on your link to the Daily Kos because I often find they have nothing actually useful to say. However on this particular messageboard I have plenty of useful things to say, and I’m not going to stop saying them. > [@](#): > > The needle _is_ moving. That’s the idea, and it’s working. Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach. She doesn’t want the needle to move. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-tells-congreswomen-go-back-where-you-came-from/837068.md?page=18)