It is a pretty straight line from “Lock her up” through “Send her back” to “String her up”. I would never advocate such a thing but these folks would be awful easy to “Borat” into chanting that at one of his rallies.
Trump saw that Pelosi was facing criticism from AOC that Faux interpreted as being an accusation of racism, and had to act! “You think that’s racist? I’ll show you how a real 'murican racist does it. Hold my diet coke.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but impeachment doesn’t remove the president, correct? So what would a successful impeachment actually do in terms of useful results?
Black Georgia state legislator told to go back to where she came from.
We live in a post-Jussie Smollett world. Without proof most people will doubt this story, aside from partisans predisposed to believe it.
Don’t know what “most people” think. Do you?
And yet when there’s video and audio of Trump, it’s “fake news!”
Depends on how you define “useful.” Any Senator who votes to acquit Trump would be treated as being on record as supporting the things he did and said, regardless of what the Senator’s announced positions were. This could be important in Senate races.
Also, if, somehow, they can get enough Republicans to vote “guilty” so they have at least 51, the Democrats can play the “A majority of Senators voted him out; it’s your turn to show the world that we are a democracy on election day” card.
“Successful” means that the charges made in the articles of impeachment are tried in the Senate, and the result is a vote to convict the person being impeached (on those charges).
This hasn’t yet happened to an American president. In both cases (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) in which articles of impeachment were adopted by the House and forwarded to the Senate, the Senate failed to convict.
Impeachment, as of now, would be 235 Democrats (more or less) rejecting Donald Trump. Whereas a 2020 electoral defeat would be millions of Americans rejecting Donald Trump.
To many, the latter seems more legitimate. Even in the unlikely event of a change of view among GOP Senators, such that twenty of them would vote to convict, the result would still be—fundamentally—a few hundred members of Congress removing Trump. Having a few million Americans remove him would, from some perspectives, be preferable as an exercise in democracy.
Your entire post is well-reasoned and quotable, but this bit is particularly astute–and chilling.
They’d need 67 votes to convict in the Senate, assuming all 100 Senators vote, so at least 20 Republicans would have to go against Trump.
I’m from your neighbour up north, so I appreciate the clarification. Cheers
Seems like a fancy way of saying that believing and propagating stereotypes isn’t helpful.
Latinos for Trump was organized by Mike Pence. It’s not a grassroots organization.
Actually, I was trying to cite an article from 2013, when Ann Wagner was seen as trying to open the Republican tent a little wider for women.
Now Ann Wagner is a Trump parrothead who won’t hold town meetings in her own district because suburban soccer moms keep trying to ask her about affordable health care, and whose last experience with diversity was when she worked for Hallmark in the 1980s when they were trying to squeeze in a few more non-lily-white greeting cards.
Classic. Both parties involved sound like problem seekers.
I’m not sure anyone’s responses made it clear that if the House votes to impeach (requiring just a simple majority), and the Senate votes to convict (requiring 2/3 or 67 votes), that does actually remove the president from office.
ETA: There is a shorthand used by journalists and people on forums like this that “if the House impeaches, it won’t actually remove the president”. It looks like they need to periodically note that this is only because no one thinks 20 Republicans will vote to convict. Not that it is actually institutionally impossible to remove him.
Understood, but there really are Latinos who see no problem with Trump and they’re not just bitter ex-Cubans in Florida. There are 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican-Americans who don’t identify with more recent immigrants, who believe that undocumented immigrants are whiny and they should go back to Mexico and come back legally. I agree that they’re far from the majority, but they exist. Not everyone can be tucked into a category.
Asahi, a close acquaintance is a (first-generation) Mexican American enthusiastic Trump supporter. She’s in the real estate business, and somehow thought that would make for a great president, or something. Also it’s about “we went through all the paperwork hoops to become legal residents and then citizens — why should we support unfair shortcuts?”. She’s a middle class citizen with little common with the desperate Central Americans of the caravans and such.
Yeah, and I think it’s also “We’re the good Latinos; the people you see on TV aren’t.” We can find people of any race, any background, either gender sometimes who don’t want to be categorized, who don’t want to see themselves as part of a demographic, and I get that. The problem that many of them will eventually encounter is that whites (or whatever the ethnic majority may be) will eventually remind them that they’re just as much “the other” as anyone else.
Totally.