Trump's a coward, he wasn't ever going to spend a second longer in the White House than what he was allowed to. Even if his "people" made Washington a new CHAZ/CHOP, he wasn't going to be there with them.
Impeachment 2, the reckoning revenge redemption.
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
Doesn't really matter which one. Trump lead a riot, that should make people angry. The Dems cant do anything because they've been consistently portrayed in the media as evil. Only the Republicans can do something
It's not that they're evil. It's just the boy who cried wolf. If you impeach a guy for a phone call based on spite, and accuse a Judge of rape based on spite, and decline to fix DACA based on spite, the next attempt at removal, people are gonna believe it's still based on spite. That's pretty reasonable.
The U.S. needs to impeach a president (with something that resembles a reasonable cause, of course.) one of the greatest failings of the U.S. democratic system is that the president has never actually been forced out of office. Despite previous impeachments, no president was ever removed from office by the senate, thus rendering impeachment a fairly toothless threat.
For democracy to function it must be established that certain standards are to be adhered to, and that failing to do so will result in removal from office, not just impeachment, which doesn't affect the president directly.
Of course it can be argued that people can vote for or against a person, but ultimately that is a corrective measure that can be far removed from the actual incident, thus allowing the president to inflict further damage on the nation or to sweep any misdeeds under the rug.
Of course all of this hinges on representatives, and by extension voters, supporting a system in which the president is not immune to consequences, and so far there have never been a precedent of the president being held directly responsible for any act.
It can be argued that earlier impeachments have resulted in consequences similar to removal, but the fact that removal from office has never been formally enacted allows people to doubt that it might ever occur. Had any of the previous impeachees been removed from office the parties would have to consider the actual character of their candidates, not just their electability. Because at this point you needn't concern yourself with staying in office, only getting there. It is unlikely that Trump would have gotten a nomination in a world where the republican party would have to consider his past record and whether or not he would commit some impeachable offence based on said acts.
For democracy to function it must be established that certain standards are to be adhered to, and that failing to do so will result in removal from office, not just impeachment, which doesn't affect the president directly.
Of course it can be argued that people can vote for or against a person, but ultimately that is a corrective measure that can be far removed from the actual incident, thus allowing the president to inflict further damage on the nation or to sweep any misdeeds under the rug.
Of course all of this hinges on representatives, and by extension voters, supporting a system in which the president is not immune to consequences, and so far there have never been a precedent of the president being held directly responsible for any act.
It can be argued that earlier impeachments have resulted in consequences similar to removal, but the fact that removal from office has never been formally enacted allows people to doubt that it might ever occur. Had any of the previous impeachees been removed from office the parties would have to consider the actual character of their candidates, not just their electability. Because at this point you needn't concern yourself with staying in office, only getting there. It is unlikely that Trump would have gotten a nomination in a world where the republican party would have to consider his past record and whether or not he would commit some impeachable offence based on said acts.
I remember the phone call 2 electric boogaloo last weekend. Maybe election fraud by a president could have been stopped if someone held him account earlier for doing similar things.
But yes. Spite. That could be the only reason. Not breaking laws or anything.
EDIT: just to be clear about your other nonsense.
How many supreme justice did Trump get through? How many were accused of rape? Is it a one to one ratio? Oh, was it more about there being an actual case against Kavanaugh? What a surprise ...
Fix DACA? Obama did a bad enough job on that. Doing a Trump on it wasn't going to make it better
Last edited:
I was actually going to bring up the tea party because the rise of Trump ism feels like a continuation of that decline. But yeah, the nutjobs always just seem to commandeer the party, I think it would probably take a more decisive loss for the moderates to ever abandon the extremists hit the extremists might get fed up with the republicans not actively seeking a new civil war.
Ah cool. The reporting always just shows how many seats the two parties got compared to each other.
Trumpism is I think an evolution from the Tea Party.
Pragmatically, the Republican Party had to co-opt the Tea Party as it was strong enough to disintegrate their electoral chances if they didn't (especially if the Tea Party ran third party candidates), and it provided them a highly activist base to help with campaigning. Undoubtedly that was the formal embrace of a much stronger variant of anti-government sentiment, open hostility to the Democrats, and generally kookiness. As that Overton window shifted within the party, so could other, further reaches of extremism be enabled, thus Trumpism - and it is the Tea Party faithful who seem to have been most receptive.
I think a significant part of the Tea Party was astroturf from wealthy libertarians (Koch bros, etc.) as way of helping keep the right in power. They must have looked at Obama, his margin of victory and the ACA with a great deal of concern, and they wanted to prepare a fightback. I cannot help but suspect they are now looking at their work with some chagrin, as it has ended up mutating out of their control into Republican voters who look very much like they are willing to impede business in various ways that the "old" Republican Party would not. I'm not sure they can put that genie back in the bottle.
The phone call 2 was just as dumb as the phone call 1. Donald Trump says a lot of words, and if you read into them in the most malicious way, you can pretend he's threatening people with powers he doesn't have through subtlety he isn't capable of. Alternatively, if you read into his words in the opposite direction, you can invent a narrative about how he's going be president forever and banish all the pedophiles from DC.
Perhaps, it would be wiser not to look for secret coded instructions in the words of the world's most prominent buffoon.
Why? The Demographics aren't the same. The policy positions aren't the same. The leadership figures aren't the same. What is the connection you're seeing?
No one really believed that ''guy and his phone call'' really were impeached out of ''spite'' though. Its widely known he was impeached for trying to blackmail the Ukranian president to intervene in the election. Even Trump's cronies in the Senate more or less admitted he did it, and that they just didn't impeach him because they didn't want to do it.
Doubt anyone really believes in the good virtues of mister Kavanaugh either.
You believe what you want to believe. But Trump didn't blackmail Ukraine and Kavanaugh didn't rape Dr. Ford. Most people were against impeaching Trump, and many of the people who were couldn't tell you why he was being impeached, they just wanted Trump out. I still have to explain that impeachment to people.
And if you'd like the most undeniable evidence that the American public sees that impeachment as total bullcrap, take a look at how often it was brought up against him in the campaign. Oh, basically never? It was a losing issue for Democrats that just make is look like they were persecuting Trump for spite? And bringing it up would have hurt them in the campaign? Exactly.
The demographics are the same. Research shows a clear correlation between strength of support for the Tea Party and strength of support for Trump. Effectively, the Tea Party morphed into his core.
By looking at policy, you're looking at the wrong thing. You want to think more about attitudes: anti-government, anti-establishment, anti-Obama, xenophobic; angry, suspicious, confrontational. Trump made them feel like he stood for them - the specific policy stuff is a lesser concern.
No, you believe what you believe, because the evidence points far more strongly at the fact that he did. There can be no doubt by now from the reports and testimonies of people involved that something was very wrong about what Trump and his associates were up to in Ukraine. Never mind that it is completely consistent with the decades-long pattern of Trump's lack of moral compass.
I googled this to find what you were talking about, and oh my God that research is misguided.
What I'm looking at: https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...h-gop-supporters-have-roots-in-the-tea-party/
The problem might not be immediate obvious to those who didn't live through the Tea Party, but their metric was who supported the Tea Party movement in 2014-2015. That's like asking people if the think a team is good after they won the Super Bowl. By 2014, the Tea Party was just mainstream Republicanism. That question is like asking "how do you feel about the Republican Party" and then being surprised to see those same people supporting a candidate and president with an R next to his name. And like, further down the page, it shows people who didn't support the Tea Party were more likely to defect to the Democrats and it should be pretty obvious at that point that they aren't measuring what they think they are.
Like, if they wanted to pull that data from when the Tea Party was actually a distinct, identifiable group, then maybe it would mean something.
Do you not remember when like 6 days into the controversy I said "wait, what if Trump was being fed the information from Ukraine rather than vice versa", and months later we found out that the Prosecutor General of Ukraine was feeding the information to Giuliani, and Trump asking the Ukrainians to look into it was basically him saying "you're telling me these things, figure it out yourselves."