Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Pelosi and the Dems do impeachment if nothing changes because not enough Republicans will vote to convict?
Politics is like 90% messaging
Also messaging is really easy when it’s “death of the Republic” type of stuff
Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Pelosi and the Dems do impeachment if nothing changes because not enough Republicans will vote to convict?
It's just politics at that point, but it does directly tie the Republican party as a whole to an armed insurrection, as well to whatever else Trump pulls in the near future.
Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Pelosi and the Dems do impeachment if nothing changes because not enough Republicans will vote to convict?
Politics is like 90% messaging
What message do you think would ring louder:
Pursue impeachment and expulsions once the new Congress is seated
Or
Delivering relief to average people relating to the economy and covid-19
To me I have no doubt which of these priorities is more important - you don't worry about your bills when your house is burning down around you - but what's going to matter more to most voters?
Edit: I know you're not responsible for/don't run shit but I'm curious to know which one is going to play better to the masses.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Pelosi and the Dems do impeachment if nothing changes because not enough Republicans will vote to convict?
It is, generally, a bad look when your reaction to a mob incited to attack you is “well... I guess we’ll just move on then.”
Especially when it’s a known element that said mob is now planning another go at it in a week, according to a major social media firm.
And also like normal business is kind of meaningless when the fuckos can show up on your doorstep and disrupt your “normal business” with little consequence whenever they feel like it
Impeachment in the house will happen then Dems will say we can't convict right now so push it out and get Biden in office and do Xyz urgent things then we'll have the senate trial and blah blah evidence but in April it will be "too distracting" to continue and besides, Trump is gone anyway.
How you get people to polls in 2022 by being the cowardly adult in the room is beyond me.
How do you look at how republicans handle scandals for decades and learn zero Fucking lessons.
“Well you literally charged into the legislative seat for the nation with the intent to do god only knows what to us, with our saving grace literally being 10 feet to an open door where we were evacuating and the fact y’all were able to be fooled into chasing a cop who realized there was literally ten feet between us and diverted you so we could escape.
But our colleagues are much too a mix of chicken shit and conniving bastards who think they will be pyromancers if they keep playing with fire enough to actually do anything, so we’re just gonna pretend things are fine now.”
Forbes reporter. Going with a resolution to request Pence to invoke the 25th, then 24 hours, then impeachment.
Which is silly because he's not going to do it. But maybe Kinzinger insisted and they wanted a couple Republican votes.
Pelosi already called on Pence to invoke the 25th, before the weekend!
This is a stalling tactic, and it's why I've kept fucking saying that talk is fucking cheap and I'm not going to trust what people like Pelosi or Schumer until they actually do the damn thing!
The 14th amendment being how you would get 2/3 to convict as far as I can see.
Expel those that participated in inciting the insurrection and then hold the vote.
At its most generous interpretation (expelling all 12 who planned on voting to reject at least one state; as opposed to those who ended up doing so), that would make the required vote 59, I think.
More realistically it would be the 8 who ended up voting for one, which means you need 62.
Most realistically you get just Cruz and Hawley, leaving you needing 66.
Just need to implement Phalla logic.
You defend the insurrectionists, you're an insurrectionist.
Maybe bring all the Republicans back into the chamber after the impeachment conviction.
Impeachment in the house will happen then Dems will say we can't convict right now so push it out and get Biden in office and do Xyz urgent things then we'll have the senate trial and blah blah evidence but in April it will be "too distracting" to continue and besides, Trump is gone anyway.
How you get people to polls in 2022 by being the cowardly adult in the room is beyond me.
How do you look at how republicans handle scandals for decades and learn zero Fucking lessons.
for like the billionth time, it may be not the best choice to set the date 100 days from now, but once the date is set, it cannot be ignored
Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Pelosi and the Dems do impeachment if nothing changes because not enough Republicans will vote to convict?
Politics is like 90% messaging
What message do you think would ring louder:
Pursue impeachment and expulsions once the new Congress is seated
Or
Delivering relief to average people relating to the economy and covid-19
To me I have no doubt which of these priorities is more important - you don't worry about your bills when your house is burning down around you - but what's going to matter more to most voters?
Edit: I know you're not responsible for/don't run shit but I'm curious to know which one is going to play better to the masses.
THESE ARE BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS
CONGRESS IS CAPABLE OF DOING BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS.
FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE STARS IN THE COSMOS, WE DON’T HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN “STOP COVID RELATED DEATHS AND MISERY” AND “STOP FASCISM”
This isn’t the fucking intro to Saints Row the IV.
Fuckin’ Keith David walks up to Nancy Pelosi and asks her if she wants to put forward the Fuck COVID bill or the Fuck Fascism bill. You cannot choose both, apparently, because the game designers of America thought that would be a quaint riff on US politics that way.
Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Pelosi and the Dems do impeachment if nothing changes because not enough Republicans will vote to convict?
Politics is like 90% messaging
What message do you think would ring louder:
Pursue impeachment and expulsions once the new Congress is seated
Or
Delivering relief to average people relating to the economy and covid-19
To me I have no doubt which of these priorities is more important - you don't worry about your bills when your house is burning down around you - but what's going to matter more to most voters?
Edit: I know you're not responsible for/don't run shit but I'm curious to know which one is going to play better to the masses.
THESE ARE BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS
CONGRESS IS CAPABLE OF DOING BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS.
FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE STARS IN THE COSMOS, WE DON’T HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN “STOP COVID RELATED DEATHS AND MISERY” AND “STOP FASCISM”
This isn’t the fucking intro to Saints Row the IV.
“You can either save the Republic... or AMERICAN LIVES!
Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Pelosi and the Dems do impeachment if nothing changes because not enough Republicans will vote to convict?
Politics is like 90% messaging
What message do you think would ring louder:
Pursue impeachment and expulsions once the new Congress is seated
Or
Delivering relief to average people relating to the economy and covid-19
To me I have no doubt which of these priorities is more important - you don't worry about your bills when your house is burning down around you - but what's going to matter more to most voters?
Edit: I know you're not responsible for/don't run shit but I'm curious to know which one is going to play better to the masses.
THESE ARE BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS
CONGRESS IS CAPABLE OF DOING BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS.
FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE STARS IN THE COSMOS, WE DON’T HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN “STOP COVID RELATED DEATHS AND MISERY” AND “STOP FASCISM”
This isn’t the fucking intro to Saints Row the IV.
“You can either save the Republic... or AMERICAN LIVES!
NOW CHOOSE, SPIDER MAN!”
Spoiler: Both he saved both of them. Because he realized weird binary choices were fucking Trolley Problem bullshit and didn’t actually exist in regards to the practical application of his capacity to help others
A member of the Democratic party should have been standing in the middle of the Senate calling Republicans fucking cowards. That's the appropriate response. All the hand wringing and harrumphing makes me want to storm the fucking place and scream at them.
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
If what you want is an impeachment trial immediately it is a weird binary because the Senate can't do a damn thing till the trial is over.
The only way to "both" it would be to run a bunch of investigations while delaying the trial. Which still leaves questions about how effective the delayed vote will be.
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
The fucking political capital argument was ludicrous when it was about choosing between necessary policy measures that could both be implemented should Congress choose to pursue them instead of the bizarre, nihilistic, and defeatist attitude inherent to political capital arguments.
When posited as an unavoidable choice between necessary policy and the defense of a democratic organ against a fascist putsch it is suicidal.
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
If it's true the Senate can't do anything else while impeachment is running... they do kinda have to pick one.
But is it true?
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
If it's true the Senate can't do anything else while impeachment is running... they do kinda have to pick one.
But is it true?
arguable as it only stops Senate business for a sitting President, but if it started when the President was the sitting President and continues after he's no longer the sitting President, then
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
If it's true the Senate can't do anything else while impeachment is running... they do kinda have to pick one.
But is it true?
As we've already seen, the Senate proceedings dont need to be lengthy.
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
Genuine question, can the Senate take up other business during the trial?
My assumption was no, they can not.
And if it's not clear, my question was a matter of ordering, not choosing.
We must do both, but if the Senate is shut down during the trial, the question becomes which fire do you put out first
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
If it's true the Senate can't do anything else while impeachment is running... they do kinda have to pick one.
But is it true?
There is nothing I am aware of that constitutionally mandates that during Impeachment that the Senate can only do Impeachment Shit.
Devote half your day to the impeachment, devote half your day to COVID shit, I don’t fucking know how you want to divvy up the time but humans are very capable of doing multiple tasks in a single fucking day each day at a time
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
If it's true the Senate can't do anything else while impeachment is running... they do kinda have to pick one.
But is it true?
If they're the sitting president, yes. If they're a cabinet official or the former president, my understanding from reading people who know things is no, the Senate can do other stuff as well.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
Genuine question, can the Senate take up other business during the trial?
My assumption was no, they can not.
And if it's not clear, my question was a matter of ordering, not choosing.
We must do both, but if the Senate is shut down during the trial, the question becomes which fire do you put out first
Existential threat to the republic, or not-existential threat to the republic
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
If it's true the Senate can't do anything else while impeachment is running... they do kinda have to pick one.
But is it true?
If they're the sitting president, yes. If they're a cabinet official or the former president, my understanding from reading people who know things is no, the Senate can do other stuff as well.
But is this constitutional, or is this the MUCH more malleable realm of Senate Rules? Because I have no recollection that the constitution demands that during Impeachment that the impeachment be the sole focus of the Senate’s attention
Lanz on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Both major legislative bodies constantly do piles and piles of work on bills in parallel and simultaneously. That's why there are committees and shit, so they can break the work down and do a couple dozen things at once instead of tying an entire chamber to working on one thing at a time. Even if they just split the Democrat legislator numbers down the middle in each chamber to work on just COVID relief and just the impeachment, that would be pretty overkill for what they normally do to get things done.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Both major legislative bodies constantly do piles and piles of work on bills in parallel and simultaneously. That's why there are committees and shit, so they can break the work down and do a couple dozen things at once instead of tying an entire chamber to working on one thing at a time. Even if they just split the Democrat legislator numbers down the middle in each chamber to work on just COVID relief and just the impeachment, that would be pretty overkill for what they normally do to get things done.
impeachment is different
it's not a choice
but it is likely not the case that it matters if the trial is after Trump is no longer President
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
There’s nothing in here that indicates that impeachment shall be the sole focus of the attention of the Senate during the impeachment process, so I’m going to guess then that this is Senate Rules shit, which can be changed by the majority of the Senate, if it’s even actually a thing to begin with other than just yet another fucking norm.
Why are we being made to debate what seems to be a false choice, other than to invite recalcitrance in the face of, again, a literal fascist putsch and subsequent planned putsches because we’re scared the Republicans will do a mean thing again
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
Genuine question, can the Senate take up other business during the trial?
My assumption was no, they can not.
And if it's not clear, my question was a matter of ordering, not choosing.
We must do both, but if the Senate is shut down during the trial, the question becomes which fire do you put out first
Existential threat to the republic, or not-existential threat to the republic
gee, this is really tough to triage
Hey Orca, I've indicated in every post pretty much I believe impeachment should come first. It's what I would do if my choice mattered.
I'm asking for an opinion on what people think the better political decision is*
*A decision I thought necessary due to parliamentary bullshit
This is the part of the post where I break my resolution
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Democrats will control and House, Senate, and White House. I dont need to hear any arguments about how we have to pick either relief checks or impeachment.
Genuine question, can the Senate take up other business during the trial?
My assumption was no, they can not.
And if it's not clear, my question was a matter of ordering, not choosing.
We must do both, but if the Senate is shut down during the trial, the question becomes which fire do you put out first
Existential threat to the republic, or not-existential threat to the republic
gee, this is really tough to triage
Hey Orca, I've indicated in every post pretty much I believe impeachment should come first. It's what I would do if my choice mattered.
I'm asking for an opinion on what people think the better political decision is*
*A decision I thought necessary due to parliamentary bullshit
This is the part of the post where I break my resolution
My answer doesn't change. Sounds like the arithmetic does for Pelosi et. al, or they wouldn't be mooting a 100 day pause.
Tump's followers will not be sitting around for 100 days. They will definitely commit acts of terror.
I'm 100% expecting some shit to go down on or right before inauguration day. Maybe not in DC now but something.
Yeah, the 6th was intense, there has been a weird lull for a few days, but I am definitely going to be feeling a lot better after inauguration. Not because something can't happen after, but because people are going to try something before.
There was an armed mass at the Kentucky Governor's mansion threatening Beshear just yesterday.
This shit isn’t just the national Capitol.
This shit is happening around the country.
Hell, before this, terrorists planned to kidnap the governor of Michigan, seize the state capitol, and hold and broadcast live executions of state legislators.
We just keep fucking moving on, moving on, moving on past every escalating step in a right wing terror movement, and then getting shocked and flabbergasted when there’s another goddamn one, bigger than the last.
No fucking shit, because we don’t do jack to stop it and we keep coddling the Republicans officials and media figures inciting it
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
There’s nothing in here that indicates that impeachment shall be the sole focus of the attention of the Senate during the impeachment process, so I’m going to guess then that this is Senate Rules shit, which can be changed by the majority of the Senate, if it’s even actually a thing to begin with other than just yet another fucking norm.
Why are we being made to debate what seems to be a false choice, other than to invite recalcitrance in the face of, again, a literal fascist putsch and subsequent planned putsches because we’re scared the Republicans will do a mean thing again
It would be a real fucking bad look for Democratic senators to be skipping out on impeachment hearings. While multiple things can and should be going on, while there are impeachment hearings going on, every senator damn well better be at them, and giving them their full attention.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
There’s nothing in here that indicates that impeachment shall be the sole focus of the attention of the Senate during the impeachment process, so I’m going to guess then that this is Senate Rules shit, which can be changed by the majority of the Senate, if it’s even actually a thing to begin with other than just yet another fucking norm.
Why are we being made to debate what seems to be a false choice, other than to invite recalcitrance in the face of, again, a literal fascist putsch and subsequent planned putsches because we’re scared the Republicans will do a mean thing again
We're not being made to debate anything, but it's not exactly a giant leap to get to that position considering how two of the three impeachments in our history - which most of us here lived through - have gone.
At the end of the day were all fairly like minded but also bored and self absorbed in a way that makes it more rewarding to take everything as a personal affront.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
There’s nothing in here that indicates that impeachment shall be the sole focus of the attention of the Senate during the impeachment process, so I’m going to guess then that this is Senate Rules shit, which can be changed by the majority of the Senate, if it’s even actually a thing to begin with other than just yet another fucking norm.
Why are we being made to debate what seems to be a false choice, other than to invite recalcitrance in the face of, again, a literal fascist putsch and subsequent planned putsches because we’re scared the Republicans will do a mean thing again
It would be a real fucking bad look for Democratic senators to be skipping out on impeachment hearings. While multiple things can and should be going on, while there are impeachment hearings going on, every senator damn well better be at them, and giving them their full attention.
You hold the hearing during set hours of the day.
Everyone is there.
You adjourn for the day after a set amount of time.
You return to the rest of the shit that is on fire after that.
Humans are capable of performing multiple tasks in a day, in sequence, this is not a controversial or innovative thing.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
There’s nothing in here that indicates that impeachment shall be the sole focus of the attention of the Senate during the impeachment process, so I’m going to guess then that this is Senate Rules shit, which can be changed by the majority of the Senate, if it’s even actually a thing to begin with other than just yet another fucking norm.
Why are we being made to debate what seems to be a false choice, other than to invite recalcitrance in the face of, again, a literal fascist putsch and subsequent planned putsches because we’re scared the Republicans will do a mean thing again
It would be a real fucking bad look for Democratic senators to be skipping out on impeachment hearings. While multiple things can and should be going on, while there are impeachment hearings going on, every senator damn well better be at them, and giving them their full attention.
You hold the hearing during set hours of the day.
Everyone is there.
You adjourn for the day after a set amount of time.
You return to the rest of the shit that is on fire after that.
Humans are capable of performing multiple tasks in a day, in sequence, this is not a controversial or innovative thing.
If I can be expected to work a 50-60 hour work week, and I am not in fact leading the nation and literally writing law into existence, so can Congress
Posts
Also messaging is really easy when it’s “death of the Republic” type of stuff
It's just politics at that point, but it does directly tie the Republican party as a whole to an armed insurrection, as well to whatever else Trump pulls in the near future.
What message do you think would ring louder:
Pursue impeachment and expulsions once the new Congress is seated
Or
Delivering relief to average people relating to the economy and covid-19
To me I have no doubt which of these priorities is more important - you don't worry about your bills when your house is burning down around you - but what's going to matter more to most voters?
Edit: I know you're not responsible for/don't run shit but I'm curious to know which one is going to play better to the masses.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It is, generally, a bad look when your reaction to a mob incited to attack you is “well... I guess we’ll just move on then.”
Especially when it’s a known element that said mob is now planning another go at it in a week, according to a major social media firm.
And also like normal business is kind of meaningless when the fuckos can show up on your doorstep and disrupt your “normal business” with little consequence whenever they feel like it
How you get people to polls in 2022 by being the cowardly adult in the room is beyond me.
How do you look at how republicans handle scandals for decades and learn zero Fucking lessons.
But our colleagues are much too a mix of chicken shit and conniving bastards who think they will be pyromancers if they keep playing with fire enough to actually do anything, so we’re just gonna pretend things are fine now.”
Not... a healthy state for democracy
Pelosi already called on Pence to invoke the 25th, before the weekend!
This is a stalling tactic, and it's why I've kept fucking saying that talk is fucking cheap and I'm not going to trust what people like Pelosi or Schumer until they actually do the damn thing!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Just need to implement Phalla logic.
You defend the insurrectionists, you're an insurrectionist.
Maybe bring all the Republicans back into the chamber after the impeachment conviction.
I Don't expect this to happen though.
for like the billionth time, it may be not the best choice to set the date 100 days from now, but once the date is set, it cannot be ignored
the trial is required to begin on that date
You can lose a vote in the short term but have it lead to victories long term. And "victory" here is stopping the next attack.
THESE ARE BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS
CONGRESS IS CAPABLE OF DOING BOTH IMPORTANT THINGS.
FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE STARS IN THE COSMOS, WE DON’T HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN “STOP COVID RELATED DEATHS AND MISERY” AND “STOP FASCISM”
This isn’t the fucking intro to Saints Row the IV.
What the fuck
“You can either save the Republic... or AMERICAN LIVES!
NOW CHOOSE, SPIDER MAN!”
Spoiler: Both he saved both of them. Because he realized weird binary choices were fucking Trolley Problem bullshit and didn’t actually exist in regards to the practical application of his capacity to help others
The only way to "both" it would be to run a bunch of investigations while delaying the trial. Which still leaves questions about how effective the delayed vote will be.
The fucking political capital argument was ludicrous when it was about choosing between necessary policy measures that could both be implemented should Congress choose to pursue them instead of the bizarre, nihilistic, and defeatist attitude inherent to political capital arguments.
When posited as an unavoidable choice between necessary policy and the defense of a democratic organ against a fascist putsch it is suicidal.
If it's true the Senate can't do anything else while impeachment is running... they do kinda have to pick one.
But is it true?
arguable as it only stops Senate business for a sitting President, but if it started when the President was the sitting President and continues after he's no longer the sitting President, then
shrugmoji
As we've already seen, the Senate proceedings dont need to be lengthy.
Genuine question, can the Senate take up other business during the trial?
My assumption was no, they can not.
And if it's not clear, my question was a matter of ordering, not choosing.
We must do both, but if the Senate is shut down during the trial, the question becomes which fire do you put out first
Come Overwatch with meeeee
There is nothing I am aware of that constitutionally mandates that during Impeachment that the Senate can only do Impeachment Shit.
Devote half your day to the impeachment, devote half your day to COVID shit, I don’t fucking know how you want to divvy up the time but humans are very capable of doing multiple tasks in a single fucking day each day at a time
If they're the sitting president, yes. If they're a cabinet official or the former president, my understanding from reading people who know things is no, the Senate can do other stuff as well.
Existential threat to the republic, or not-existential threat to the republic
gee, this is really tough to triage
But is this constitutional, or is this the MUCH more malleable realm of Senate Rules? Because I have no recollection that the constitution demands that during Impeachment that the impeachment be the sole focus of the Senate’s attention
impeachment is different
it's not a choice
but it is likely not the case that it matters if the trial is after Trump is no longer President
There’s nothing in here that indicates that impeachment shall be the sole focus of the attention of the Senate during the impeachment process, so I’m going to guess then that this is Senate Rules shit, which can be changed by the majority of the Senate, if it’s even actually a thing to begin with other than just yet another fucking norm.
Why are we being made to debate what seems to be a false choice, other than to invite recalcitrance in the face of, again, a literal fascist putsch and subsequent planned putsches because we’re scared the Republicans will do a mean thing again
Unless, as ebum is pondering, this was an ask to get some R senators on board, it seems kind of a waste of time
There is not, particularly given that the 25th has a grand total of four days to last unless approved by congress
Hey Orca, I've indicated in every post pretty much I believe impeachment should come first. It's what I would do if my choice mattered.
I'm asking for an opinion on what people think the better political decision is*
*A decision I thought necessary due to parliamentary bullshit
This is the part of the post where I break my resolution
Come Overwatch with meeeee
My answer doesn't change. Sounds like the arithmetic does for Pelosi et. al, or they wouldn't be mooting a 100 day pause.
This shit isn’t just the national Capitol.
This shit is happening around the country.
Hell, before this, terrorists planned to kidnap the governor of Michigan, seize the state capitol, and hold and broadcast live executions of state legislators.
We Have A Significant Problem
No fucking shit, because we don’t do jack to stop it and we keep coddling the Republicans officials and media figures inciting it
It would be a real fucking bad look for Democratic senators to be skipping out on impeachment hearings. While multiple things can and should be going on, while there are impeachment hearings going on, every senator damn well better be at them, and giving them their full attention.
We're not being made to debate anything, but it's not exactly a giant leap to get to that position considering how two of the three impeachments in our history - which most of us here lived through - have gone.
At the end of the day were all fairly like minded but also bored and self absorbed in a way that makes it more rewarding to take everything as a personal affront.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
You hold the hearing during set hours of the day.
Everyone is there.
You adjourn for the day after a set amount of time.
You return to the rest of the shit that is on fire after that.
Humans are capable of performing multiple tasks in a day, in sequence, this is not a controversial or innovative thing.
If I can be expected to work a 50-60 hour work week, and I am not in fact leading the nation and literally writing law into existence, so can Congress