If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that.
Okay, this.
It was always going to be (pointless?) theater. The sides have been chosen, and aren't budging.
Did it, or would it have, move(d) the needle significantly for any of the undecideds some people tell me are still out there? I doubt it, personally.
Is it still right to do the right thing even if it doesn't matter in the end? Probably. But don't, IMO, let it be a distraction from doing good things that will make a difference.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that.
Okay, this.
It was always going to be (pointless?) theater. The sides have been chosen, and aren't budging.
Did it, or would it have, move(d) the needle significantly for any of the undefcideds some people tell me are still out there? I doubt it, personally.
Is it still right to do the right thing even if it doesn't matter in the end? Probably. But don't, IMO, let it be a distraction from doing good things that will make a difference.
Such as? (Glances at filibuster, then at all the pieces of key and significant legislature sitting there unpassed.)
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that.
Okay, this.
It was always going to be (pointless?) theater. The sides have been chosen, and aren't budging.
Did it, or would it have, move(d) the needle significantly for any of the undefcideds some people tell me are still out there? I doubt it, personally.
Is it still right to do the right thing even if it doesn't matter in the end? Probably. But don't, IMO, let it be a distraction from doing good things that will make a difference.
Such as? (Glances at filibuster, then at all the pieces of key and significant legislature sitting there unpassed.)
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
Honestly seven Republican Senators is four or five more than I ever expected to vote to convict and I fail to see where even one more vote would come from.
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
Honestly seven Republican Senators is four or five more than I ever expected to vote to convict and I fail to see where even one more vote would come from.
Hold the vote at 2 AM on January 7. By the next week conservative media had figured out some talking points and they all rallied around them like they always do. The only chance was to do it in the immediate shock of the event where the reaction was purely visceral.
Still unlikely, but the only chance.
Generally speaking, the two impeachments were absolutely garbage politics. The first one was on a narrow issue of Ukraine and not the dozen other more obvious and more digestible ideas for the public. The second was a farce where Democrats unilaterally disarmed themselves because otherwise Mitch might be obstructionist or some shit. And now they're going to have to beg for the ability to call the same witnesses they could have called in February with this ridiculous fucking bipartisan commission.
Democratic leadership is cowardly and believes it is always 1984 - 1994.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
As I recall conservatives had talking points deployed before the traitors even left the building. The people inside just hadn't had time to get ahold of them yet.
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
That's making the assumption that not doing anything would not have disenthused Democratic voters, and I'm not convinced that couldn't have happened.
"Fuck it, he'll get off anyway, no point even trying to hold him to account,let them keep stacking the courts", isn't an inspiring message.
I mean, it's a hypothetical, but I think it's possible that trying kept some voters on the left from going "why bother", even if it didn't switch voters from the right.
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited May 2021
Yeah, just to be clear, Trump cancelling the Press Briefings doesn't show any strength, but that he has no idea what press briefings are actually for.
Hold the vote at 2 AM on January 7. By the next week conservative media had figured out some talking points and they all rallied around them like they always do. The only chance was to do it in the immediate shock of the event where the reaction was purely visceral.
So you mean hold the vote before they have a chance to collect and process evidence directly connecting Donald Trump to the events?
Great idea, and I'm sure that the republicans wouldn't hide behind the lack of evidence to justify their "no" votes at all, or insisted that it was antifa because they saw a report on FOX news..
Schrodinger on
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Hold the vote at 2 AM on January 7. By the next week conservative media had figured out some talking points and they all rallied around them like they always do. The only chance was to do it in the immediate shock of the event where the reaction was purely visceral.
So you mean hold the vote before they have a chance to collect and process evidence directly connecting Donald Trump to the events?
Great idea, and I'm sure that the republicans wouldn't hide behind the lack of evidence to justify their "no" votes at all..
I believe that the only way to succeed in getting the impeachment conviction would be to hold the trial as immediately as possible.
I also believe that the Republicans would have weaseled out no matter what we did.
I think we got the 'best' result we could have, given the circumstances, but it's all still shit and I am supremely disappointed in the system as a result.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I believe that the only way to succeed in getting the impeachment conviction would be to hold the trial as immediately as possible.
That's not how convictions work.
That's why "right to speedy trial" exists. Because if prosecutors could make convictions more likely simply by holding the trial immediately, then all of them would be doing that.
Hell, you actually give the republicans leeway. "We don't know whether or not Trump is guilty, because gosh darnit, there wasn't enough evidence. But in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, which is why we voted no."
I believe that the only way to succeed in getting the impeachment conviction would be to hold the trial as immediately as possible.
That's not how convictions work.
That's why "right to speedy trial" exists. Because if prosecutors could make convictions more likely simply by holding the trial immediately, then all of them would be doing that.
Hell, you actually give the republicans leeway. "We don't know whether or not Trump is guilty, because gosh darnit, there wasn't enough evidence. But in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, which is why we voted no."
Impeachment is not a judicial process; "speedy trial" doesn't apply there.
+16
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I believe that the only way to succeed in getting the impeachment conviction would be to hold the trial as immediately as possible.
That's not how convictions work.
That's why "right to speedy trial" exists. Because if prosecutors could make convictions more likely simply by holding the trial immediately, then all of them would be doing that.
Hell, you actually give the republicans leeway. "We don't know whether or not Trump is guilty, because gosh darnit, there wasn't enough evidence. But in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, which is why we voted no."
I mean, prosecutors generally are fine with speedy trials because they tend to have their shit in order before they bring an indictment.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
As I recall conservatives had talking points deployed before the traitors even left the building. The people inside just hadn't had time to get ahold of them yet.
the inside people were all in on the antifa was inside the building bullshit immediately after
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
The shift for Republicans was that here party wouldn't convict their own president which Nixon was in danger of, Trump is proof they succeeded. It took decades to do this; the Democrats had two months window with Trump. You're not ignorant of how bad he Republicans are yet your argument is that being a conviction for them about the coup is easier to do than getting a cop convicted in a trial. It's preposterous.
All for this when you don't seem concerned about the impeachment itself over than blaming Democrats for losing, the links to the impeachment didn't change anything from your opinion. If it wasn't eye witnesses it'd be something else to blame Democrats for because they lost, instead of Republicans - the party responsible for unleashing a bunch of terrorists on congress. Where's the empathy for Democrats? There's none.
You posts have been evading the changes in society in politics since the 70s, and make Trump himself identical in his crimes too Nixon.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
I don't need polling, we saw that happen in the real world. Trump wasn't convicted either time he was impeached - this isn't hypothetical. Once again blaming Democrats, rather than Republicans, as though the latter don't have any agency in the convicting Trump. Your opinion on the impeachment has little value since you aren't inclined to watch any of it; not a single word was said about my links. They didn't "choose" to lose the Republicans. How can you get someone to convict when they voted no despite being there during the coup? You can't.
The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the president in temperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged quote “Trial by combat”. It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe. The increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen. Some secret coup by our now president.
We won the battle, but lost the war.
He goes on to say that the criminal justice system is where Trump needs to be held accountable. I'm certain Mitch's convictions will carry over to this bipartisan investigation.
Nobeard on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I truly believe that Mitch would be absolutely fine with Trump going away forever, just so long as he doesn’t have to be responsible for it.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+34
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
McConnells life's work is getting as many judges in lifetime appointments and preventing as much Democratic legislation as possible. That's all he has to achieve before he slithers off this mortal coil.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
McConnells life's work is getting as many judges in lifetime appointments and preventing as much Democratic legislation as possible. That's all he has to achieve before he slithers off this mortal coil.
It's honestly baffling to me why he, or his cohort, do any of the things they do.
Like, what is lying on that deathbed like? Looking upon your works and thinking "yes this was a life well lived".
McConnells life's work is getting as many judges in lifetime appointments and preventing as much Democratic legislation as possible. That's all he has to achieve before he slithers off this mortal coil.
It's honestly baffling to me why he, or his cohort, do any of the things they do.
Like, what is lying on that deathbed like? Looking upon your works and thinking "yes this was a life well lived".
McConnells life's work is getting as many judges in lifetime appointments and preventing as much Democratic legislation as possible. That's all he has to achieve before he slithers off this mortal coil.
It's honestly baffling to me why he, or his cohort, do any of the things they do.
Like, what is lying on that deathbed like? Looking upon your works and thinking "yes this was a life well lived".
It would probably feel pretty good for him. He held off the forces of liberalism for a generation. That's a big achievement.
McConnells life's work is getting as many judges in lifetime appointments and preventing as much Democratic legislation as possible. That's all he has to achieve before he slithers off this mortal coil.
It's honestly baffling to me why he, or his cohort, do any of the things they do.
Like, what is lying on that deathbed like? Looking upon your works and thinking "yes this was a life well lived".
It would probably feel pretty good for him. He held off the forces of liberalism for a generation. That's a big achievement.
Plus his actions has made his family millions, they will be set for the next several generations as part of the 0,1% as result of his actions. That is his true legacy: Fuck You, Got Mine!
Or more accurately: By Fucking Over You, I Got Mine!
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
McConnells life's work is getting as many judges in lifetime appointments and preventing as much Democratic legislation as possible. That's all he has to achieve before he slithers off this mortal coil.
It's honestly baffling to me why he, or his cohort, do any of the things they do.
Like, what is lying on that deathbed like? Looking upon your works and thinking "yes this was a life well lived".
Basically yes. "I made a lot of money and had a lot of power and advanced my political ideology"
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
You know people said exactly the same thing about Nixon right?
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
You know people said exactly the same thing about Nixon right?
Nixon was capable of shame, so we'll never know if they had the votes to impeach, then convict.
Trump has no shame, and therefore, did not feel the need to resign after his putsch.
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
You know people said exactly the same thing about Nixon right?
The US electorate has become highly polarized. There is no political incentive to turn on Trump for the Republicans. There isn't even the perception of it.
+9
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Don't accuse me of "gaslighting" while in the same breath saying the Democrats would have had to shift opinion in only two months' time, when you know damn full well that the Nixon impeachment process - which my posts have been directly comparing Trump's to - was a hell of a lot longer than two months in length.
If you think Republican politicians would be unwilling to vote for impeachment regardless of length of proceedings and regardless of how public opinion was polling, then go ahead and say that. But that doesn't mean you get to act like that I cannot say the Democratic leadership in charge of the proceedings are ultimately responsible for choosing to end the proceedings when they did.
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
You know people said exactly the same thing about Nixon right?
That was a half-century ago before the rise of the Fox News network and the conservative media farm system built by Nixon apologists.
His impeachment was important but I don’t think arguing gets us anywhere....what I’m concerned about is that the attempted coup and ongoing insurrection are just being subsumed into regular politics vs something that needed/needs a decisive response to protect our democracy
I’m a dipshit and probably 4 or 5 actual historians and 37 or 68 political science experts will jump on me for saying it, but it feels like to me the failures of reconstruction happening again
+8
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
His impeachment was important but I don’t think arguing gets us anywhere....what I’m concerned about is that the attempted coup and ongoing insurrection are just being subsumed into regular politics vs something that needed/needs a decisive response to protect our democracy
I’m a dipshit and probably 4 or 5 actual historians and 37 or 68 political science experts will jump on me for saying it, but it feels like to me the failures of reconstruction happening again
I'll ask a historian I know this question, and get back to you.
Edit: He must not have been busy he texted me back. "This was dumber than the failures of reconstruction. Those were deliberate compromises because the country was in shambles, and when everything was literally on fire, maybe work to fix things first, and that took a herculean effort for the time. The coup attempt was localized, and wasn't anywhere near that level of desperation. This is just republicans in congress being cowards."
Nixon's impeachment, being at least partially a result of Congressional hearings moving the national mood via media coverage, was the impetus for the creation of Fox. Their raison d'etre was fulfilled when they pushed against Trump's impeachment. Stop fucking invoking Nixon as the example that shows Trump could have been removed.
His impeachment was important but I don’t think arguing gets us anywhere....what I’m concerned about is that the attempted coup and ongoing insurrection are just being subsumed into regular politics vs something that needed/needs a decisive response to protect our democracy
That's exactly what's happening. This is what I've mentioned about it being hard to do anything about issues that are a core political belief of one of the major factions because you aren't going to get cross-partisan buy-in.
Also for what it’s worth, I get frustrated when comments about the lack of suitable progress given the desperation of the situation are met with the same response as the “can you or can’t you criticize Dems” shit from the election/congress threads- I understand that Dems politically may not have any solutions to this problem, but that just means Dems aren’t the answer then, and that’s not a criticism of Dems
Posts
Okay, this.
It was always going to be (pointless?) theater. The sides have been chosen, and aren't budging.
Did it, or would it have, move(d) the needle significantly for any of the undecideds some people tell me are still out there? I doubt it, personally.
Is it still right to do the right thing even if it doesn't matter in the end? Probably. But don't, IMO, let it be a distraction from doing good things that will make a difference.
Such as? (Glances at filibuster, then at all the pieces of key and significant legislature sitting there unpassed.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
People have. Constantly. We been saying that since before the first impeachment of Trump, when the possibility of doing it was being discussed. I don't know how one can have read anything in this forum about either impeachment without running into multiple people saying this was all theatre and they were never going to be convicted.
Trump was never going to be impeached. There were never the votes for it. The whole thing was theatre and the only question was whether it was theatre that could shift votes in the election. It seems like the answer to that is "No, it can't".
Honestly seven Republican Senators is four or five more than I ever expected to vote to convict and I fail to see where even one more vote would come from.
Hold the vote at 2 AM on January 7. By the next week conservative media had figured out some talking points and they all rallied around them like they always do. The only chance was to do it in the immediate shock of the event where the reaction was purely visceral.
Still unlikely, but the only chance.
Generally speaking, the two impeachments were absolutely garbage politics. The first one was on a narrow issue of Ukraine and not the dozen other more obvious and more digestible ideas for the public. The second was a farce where Democrats unilaterally disarmed themselves because otherwise Mitch might be obstructionist or some shit. And now they're going to have to beg for the ability to call the same witnesses they could have called in February with this ridiculous fucking bipartisan commission.
Democratic leadership is cowardly and believes it is always 1984 - 1994.
That's making the assumption that not doing anything would not have disenthused Democratic voters, and I'm not convinced that couldn't have happened.
"Fuck it, he'll get off anyway, no point even trying to hold him to account,let them keep stacking the courts", isn't an inspiring message.
I mean, it's a hypothetical, but I think it's possible that trying kept some voters on the left from going "why bother", even if it didn't switch voters from the right.
So you mean hold the vote before they have a chance to collect and process evidence directly connecting Donald Trump to the events?
Great idea, and I'm sure that the republicans wouldn't hide behind the lack of evidence to justify their "no" votes at all, or insisted that it was antifa because they saw a report on FOX news..
I believe that the only way to succeed in getting the impeachment conviction would be to hold the trial as immediately as possible.
I also believe that the Republicans would have weaseled out no matter what we did.
I think we got the 'best' result we could have, given the circumstances, but it's all still shit and I am supremely disappointed in the system as a result.
That's not how convictions work.
That's why "right to speedy trial" exists. Because if prosecutors could make convictions more likely simply by holding the trial immediately, then all of them would be doing that.
Hell, you actually give the republicans leeway. "We don't know whether or not Trump is guilty, because gosh darnit, there wasn't enough evidence. But in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, which is why we voted no."
Impeachment is not a judicial process; "speedy trial" doesn't apply there.
I mean, prosecutors generally are fine with speedy trials because they tend to have their shit in order before they bring an indictment.
but this wasn't a trial and honestly any thoughts of <whatever> would have resulted in a guilty verdict is straight up fantastical thinking
the inside people were all in on the antifa was inside the building bullshit immediately after
The shift for Republicans was that here party wouldn't convict their own president which Nixon was in danger of, Trump is proof they succeeded. It took decades to do this; the Democrats had two months window with Trump. You're not ignorant of how bad he Republicans are yet your argument is that being a conviction for them about the coup is easier to do than getting a cop convicted in a trial. It's preposterous.
All for this when you don't seem concerned about the impeachment itself over than blaming Democrats for losing, the links to the impeachment didn't change anything from your opinion. If it wasn't eye witnesses it'd be something else to blame Democrats for because they lost, instead of Republicans - the party responsible for unleashing a bunch of terrorists on congress. Where's the empathy for Democrats? There's none.
You posts have been evading the changes in society in politics since the 70s, and make Trump himself identical in his crimes too Nixon.
I don't need polling, we saw that happen in the real world. Trump wasn't convicted either time he was impeached - this isn't hypothetical. Once again blaming Democrats, rather than Republicans, as though the latter don't have any agency in the convicting Trump. Your opinion on the impeachment has little value since you aren't inclined to watch any of it; not a single word was said about my links. They didn't "choose" to lose the Republicans. How can you get someone to convict when they voted no despite being there during the coup? You can't.
Well that and his press secretaries could only take so much punishment from having to get up there and tell Trump's ridiculous lies.
We won the battle, but lost the war.
He goes on to say that the criminal justice system is where Trump needs to be held accountable. I'm certain Mitch's convictions will carry over to this bipartisan investigation.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Mitch basically makes it pretty clear he hopes Trump has at the very least a debilitating Stroke.
No, he also has to be able to whine about it for the rest of his life.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It's honestly baffling to me why he, or his cohort, do any of the things they do.
Like, what is lying on that deathbed like? Looking upon your works and thinking "yes this was a life well lived".
FYGM
It would probably feel pretty good for him. He held off the forces of liberalism for a generation. That's a big achievement.
Plus his actions has made his family millions, they will be set for the next several generations as part of the 0,1% as result of his actions. That is his true legacy: Fuck You, Got Mine!
Or more accurately: By Fucking Over You, I Got Mine!
Basically yes. "I made a lot of money and had a lot of power and advanced my political ideology"
You know people said exactly the same thing about Nixon right?
Nixon was capable of shame, so we'll never know if they had the votes to impeach, then convict.
Trump has no shame, and therefore, did not feel the need to resign after his putsch.
The US electorate has become highly polarized. There is no political incentive to turn on Trump for the Republicans. There isn't even the perception of it.
That was a half-century ago before the rise of the Fox News network and the conservative media farm system built by Nixon apologists.
I’m a dipshit and probably 4 or 5 actual historians and 37 or 68 political science experts will jump on me for saying it, but it feels like to me the failures of reconstruction happening again
Edit: He must not have been busy he texted me back. "This was dumber than the failures of reconstruction. Those were deliberate compromises because the country was in shambles, and when everything was literally on fire, maybe work to fix things first, and that took a herculean effort for the time. The coup attempt was localized, and wasn't anywhere near that level of desperation. This is just republicans in congress being cowards."
That's exactly what's happening. This is what I've mentioned about it being hard to do anything about issues that are a core political belief of one of the major factions because you aren't going to get cross-partisan buy-in.