Support NeoGAF

[jtb]

But necessary in extreme circumstances. This is an extreme circumstance.

So is the electoral college.

Not disagreeing with you per se, just pissed off about it still.

From a justice/moral perspective, obviously I completely agree.

But from a political perspective, 63 million people voted for Donald Trump. Impeachment is throwing those votes in their face and implying that Russia duped them. That's a difficult pill for people to swallow. Not to mention, unless you oust Pence too (who seems quite savvy in his plausible deniability insulation, unfortunately), you'd just end up with another Republican president. And, with McConnell leading the GOP in the Senate, is there any indication he wouldn't whip the votes to acquit Trump? Who's the Goldwater figure in the GOP today?

The political incentives are difficult to bring impeachment, which is why it's only been successful once--and that was only after really dragging Nixon over the coals way past the point of no return, and, most crucially, when he couldn't be re-elected anyways.

I'd be shocked if Amash lost. He is one of the very few speaking out against Trump, and seems to generally want to hear both sides of an issue.

He's smart, but a challenger can/should still use the AHCA as an albatross around his neck

 

[benjipwns]

I'd be shocked if Amash lost. He is one of the very few speaking out against Trump, and seems to generally want to hear both sides of an issue.

Amash has to fear his own party trying to primary him out yet again probably more than he does staying elected thanks to independents.

 

[Nafai1123]

That would be such an unprecedented clusterfuck I don't think anyone would know what would happen next.

True, though replace "jailed" with "removed from office" and I think the result is the same. I can't think of a current, popular GOP candidate that could run in 2020 who hasn't associated themselves with and defended Trump. It would be extremely easy for Dems to demonstrate how (insert candidates name) put party above country by actively voting against pursuing information (eg. Congress getting his taxes), justifying/defending his numerous colossal fuck-ups, etc.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

The problem with the ISVC is that it requires either red states to get on board (unlikely given the advantage the EC college confers on their party) or you have to convince multiple swing states to give up all the sweet cash they get on election years.

That's only a problem with its chances though. It's also the only real way to get rid of the electoral college. Constitutional amendments aren't happening.

And if you succeed, then you have President Pelosi, do your candidates all stand aside so she can run for re-election?

This point isn't technically correct. The House can pick almost anyone as Speaker and just let that person jump into the White House. Pick somebody like Biden and just basically make him President.

This isn't to say I'm really interested in the topic though. Impeachment won't happen.

 

[Autodidact]

And if you succeed, then you have President Pelosi, do your candidates all stand aside so she can run for re-election?

Pelosi could just be a caretaker president, for lack of a better term. She knows probably more than anyone that she has no chance at winning a national election, so she could merely avoid the primaries and endorse the winner. Her presidency wouldn't be long if your timeline played out, which means the caretaker angle would probably work. Then again, perhaps I underestimate the right-wing media's ability to use a brief Pelosi tenure as a rallying cry.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I can't think of a current, popular GOP candidate that could run in 2020 who hasn't associated themselves with and defended Trump.

That's because they don't exist. I imagine if/when Republicans get stomped in 2018 you will see a wave of Anti-Trump Republicans crop up for 2020. Basically if Republicans lose 2018, they spend 2020 and 2022 rebranding in hopes of making a strong showing in 2024.

 

[B-Dubs]

From a justice/moral perspective, obviously I completely agree.

But from a political perspective, 63 million people voted for Donald Trump. Impeachment is throwing those votes in their face and implying that Russia duped them. That's a difficult pill for people to swallow. Not to mention, unless you oust Pence too (who seems quite savvy in his plausible deniability insulation, unfortunately), you'd just end up with another Republican president. And, with McConnell leading the GOP in the Senate, is there any indication he wouldn't whip the votes to acquit Trump? Who's the Goldwater figure in the GOP today?

The political incentives are difficult to bring impeachment, which is why it's only been successful once--and that was only after really dragging Nixon over the coals way past the point of no return, and, most crucially, when he couldn't be re-elected anyways.

Russia did dupe them. And if Trump did half of what's in that dossier he cannot be allowed to hang onto the powers of the office.

 

[kirblar]

Pelosi could just be a caretaker president, for lack of a better term. She knows probably more than anyone that she has no chance at winning a national election, so she could merely avoid the primaries and endorse the winner. Her presidency wouldn't be long if your timeline played out, which means the caretaker angle would probably work. Then again, perhaps I underestimate the right-wing media's ability to incite another rural rebellion in that time frame.

You can always vote for another Speaker so that Pelosi isn't the one getting the bump up. (Though I'm not sure she'd pass on the opportunity because I mean, ITS THE PRESIDENCY)

 

[neurosisxeno]

I turned on the radio at work and it was on some Conservative Talk Radio program. The host was kindly describing CNN as "a network of third tier so called journalists, who are nothing more than political whores". Wow.

 

[CygnusXS]

I turned on the radio at work and it was on some Conservative Talk Radio program. The host was kindly describing CNN as "a network of third tier so called journalists, who are nothing more than political whores". Wow.

Polite family values

 

[jtb]

Russia did dupe them. And if Trump did half of what's in that dossier he cannot be allowed to hang onto the powers of the office.

I completely agree with you. Trump has to go.

But, as we know, you can't criticize the voters. Even when you know they've been duped by Russia. Or by Comey. Or are racist. Or misogynist. etc. These people were desperately looking for any excuse to vote for the man that we all knew that Donald Trump was. We already knew everything we know about Trump today, and they voted for him anyways. That's the electorate we're dealing with today.

Does beginning impeachment processes actually get Democrats closer to removing Trump from office, or does it strengthen his position? That's the danger I'm afraid of.

 

[Zolo]

I turned on the radio at work and it was on some Conservative Talk Radio program. The host was kindly describing CNN as "a network of third tier so called journalists, who are nothing more than political whores". Wow.

There's a reason some people can only do radio and not TV. You can get away with a lot more on radio.

 

[victreeb3l]

Jon Ossoffs team sent me like 100 fucking emails today. I guess its getting serious?

I donated more money to the campaign and the situation seems dire but damn theyre aggressive.

 

[Vimes]

Pelosi could just be a caretaker president, for lack of a better term. She knows probably more than anyone that she has no chance at winning a national election, so she could merely avoid the primaries and endorse the winner. Her presidency wouldn't be long if your timeline played out, which means the caretaker angle would probably work. Then again, perhaps I underestimate the right-wing media's ability to use a brief Pelosi tenure as a rallying cry.

This is something I've been thinking about for a while. I really wonder.

And, with McConnell leading the GOP in the Senate, is there any indication he wouldn't whip the votes to acquit Trump?

If Trump's approval continues its current trend, I think this scenario would create an electoral disaster for the GOP.

 

[pigeon]

I completely agree with you. Trump has to go.

But, as we know, you can't criticize the voters. Even when you know they've been duped by Russia. Or by Comey. Or are racist. Or misogynist. etc.

Does beginning impeachment processes actually get Democrats closer to removing Trump from office, or does it strengthen his position? That's the danger I'm afraid of.

This argument gets made for literally everything people do to oppose Trump.

Here's something to consider: because people aren't that politically attentive, they pay attention to their politicians.

If the Democrats start saying "yeah Trump is bad but not bad enough to impeach" then the bipartisan position will be that what Trump did is actually fine. This will affect what voters think.

If the Democrats start saying "we're going to impeach Trump for being a huge criminal, the GOP refused to do it" then people will understand the stakes, and Democrat-aligned voters will come to understand better that the GOP is a party of quislings and traitors.

That is good for the Democrats!

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Jon Ossoffs team sent me like 100 fucking emails today. I guess its getting serious?

I donated more money to the campaign and the situation seems dire but damn theyre aggressive.

Hope you like more e-mails :lol (but really, good on you! big part of his momentum is his grassroots support)

 

[jtb]

This argument gets made for literally everything people do to oppose Trump.

Here's something to consider: because people aren't that politically attentive, they pay attention to their politicians.

If the Democrats start saying "yeah Trump is bad but not bad enough to impeach" then the bipartisan position will be that what Trump did is actually fine. This will affect what voters think.

If the Democrats start saying "we're going to impeach Trump for being a huge criminal, the GOP refused to do it" then people will understand the stakes, and Democrat-aligned voters will come to understand better that the GOP is a party of quislings and traitors.

That is good for the Democrats!

But don't we need Republican defections to break through that notion anyways? Otherwise it wouldn't be bipartisan at all. It would be a "naked partisan power grap" or whatever.

I want to agree with you, but I worry that partisanship is just so deeply ingrained in our electorate and you need to coddle these GOP/Trump voters as much as possible.

Oh and I have zero faith in our media to cover this properly whatsoever.

 

[ugaboga232]

Not to start the free will debate but as someone paid by tax dollars to research this, agency is a big meme used to sell you things or to hate people. Two yellow lines on the road dont reduce access to driving on the wrong side of the road but for some reason they do a decent job (unless certain solvents are involved). The tl;dr is things happen for a reason and things don't happen for a reason and all evidence points to no agency on our parts which we should acknowledge lest we fall prey to propaganda and fail to deal with drugs and the looming mental health crisis.

I am all ready for season 3 of Reality with its trillion dollar budget. The season 2 finale of comey being fired was great but a bit overdone.

 

[Vimes]

This argument gets made for literally everything people do to oppose Trump.

Here's something to consider: because people aren't that politically attentive, they pay attention to their politicians.

If the Democrats start saying "yeah Trump is bad but not bad enough to impeach" then the bipartisan position will be that what Trump did is actually fine. This will affect what voters think.

If the Democrats start saying "we're going to impeach Trump for being a huge criminal, the GOP refused to do it" then people will understand the stakes, and Democrat-aligned voters will come to understand better that the GOP is a party of quislings and traitors.

That is good for the Democrats!

Agree with this. By my best estimation there is no bad time to go for the throat. Surely the comparison to Bill Clinton matters only if Trump somehow becomes as popular as Clinton was.

I want to agree with you, but I worry that partisanship is just so deeply ingrained in our electorate and you need to coddle these GOP/Trump voters as much as possible.

After 2016 I feel like we can't win them over in any circumstance, so we might as well do whatever.

Oh and I have zero faith in our media to cover this properly whatsoever.

But this I do worry about. It's been a nightmare.

 

[Kevinroc]

Sounds like MacArthur is getting roasted at his town hall.

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862440583515824128

MacArthur says under his amendment nobody w/ preexisting condition will be declined coverage or priced out of being able to buy coverage

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862441009636159488

“Liar, that’s a lie!” a man shouts, before crowd starts chanting “single payer”

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862442784048992257

“No, not yet,” MacArthur says, in response to whether he supports an independent investigation into Russia. Crowd boos.

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862444238805618689

MacArthur to angry crowd: "Folks, I didn’t come here to defend a president tonight. I came here to answer your questions."

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862444647624454144

Voter angry over Comey/Russia tells MacArthur: "When are you going to decide to be an American, and not a politician?"

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862446548210380801

MacArthur: "When people are in the risk pools, then everyone else’s insurance comes down"

"How do you know without a CBO score?” a man asks

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862449171076403200

Man asks MacArthur whether rape can be considered a preexisting condition under GOP bill.

"You cannot be charged more or denied coverage"

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862449718516994048

Man to MacArthur on bill: "It was dead in the water until you revived it. This is my life. Without health care coverage I’m dead. I’m dead"

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862450747501424641

"If you have continuous coverage, it’s against the law to health rate someone. You can’t deny or change the premiums," he responds

https://twitter.com/FoxReports/status/862451438345224194

"My blood with be on your hands," woman yells at MacArthur. She says she will die under AHCA.

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/862457523307257857

Voter at MacArthur town hall now describing how he lost his wife to brain cancer 2 months ago. “I know exactly what a risk pool is,” he says

More here: https://twitter.com/igorbobic

 

[Nafai1123]

That's because they don't exist. I imagine if/when Republicans get stomped in 2018 you will see a wave of Anti-Trump Republicans crop up for 2020. Basically if Republicans lose 2018, they spend 2020 and 2022 rebranding in hopes of making a strong showing in 2024.

So if you get Trump impeached before 2020, you tarnish every single Republican currently in support of him, and force the GOP's hand in bringing fresh candidates to the table in 2020, which they won't be able to do because they have no fresh blood left after the beating they take in 2018. And if Trump is impeached, they can't just jump behind him for re-election.

I get that impeachment would require the Senate, which would require some Republican help, but if it really comes to that point I could see the play for some Republicans to jump on-board with turning their back on Trump, not only because the evidence is there warranting impeachment, but also because they are trying desperately to get re-elected, especially if they have new competition within their own party.

I dunno, I'll admit my predominant desire for wanting to see Trump impeached is to hold him accountable for once in his life. He's a piece of shit that's ducked accountability for his actions his entire life. He deserves to pay a price. Losing in 2020 is not a high enough price to pay.

 

[pigeon]

But don't we need Republican defections to break through that notion anyways? Otherwise it wouldn't be bipartisan at all. It would be a "naked partisan power grap" or whatever.

We have some Republican defections, but sure, some people will oppose the Democrats no matter what. We should ignore them. They will oppose the Democrats no matter what!

I want to agree with you, but I worry that partisanship is just so deeply ingrained in our electorate and you need to coddle these GOP/Trump voters as much as possible.

Why? The Republicans didn't coddle Obama voters and they won a bunch of them. What makes you think we should compromise when they won without compromising anything?

If partisanship is so deeply ingrained in our electorate we should probably be more partisan, not less.

 

[Vimes]

I dunno, I'll admit my predominant desire for wanting to see Trump impeached is to hold him accountable for once in his life. He's a piece of shit that's ducked accountability for his actions his entire life. He deserves to pay a price. Losing in 2020 is not a high enough price to pay.

I want the dude to rot in jail too, and will be mad as hell if it doesn't happen, but I don't think we should overlook the tremendous importance of just getting him the fuck out of the White House before some disaster occurs.

Also, it's worth considering that in the event the Dems move for impeachment but get stonewalled by McConnell and co, the GOP will own every fuckup the Trump admin makes from there onward twofold.

 

[benjipwns]

This point isn't technically correct. The House can pick almost anyone as Speaker and just let that person jump into the White House. Pick somebody like Biden and just basically make him President.

This isn't to say I'm really interested in the topic though. Impeachment won't happen.

Pelosi could just be a caretaker president, for lack of a better term. She knows probably more than anyone that she has no chance at winning a national election, so she could merely avoid the primaries and endorse the winner. Her presidency wouldn't be long if your timeline played out, which means the caretaker angle would probably work. Then again, perhaps I underestimate the right-wing media's ability to incite another rural rebellion in that time frame.

Good points, I guess what I'm really trying to say is that it's not just that there's a lot of moving parts to even do impeachment.

But a successful one that takes out both Trump and Pence and installs a temporary President during a Presidential election year is just a lot of moving people. We're basically talking about five Presidential level people in a single year. In today's media environment.

For the record and I know everyone is expecting me to point this out, the most Presidents we've had in a single year are three. And we've had them twice.

Van Buren (outgoing) -> Harrison (died) -> Tyler in 1841
Hayes (outgoing) -> Garfield (assassinated) -> Arthur in 1881

We came close thanks again to the Whigs:
Polk (outgoing) -> Taylor (died) -> Fillmore in 1849-1850 (15 months)

If Goldwater had won we would have had Kennedy (assassinated) -> Johnson (outgoing) -> Goldwater in 14 months.

The Garfield case is slightly interesting due to the fact that Cleveland's first VP died after about eight months in office. So from Garfield's death on September 1881 to Harrison's swearing in during March 1889 we only had a Vice President from March to November 1885.

Also funny enough since we're talking resignations and stuff, we've had two Vice Presidents resign but only one President.

 

[jtb]

We have some Republican defections, but sure, some people will oppose the Democrats no matter what. We should ignore them. They will oppose the Democrats no matter what!



Why? The Republicans didn't coddle Obama voters and they won a bunch of them. What makes you think we should compromise when they won without compromising anything?

If partisanship is so deeply ingrained in our electorate we should probably be more partisan, not less.

So should Democrats impeach Trump even if they know they will not have the votes to convict him in the Senate, regardless of how many smoking guns they find?

 

[Got the Shakes]

Chaffetz actually wants to look into the Comey firing? Am I hallucinating?

 

[Grexeno]

So should Democrats impeach Trump even if they don't believe they will have the votes to convict him in the Senate, no matter what?

If the evidence is solid enough and his approval ratings are low enough, impeach and dare Senate R's not to convict.

 

[pigeon]

So should Democrats impeach Trump even if they know they will not have the votes to convict him in the Senate, regardless of how many smoking guns they find?

If they actually find smoking guns and publicize them, and the Senate still refuses to act, don't you think that will be bad for the Republican senators who refuse to convict even though the evidence is overwhelming that they should?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Chaffetz actually wants to look into the Comey firing? Am I hallucinating?

Recent polling might be spooking them.

 

[BigJonsson]

Never mind

 

[jtb]

If they actually find smoking guns and publicize them, and the Senate still refuses to act, don't you think that will be bad for the Republican senators who refuse to convict even though the evidence is overwhelming that they should?

I have no idea. At this point.... I just... I really don't know anymore.

 

[Nordic4tKnight]

Uhhhhh

Rogue POTUS Staff‏ @RoguePOTUSStaff

We are in possession of audio recording of today's meeting w/ Russian diplomats. POTUS admits collusion, payments.



Show me the receipts

BS

 

[Grexeno]

Uhhhhh

Rogue POTUS Staff‏ @RoguePOTUSStaff

We are in possession of audio recording of today's meeting w/ Russian diplomats. POTUS admits collusion, payments.



Show me the receipts

Uh huh sure bub

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Uhhhhh

Rogue POTUS Staff‏ @RoguePOTUSStaff

We are in possession of audio recording of today's meeting w/ Russian diplomats. POTUS admits collusion, payments.



Show me the receipts

nah

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Uhhhhh

Rogue POTUS Staff‏ @RoguePOTUSStaff

We are in possession of audio recording of today's meeting w/ Russian diplomats. POTUS admits collusion, payments.



Show me the receipts

That twitter is useless tho. If anyone had those they'd be in the hands of journalists already.

I still subscribe to the theory that that account itself is Russian.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Uhhhhh

Rogue POTUS Staff‏ @RoguePOTUSStaff

We are in possession of audio recording of today's meeting w/ Russian diplomats. POTUS admits collusion, payments.



Show me the receipts

lol this account has long been discredited. also makes no sense.

 

[pigeon]

I have no idea. At this point.... I just... I really don't know anymore.

Let me put it another way.

If that ISN'T bad for the Republicans...how can we ever win these voters?

 

[ugaboga232]

Let me put it another way.

If that ISN'T bad for the Republicans...how can we ever win these voters?

There are Ways. If you have access to the water supply anything is possible.

Spoiler

there are somewhat plausible correlations between lithium levels in the water supply and crime (in the negative direction). Plus all this cultural/economic anxiety is anxiety, and we have medication for that.

 

[Vimes]

Perhaps another way of looking at impeachment hearings is how they would affect turnout of the part of the Democratic base that sat out 2016.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Perhaps another way of looking at impeachment hearings is how they would affect turnout of the part of the Democratic base that sat out 2016.

They'd be mad that we're running against Trump rather than running on their own merits.

Spoiler

lol

 

[kirblar]

I mean, it's a fake Russian-operated account so of course they might have the tapes.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Sounds like MacArthur is getting roasted at his town hall.

~snip~

boy i sure do hope some of these people are republicans

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Chaffetz actually wants to look into the Comey firing? Am I hallucinating?

There may be political capital in being o e of the first to break with Trump, if one views his downfall as inevitable.

I'm looking forward to a eventual snowball effect.

Note, I am horrible at predicting things.

 

[Fenderputty]

I still subscribe to the theory that that account itself is Russian.

If the goal was to disrupt western democracy that tweet would make sense

 

[B-Dubs]

misread

 

[Nafai1123]

Perhaps another way of looking at impeachment hearings is how they would affect turnout of the part of the Democratic base that sat out 2016.

They apparently seem to only be concerned with who the Democratic nominee is, not who they're running against. So we just need a charismatic, fresh-blooded, idealistic change candidate that has no baggage, no associations with corporations, and no money to their name...and they should be a white man.

 

[smokeymicpot]

There may be political capital in being o e of the first to break with Trump, if one views his downfall as inevitable.

I'm looking forward to a eventual snowball effect.

Note, I am horrible at predicting things.

He is planning on leaving anyway so why not make a name for yourself.

 

[Mighty Chin]

My dream is that 2018 brings a huge Dem turnout that the Dems seize the House and Senate and Trump being the pussy he is knowing then that impeachment is coming he steps down.

Pence becomes president and that piece of shit will pardon trump just like Nixon was.

 

[Got the Shakes]

Pretty sure Kevin McCarthy doesn't know how government works, who he works for, or who it is that has the ability to make sure he doesn't have a job next year.

Carla Marinucci‏Verified account
@cmarinucci

.@GOPLeader: In Washington, "we serve at the pleasure" of the president.."if we lose the confidence,'' then we can lose our jobs

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

lol