4 ms·

He should be impeached for this, obviously.

• klipt 2y ago
  He already has been, twice, but you need two thirds of the senate to convict, so good luck with that.
  • boroboro4 2y ago
    Unless you keep doing it (and getting people in congress signing on letting Trump pass) you let norms erode, and accept lawless state. Democrats are complicit by not impeaching Trump for every crime he’s committing. Failed impeachment (or conviction) is much better than no impeachment at all.
    • kccoder 2y ago
      The democrats do not have sufficient power to start an impeachment of trump. If they did, they would.
      • wilg 2y ago
        You still call for one and make the case loudly and proudly against Trump. Every time.
      • boroboro4 2y ago
        You don’t need majority to start an impeachment. Also they should impeach signalgate people. Rather than write strongly worded letters.
• palmotea 2y ago
  > He should be impeached for this, obviously. They tried that, it didn't work, and no one cares anymore. You don't get someone like Trump without having a garbage opposition. If his critics really want to counter him, they need to take extreme measures, like: 1. Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states. 2. Running broadly popular candidates. However, I predict they'll take the easy route: tend to their base and give swing voters a harder choice, and blame the voters if they don't win.
  • happytoexplain 2y ago
    You can't fight "deport protesting citizens who destroy my hundred-billionaire friend's product to an El Salvador prison for 20 years" with "get votes with a popular platform". Those aren't on the same level of abstraction in the stack of civilization, so to speak.
  • heygotanygrapes 2y ago
    [dead]
  • wilg 2y ago
    They did not impeach him for this, they should impeach him each and every time he commits an egregious crime against this country. Also, it's fair to blame the voters if they make a bad choice. Voters have the most agency, it's their responsibility to choose wisely. The choice has been crystal clear for a long time now.
  • hyperman1 2y ago
    You're assuming there will be more elections. These need co-operation of Trump to get organized, and need him to respect the law. He fought tooth and nail against the result the last time he was president. And that was a more rational Trump than you see now. Afaik, he either invents a national emergency reason to not hold elections, or does a gerrymandering++ to make sure he wins.
  • mcphage 2y ago
    > Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states. That’s been the centerpiece of the D playbook for years—pull towards the center. Hell, in the last election Harris even got Dick fucking Cheney to stump for her. Dick Cheney, one of the most republican Republican vice presidents, on stage trying to get a Democrat elected president! And it failed. It’s an utterly garbage strategy that fails every time. This advice needs to be thrown out and never suggested again.
  • krapp 2y ago
    >1. Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states. So what you're suggesting is that Democrats refactor their platform into a Republican platform in order to win over Republican voters? That might work, but I don't know how effective it would be as a counter to Republicanism. >2. Running broadly popular candidates. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were broadly popular, or at least not significantly less popular than Donald Trump by some measures. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump (popular, not electoral.) Even Kamala Harris only lost by a small margin.
• tim333 2y ago
  For what crime? So far he's just expressed an opinion.