politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Bad take. Impeaching Trump reduces the amount of time he's in charge/has the authority to direct people. Committing more and more illegal acts...
They MIGHT be able to get some Rs on board to do it too.
Impeaching trump does nothing to trump, only conviction has a direct impact. It may be possible to secure that conviction, but we don't yet know what the GOP attitude will be going forward from here. Rep. Kiros said it quite well:
You misunderstand me. I mean to fully impeach.
What do you think they'll be able to pass without a veto? Can't veto impeachment.
I understood you.
If history is anything to go by, securing enough bipartisan support to override a veto will be far easier than getting 11-13 opposition senators to side with sanity in an impeachment trial. Overriding a veto will be no casual task, but while both seem unlikely, we won't know how unlikely either option truly is until the GOP response flocculates...
And that's the unfortunate situation, we just don't know yet. And as much as I dislike it, I can't quite bring myself to believe a pessimistic outlook on securing enough support to convict on impeachment is unwarranted.
I'm just here to say that Today I Learned this word and I LOVE it:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flocculate
So attempt to get MULTIPLE supermajorities to enact laws.... Or get 1 supermajority to impeach/convict.
We don't know, what we don't know. Either of us could be correct, but I don't think anyone really knows what's going to happen.
Edit: it seemed like you didn't understand me, because you specified conviction, not trying to be combative, just wanted to be on the same page
Yep, pretty much! Right now I agree with Kiros that focusing on impeachment as an immediate concern is likely to be a poor use of resources, as bipartisan support that hits or surpasses a supermajority for legislation is relatively common compared to the ouster of a president. But I am just guessing that that's the most reasonable approach, as you say anyone could be right at the moment.
Impeaching him doesn't do shit unless he's convicted in The Senate, and they don't have the votes for that.
It reassures the Dem base that the party is working for them. The Dem base is weak right now and eroded across almost every demographic in the last presidential election. Running genocider racist idiot Biden and then his clone, Harris has a cost and it needs to be reconciled or we move forward with structural weakness. Harris lost for a reason.
Yes, I know. Next time I'll be more specific.
They don't have the votes to pass ANYTHING. So it's either try to impeach/convict, so that they can maybe pass things (and remove him from further shenanigans).
I think removing him from committing further actions is paramount personally.
Other path, hope we can get a supermajority for literally everything else.