this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
872 points (98.8% liked)

News

36063 readers
2927 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Support among House Democrats for impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is skyrocketing, nearly doubling in the last week to 100 co-sponsors.

That's an unprecedented level of support for an impeachment effort during President Trump's second term, with lawmakers who have bristled at the topic in the past now warming to the idea.

Kelly is urging Republicans to get on board with her efforts — even as no GOP lawmaker has come close to expressing support for Noem's impeachment.

"As Secretary Noem continues to lie, obstruct Congress, and violate people's civil rights, the support for her impeachment only grows," she said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So your argument boils down to "Democrats shouldn't oppose Trump & Co because it might hurt their chances at reelection?" What kind of nonsense is that?

There are no repercussions because they don't have the numbers to actually get an impeachment without Republicans joining forces with them, which is unlikely to happen but even a potentially fruitless endeavor is better than sitting by doing absolutely nothing while the nation burns in front of our eyes.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Politics only happens with an election, so yeah that’s usually an omnipresent factor in pushing legislation. No, it’s not great.

And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?

If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.

Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Politics only happens with an election

This statement doesn't make any sense.

And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?

Yes.

If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.

Well then it must follow that there's no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right? Democrats should only go after the easy wins and instant gratification because nobody will remember any of this at any point in the future.

Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.

So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward? If they're not doing this now or at any point in the past, why would they do it in the future? What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren't enough?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Well then it must follow that there's no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right?

Absolutely not. And that’s a weird jump to make.

So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward?

Yes to the former, nope to the latter. I’m saying the real world is significantly more complicated than rageposting on the intertubes. Like, sure we all wish all the nazis were dead, but getting there is gonna take more than tapping it out on a phone keyboard. And very possibly going on a killing spree by one or more of us is not the optimal way to move that particular project forward, you see? That’s just a hypothetical example, but you get my point there.

What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren't enough?

Well, having the votes might be a good start. Professional political people do this thing called a “whip count” where the go around and ask everyone how their day is going, and oh those are great shoes and by-the-by would you vote for bill #12345? And if they don’t have enough votes to get the thing passed, sometimes they’ll redirect their efforts into other things. (Stupid republicans will still have the vote fifty or sixty times because they can’t figure out a better plan.)

So that’s a big one. Now if they just want to grandstand, maybe read a little Dr. Suess on C-SPAN, sure. “The People” would get the benefit of that speech, but little else.

And that’s if the Senate feels like doing a goddamned thing, which - unlikely, right? So just go out front, go on any show that’ll have you and talk about how he should be impeached. But that’s all that would happen.