Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
If they actually go through with it, Trump's Presidency may end sooner then we think...
Grassley?! Seriously? He's one of the big f*ckoff party Republicans. Stonewalling Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination was his and Mitch Mc Connell's thing.
If Chuck Grassley is saying they're ready to turn on Trump, that's a big deal.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Huh. Looks like I may end up eating my hat after all.
I'll put the deep fryer on standby.
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionaryI don't think anyone should push for impeachment yet. Is there any conclusive evidence?
Everything feels like a catch-22, Morton's Fork kind of situation. The longer he's in office, the more damage he can do. But if someone attempts impeachment without sufficient evidence, it will backfire.
I'm also afraid of what some of these militias may do. They may get out of hand.
Do not obey in advance.I don't think the Democrats have enough to impeach Trump yet. However, that doesn't mean they should keep quiet- every Democrat should stand up and say: "Trump is an incompetent moron, who has only gotten as far as he did because someone gave it to him- like the presidency." It's a page from the Republican playbook, and it works- and in this case, it's true.
I'd agree that the priority should be on defeating Trumpism actually. And the clown-in-chief is a rather excellent argument against it. Also, there's always the risk that if he's impeached w/o mass public consensus, then a martyr is made.
Another poster shared an article that made an excellent point about how impeachment can worsen tribal divisions in the electorate. And, in context, removing the guy via impeachment as opposed to him falling to a blue firewall worth the name in 2020 is incredibly unsatisfying. Even for the still sane, it'd be like using a technicality instead of legitimacy through the ballot box (even if that process is rightfully in question).
And for an additional point: would you rather the next plot twist be "president removed via byzantine power politics in the beltway" or "moron finally tossed out of long-desecrated office by the outraged humanity that he poked with a stick every day since he came on the scene. And yes just for the way it looks, because that'll have a massive effect on behavior later on. At the very least, the latter result will make saying "my vote doesn't matter/ I got notin to do wit this" even more indefensible than now.
I'd prefer the first one, because implicit in the premise of the second one is that the moron spends the next three years burning down the country. And the message I'd like it to send is 'Trumpish behaviour is not acceptable in president. Period. Not giving a fuck about the law is just straight up not acceptable anywhere.'
Things could get ugly if Trump is removed now, yeah. But will they uglier than the natural consequence of a full term of Trump would be?
Also I feel like the next president being Pence would disfuse a good portion of the rancour. He's a good deal more popular than Trump right now, after all. Ugliness resulting from this would mostly end up being the GOP voters turning on each other.
That's news to me. All the democrats in congress voted against it both times, and everything I've read assumes that all the democratic senators will as well. Do you have a source for this? Or at least a name?
I mean, it's true that democrats haven't able to accomplish much, but that's mostly because they're a minority in both houses; just about the only thing the GOP can't simply overrule them on is filibustering, and the GOP changed the rules to stop that when they tried to filibuster Gorush.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:12:49 PM by Gilphon
I mean, how exactly do you think these things are fought?
And I don't know where you got this from, but I've never heard of it. It just sounds more like grossly over simplifying how the economy and interstate relations work, and not realizing that there are other things of value which go between states besides money, which is pretty ironic in itself.
Impeaching Trump and failing to convict more or less guarantees a Republican victory in 2020, and will allow Trump to move forwards with his foreign policy goal of completely upending the current international system.
The democrats are exceedingly unlikely to have a congressional super-majority in 2018, and it's far from guranteed that they will win both chambers of congress. Moreover, unless Trump's approval rating falls below ~20%, he's pretty much safe from his own party turning against him in large enough numbers to reliably impeach and convict him him, and I would strongly advise against impeachment unless it's a reasonably bipartisan move; otherwise it'll just exacerbate the polarization of American politics.
We also need to realize that no matter what happens*, Trump isn't going to jail. It's simply not something that happens to people with that kind of power; if he's about to be impeached and convicted by the senate, he'll cut a backroom deal with the GOP where he resigns and gets pardoned by Pence just like his role model Nixon.
* Okay maybe not absolutely no way this happens, but it's exceedingly unlikely that Trump faces any personal consequences.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:25:13 PM by CaptainCapsase
I misremembered. It isn't that they aren't going to vote against it. It's that they won't use the nuclear option to withhold consent, try and hold up the vote, or force the Republicans to delay it for a few weeks.
In these tweets. They're from a Vox reporter, but they also have sources from Congressional aides, and certain Senators.
https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/874297303502344192
https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/874385873785282564
https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/874387838179168256
https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/874398443023867904
Basically, they think it won't do any good to stall it, but they aren't seeing how important it is to register disapproval, to show they are listening to their constituents, or to delay it long enough for people to get an actual look at the bill and complain about it. Not to mention the delay would put it past the recess (and the time when the Senators have to go back home and could face town halls again).
At least it looks like Senator Merkley is willing to do it.
(He's the one who led the filibuster against Gorsuch's nomination.)
edited 13th Jun '17 8:40:18 PM by Ingonyama
What makes you so sure about this? 'cause it seems to me you're drawing on a sample size of one with this, and ignoring the fact that it was a very politically expensive move for Gerald Ford.
No US president has been tried for crimes committed during office, and a large portion of the post WW-II presidents are pretty unambiguously guilty of crimes against humanity (Reagan, Bush, and of course Nixon come to mind immediately); people in positions of high power are simply above the law as far as personal consequences are concerned, because it's easier to let them walk away than to have them do everything in their considerable power to try and weasel out of it before the end comes.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:34:30 PM by CaptainCapsase
x5 I wonder about that. If Trump did return us to the 19th century Age of Imperialism, it would be an accident. He's trying to be the state equivalent of somewhere b/w Robber-Baron and Mafia Don—and drawing laughter from (former) friend and foe alike. Whatever change happens in the world over the next few years will probably be in spite of Trump and the US may well be a minor issue note in the change. (Recall the sheer number of ambassador posts that are yet to be fulfilled and Tillerson's actual job.
The main thing—aside from probably convincing Germany that we should see other people—he's done so far is probably breathe new life into the old pipe dream of internationalism. note The EU may end up adopting the old Byzantine Grand Strategy note and adjust their view of us to being "glorified mercenaries," but the Postwar order is built on more than just the US sticking to its meds.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:35:21 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Or, more pessimistically, the increasingly difficult foreign policy challenges facing the EU will put more and more onus on Germany to act as a leader for the federation, and over time, the deeply ingrained shame culture in Germany erodes, Imperial Germany is rehabilitated and Nazi Germany is more or less Unpersoned, and the relationship between Germany and the other members of the EU becomes increasingly unequal as the country develops a world class military to assert itself with. Meanwhile Russia shits itself because Germany is building up its military, and with the breakdown of Trans-Atlantic ties begins making diplomatic overtures to the United States. Issues in Central Asia strain ties between Russia and China, and everyone ends up glaring at everyone else suspiciously. We return to the multipolar era of great powers, with constantly shifting alliances and ruthless competition sparking endless proxy wars in those places which the powers contests.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:41:50 PM by CaptainCapsase
That's one of the distinct dangers of the EU; that it ceases to be a federation of equals (Germany's outsized role is already borderline problematic) and become a sphere of influence in all but name. Which is one of the reasons Brexit is so problematic; France is the only other major power in the EU now, and if they end up leaving or continue to decline, it'll just be Germany left alone with all of the levers of power, and you know what we say about absolute power.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:44:07 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Cap: There's inertia making it hard to remove them from power, yes, but you haven't done anything to dissuade me from the idea that you're based your opinion on the likelihood of a pardon entirely on Nixon's example. But it doesn't, for instance, it doesn't strike me as inconceivable that Trump would refuse any such deal, and prefer to go down swinging. Or that Pence would decide that Trump has become toxic enough that whatever damage he does on the way out is worth being able to cleanly distance himself from him.
And, like, I feel fairly sure there are reasonable number of historical examples of rulers who were imprisoned after they stopped being in power.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:45:02 PM by Gilphon

Worst areas will probably be rebuilding capacity in Departments that are being gutted, and repairing America's core foreign relationships.
And purging a few organizations that have been overly politicized or compromised.
edited 13th Jun '17 4:33:06 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.