Thank you for the example.

similar reaction to most citizens in Nazi Germany

It's amazing what people will look past if they feel like they are on the right side. Hell, look at the Milgram studies to see what people are willing to do, even if they disagree, as long as someone else is telling them it's ok, or pushing them.

I think I posted somewhere about the lack of public accountability of the president when mr. Twitter uses hot takes to communicate. There's nobody to really push him, and the administration controls the narrative. Here we are. White House has pretty much stopped briefings, and the presidential weekly address is no more. The fringe are being elevated to legitimacy by getting personal invitations to talk in the white house and the only news getting any regular interviews is fox.

This feels like I was spot on with my concerns.

Why? He has been a white supremacist for decades. I don't know why people are surprised that an openly white supremacist says stuff that openly white supremacists say.

I think (as of now) the only way the majority of the Trumpists finally break from him would be if he suspended the constitution in order to have a 3rd term. That might be the only bridge too far and we have a lot of roadway ahead of that bridge for him to do whatever the F he wants all the while having no one check him.

I look forward to the hypocrisy of that same group while trying to check the next president's power that might not align with their reddish thoughts.

Why would they separate from him? They would cheer him on and he would be emboldened by their support.

Some republicans who hold their nose and vote along party lines may break from him, but Trumpists would be tickled pink at the thought of him staying in office. He has brainwashed the fear of what may happen once the Dems take over. Illegals would pour in and rape their daughters, we would become a purely socialist nation, foreign government would take advantage of us in trade deals, did I mention illegals? He is their savior. these people are sick.

The only thing that could convert Trumpists, IMO, is if the economy tanks hard. even then I'm not sure. Farmers still support him.

I'm independent. I find the far left as frightening as the far right. The democrats in the House's refusal to even begin impeachment inquires is imo a sign of weakness.

The Mueller Report at minimum lays out obstruction of justice. The amount of people in Trump's orbit who peddled influence to foreign powers alone should be major cause for concern. And yet the Democrats sit idle and play identity politics.

AOC and her ilk feel like they are plants and Agents of Chaos. Why for the sake of the republic do they not shut up long enough to unite their party behind something.

I'm already seeing MAGAbots (probably Russian, haha) pushing the third term narrative by saying that a coup against Trump means that the first term didn't count.

Of course, he needs to win a second term before we can talk about a third. If he can't win a second, perhaps the voter fraud angle will come back. Either way, what's going on now is going to be tame compared to what we are in store for.

How the heck did we get to a place where this is even seen as anything but crazy talk.

Think this has always been there, but now with social media the crazies now have a place to come together and make their message of insanity heard.

Watch the movie Us and you'll be able to see how this occurs.

I don't think pushing for a 3rd term alone would do much honestly. The GOP has had no problem with Trump expanding the powers of the executive branch even to their own detriment. The evangelical right doesn't care how much Trump runs counter to their beliefs and morals as long as he's out there fighting the good fight to take other's rights away. They're not breaking off. The racists? This administration is their dream scenario. Take away those 2 groups and how much of his die hard support is left?

Trump politics and the GOP as a whole will be studied for generations. It's something that's very difficult to counter because the goalposts are constantly moving.

His voter base would fracture, though, if the elected officials grew a spine, said enough is enough, and left him to govern in isolation until he grows up. Nothing is going to get rid of his true die-hards, but we'd very likely see his support cut in half (or at least cut enough to make winning an election impossible) if Congress decided to play ball against him.

The problem is those same elected officials feel like their only way to remain an elected official is to placate those very same voters. It's clear from past statements, current statements, and leaks that very few GOP in congress like Trump but they're willing to put survival politics over the good of the country for now.

It seems Trump's strategy for 2020 is to rile up his base as much as possible, continue to make obvious racist statements, split the country as much as possible, and hope for another electoral college miracle. I think his campaign realizes there isn't a scenario where he wins 2020 easily. They need to make it as muddy as possible and hope for an ugly finish.

Lindsey Graham "We should aim higher and not make stupid comments"

Also Lindsey Graham "They're communists and ANti-Semites".

Ladies and gentlemen, the AristoGOPCats!

Trump's proven himself to be a coward, there's no way he tries to run for a third term. Our bigger problem will be the next authoritarian wannabe that isn't as scared as Trump has been. Trump has shown that our system is remarkably fragile.

He's 73 and his brain is already turning to mush. By the end of a 2nd term he'll be an empty vessel. They can prop him up like China did with Mao for the cult, but he's going to look and act like a much different person.

Honestly, the Trumpists don't give a single solitary good goddamn about the Constitution, except in limited circumstances.

To them, the Constitution IS the Second Amendment, and the rest is just a piece of paper.

The First Amendment matters, but only if white, Christian, conservative speech feels threatened. Freedom of the press? Fake news! Enemy of the State!

Fifth Amendment? Meh, doesn't matter that asylum seekers presented themselves at ports of entry as legally required. Lock 'em in cages, separate families, and deprive said asylum seekers of toiletries and we'll figure the rest out later. What due process? And before you b-b-but Obama, the point isn't whether an ebil dummycrat did any of that, the point is that no "Trumpist" is going to argue that the Fifth Amendment is being ignored. Because brown refugees aren't people. There are probably Sixth and Eighth Amendment implications there, too, but again - whether or not there are conservatives who would raise that alarm, "Trumpists" will not.

Limits on executive power in Article II? You're kidding, right?

And so on. The hard core #MAGA chuckleheads aren't going to abandon him before 2020. If something weird happens like Democrats winning the House and Senate but losing the White House and Trump turns around and goes "okay I'm a liberal now," yeah, but at that point, it wouldn't matter, electorally speaking.



The problem is that impeachment is, at this moment, essentially a political question. It isn't enough for Trump to deserve impeachment and removal, because as others have pointed out, survival politics on the part of Republican Senators mean that any - ANY - impeachment trial in the Senate is essentially DOA. McConnell will sweep it under the rug and dispose of it as quickly as possible and the moment is gone, with Trump still in power, sans consequences.

And I guarantee if Democrats tried again, his lawyers would raise a Fifth Amendment question with the Supreme Court. Not sure it'd matter that an impeachment trial isn't a criminal trial; I suspect there are at least four votes on the Supreme Court willing to say "yeah you can't try him twice for the same "high crimes and misdemeanors," and I'm not convinced Roberts wouldn't join them.

So that's the thing. SHOULD Trump be impeached and removed? Yep. Would it be anything more than pissing into the wind? Supremely unlikely.

Maybe you could wait to level articles of impeachment until like July or August and try to dominate the news cycle with that to taint him heading into the election, but...if you don't have Senators of character willing to say "yeah, this is bullshit" - and right now you don't even have a simple majority, let alone 2/3 - then all impeachment amounts to is public masturbation.

WOO WE GOT HIM NOTHING'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN BUT WE DID A THING

I'm sympathetic to the argument that if Congress doesn't act it'll weaken impeachment as a tool against future misdeeds, but I think we're already across the Rubicon on that one. We had a Democratic President impeached for lying about a blowjob and we have a Republican President who SHOULD be impeached for obstruction of justice, at minimum, but a Department of Justice and Republican Senate willing to circle the wagons for him no matter how significant his misdeeds.

So I'm just not sure what you can do short of voting the motherfucker out of office in a year and change.

3rd term and suspension of the constitution should make people understand why the 2nd amendment is important

If you were a 28 year old congressman with a shit load of press would you shut up? Not to mention you were directly insulted by the US president with all the attention that brings. Would you go and say nothing?

I just read a theory that the right is trying to make these women with generally far far left ideas into the face of the party. If true then Trump is doing a wonderful job.

This doesn't make any sense. It's the far left that wants to move forward with impeachment proceedings. The moderate Democrats are the ones resisting it.

Because the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything. I think that's their issue. People can bash Republicans, but they at least have a policy and implement it. What exactly does Pelosi want to do besides insider trading?

It ain't about the ideas. Dark skin and female are two of the traits his base doesn't particularly care for.

I dig on Omar.

This targets the moderates more than the base.

So moderates are more inclined to be racist than his hardcore base?

Roger Stone had a hearing today to determine if he violated his gag order. The judge has expanded the terms of her gag order to:


Per a judge's order today, which expands an earlier gag order, Roger Stone cannot: - Post anything on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter - Make statements about his case or use any other platform to comment, although he can still fundraise for legal defense

Isn't this like the 3rd time he's broken his gag order? And one of them was a threat to the judge? Why does the judge bother?

She actually read a lot of his posts out loud during the hearing so the world knows what he said now. Maybe she thought it would shame him to silence.

I agree with you, but once again this is consistent behavior that is not in any way unique to Trump supporters. Look at the conversation we've been having about Amash as the latest among many demonstrations. A number of people here have reasonably and respectfully made the point that they respect his integrity but would never vote for him for policy reasons. I completely believe them on that and have no reason to think they aren't being straightforward about it. What we're hearing coming out of Trumpers is the same basic thing; they like his policy approaches for the most part and that outweighs anything else about him.

If we put policy above character (and we do, consistently and over a long period of time as a nation) then we have no justification for getting up in arms about the latest example of where that philosophy ultimately leads.

Maybe we consume our content elsewhere, but I VERY rarely hear a Trumper talk about anything policy related. I hear a lot of

" Trump tells it like it is"

" But the economy is good"

" well Obama did it also"

"FAKE NEWS"

"he is making America great again"

"well people always attack him, he can't defend himself?"

"those people shouldn't have come here"

Does Trump even know what his policy is?

She seems quite dumb.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dead at age 98.

Stuff I've specifically heard:

** Generally not being Hillary was and is considered his biggest qualification. It's often not so much what Trump is, but what Trump's election kept from happening.
** Conservative SCOTUS appointments
** Immigration is a big one, and this is in Michigan, a state that's about as not directly relevant to that issue as any in the country.
** The economy being better is a policyish response. Naturally I don't agree with their take on it, but they do have a point; overall economic growth has been better under Trump than under Obama even post-recovery. I think the president has little to do with that, but presidents pretty much always take more credit/blame for the economy than they deserve, so ... The trade war/tariff stuff slides in here.
** Opposing the AOC/Sanders 'socialism' push by the 'left' - l think the whole right/left thing doesn't accurately describe modern politics, but that's another can of worms.
** Abortion; better to have Trump than a pro-choice prez

Etc. I do also hear the stuff you've described, the lion's share about Trump being perceived a strong leader vis a vis Obama's perceived apology tour stuff, Trump being considered more pro-law enforcement, and so on.

Fake news.

...he'd turned 99 a few months ago.

These. Also, "the Democrats care more about immigrants than they do about Americans."

"Why don't the Democrats fix poverty instead of worrying about illegal immigrants?"

We're trying, fuckwads, but Trump took any of the money for that and gave it to the rich.

Of course the "economy" is going to be good when you're running trillion dollar deficits. Sadly, there's still a government to run. The GOP is trying to work backwards from here, saying the only way to stop these deficits is to vastly decrease entitlements / the size of government.

But the economy was running pretty good before the giant money grab by the upper class, but I'm not sure how effective that argument is going to be.

::holds his head in shame:::


guess I deserve a banning for that :)

Nah. You can just go work for Fox News now.

Rand Paul has blocked the 9/11 responders bill because of the deficit.

lol. Now he gives a shit about the deficit?

The socialist argument is kind of weird since they don't have a problem with billions in handouts to farmers. I mean the farming industry is practically centrally controlled at this point.

I wish more people did. The rest of the GOP doesn't and the Democratic presidential candidates are scrambling over themselves to find ways to spend more money.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/polit..._medium=social



This would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. The POTUS just told 4 minority congresswomen to go back to their countries, yet the Dems and the media are the reasons for the racial divide.

At least the Democratic folks are willing to propose more money coming in to fund these things.

The Republicans? "CUT TAXES TO THE RICH AND EVERYTHING WILL MAGICALLY BE BETTER"

Today I saw another data set about the 2016 election. Trump won the mid-west states while winning significant majorities of voters that disliked both Trump and Clinton. He gained between 4-8% in MI, WI and PA from those voters.

That's going to be very difficult to replicate, but it explains his all negative strategy that he's already started for 2020.

Trump's crowd tonight started to chant "Send her back!" in response to his attacks on Omar. There is no bottom.

Barr and Ross after writing a letter to Pelosi asking her to stop the contempt vote, are voted in contempt.

So impeachment was brought to a floor vote and was handily defeated. The democrats really need to learn the concept of unity.

Appalling

Not disappointing though. Hoping that with every little step just a few more realize that things have gotten just a little too racist for their liking. (Not expecting miracles, but baby steps, you know?)

FTFY. I'm starting to dislike Pelosi almost as much as many on the right do.

I think Pelosi is doing the smart thing. I'm deathly afraid of Impeachment riling up Trump's base and giving him a victory in 2020.

What is the upside to impeachment at this point? In a vacuum, it's probably the right call but we don't live in vacuums. Trump wants to be painted as a sympathetic figure and this helps in that regard. The Senate will never convict him so I just think that 100% of the energy should be directed at the next realistic chance at removing him from power which is November 2020.

If the House begins impeachment proceedings, then at some point, they have to impeach him. Which then kicks it to the Senate, where Mitch McConnell gets the bully pulpit.

I think that if the Dems controlled the Senate, then impeachment would be a smart political move, even if they lacked the votes to convict. They could still use the trial in the Senate to expose the President.

But they don't.

So I agree with lungs that it is the "right" thing to do in some moral sense, but it has a lot of political downside for the Dems.

Yup.

My Dad and FIL are both die hard republicans who don't love Trump, but buy the narrative that the other side picks on him. Impeachment would just add gas to that fire and potentially swing a lot of voters.

I don't trust any Dem strategic decision that involves Donald Trump.

Edit: Being soft on Trump out of intimidation and then losing to him in 2020 anyway followed by a Trump legacy of, "if they had anything on me they would have impeached me!" is just about the most Democratic party scenario I can think of.

I want the Presidential candidates to come out in favor of impeachment but I don't want the House to actually put impeachment into motion. How's that for twisted logic? I don't even have a problem bringing it up in the House either. Let the aspirational members get their vote on record so they can use it in the future. Pelosi can put an end to it for current political expediency because she doesn't need to be liked for future office.

Investigating things like security clearance problems, contracting corruption, immigration detention, etc. isn't going to help Trump, and the congress has an obligation to investigate. I'm frustrated that too much of the decision is being driven by political standards of what might happen if.

Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.

It's kind of like if a prosecutor had evidence that the police chief or mayor was engaged in corruption, but refused to charge or even open an investigation because the chief or mayor had too much support in the community, would probably avoid consequences, and it could harm the prosecutor's career or risk re-election.

We'd call the prosecutor spineless and part of the problem in that scenario.

Yup. Both of these. To some degree, it's this kind of thinking that got us Trump in the first place. It's the same issue I had with more than a few "Christians" in 2016. They were more concerned about winning an election than doing the right thing, so they voted for him.

Alana Abramson on Twitter: "GOP Leader McCarthy defends POTUS after crowd chants "send her back." "The president just moved on with his speech. The president did not join in. the president moved on."

As many are noting, McCain rebuked audience when they said something similar RE Obama in '08"

Right. The AI is learning. McCain lost. Trump won. This is what they are now.

In my fictional head cannon, that McCain speech is the moment Trump got the idea to actually play directly to that base. It just seems crazy in retrospect that the party nominee was such at odds with the people who came to see and support him. It was a different, more innocent time when we just expected people, even Republicans, to rise above that and be the grown up, and there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it. Now, Trump is praised simply for not joining in on the chant - though it must only be a matter of time before he takes the next step, whatever that is. McCain (like Reagan, for some of the stuff he said about immigration), would have been booed out of that room and branded a traitor today.

Joining, co-signing.

I like how shitheads like Conway will cry about people dox’ing the virulently racist motherfuckers chanting in the crowd.

Also wondering how long it will be til Trump starts casually mentioning phrases like “bottom of the ocean.”

And that being said, it’s awful that we have devolved to the point where doing what is right is often at odds with maximizing your chances of winning. Somewhere around 2000 or so, it became in fashion to express concern about how negative political campaigns were getting. Clearly they are much more negative now, but also clearly the reason is because it works. Again going back to some of my friends who voted for Trump, they think he is an absolute scumbag, so absolutely the best way to get them to show up for Trump again would be to vilify the opposition. It’s ironic that some of the same people who were 15 or 20 years ago decrying how negative campaigns had gotten are voting “lesser of two evils” today.

But can’t the argument be made for playing the long game? If the ultimate goal is getting Trump removed and an attempt to impeach only helps his cause isn’t the right thing to do not let it go anywhere?

Especially since it seems individual investigations are still ongoing. I think Pelosi mentioned there are 6 currently in the works. Heck Mueller hasn't even testified to Congress yet.

Prosecutors (to use that example) don't generally file at the first possible instance (except if absolutely necessary). They build a case, get all the evidence they can. They want a rock solid case. Drowning the defendant in evidence.

But the official reason seems to be that they don't want to make Trump's supporters mad. I don't know if they'd said that, but that seems to be the consensus perceived reason.

If you can't win your case, the only result would be to made people mad.

Which is what some prosecutors think when they don't charge police officers, corrupt government officials, etc. "I'm not going to win in this town, so might as well not get people pissed at me and instead focus on my re-election."

It's hard to imagine Trump and Republicans dictating their strategy based on making sure not to make Democrats too upset. That's why they win elections disproportionate to their support. Whatever makes the other guys mad will rally your own side.

Not only will it get the other guys mad, but it'll allow your opponent an ability to counter the charges in an official manner - who exactly do you think controls the Senate (and therefore controls the manner of the trial after the House votes to impeach)?

Prosecutors don't prosecute cases they can't win as a matter of course. It's commonly said that if the feds charge you, they know they have a winning case. If you lose because you planned terribly or didn't get all the info you could, you don't have any second shot. Impeachment is similar. You get one shot - it behooves you to make sure you don't waste it.

All of that is true....if you value the outcome above doing the right thing. "The end justifies the means" ftl.

History will judge those who didn't stand up to Trump. I think there are plenty of people viewed historically as cowards who probably justified their inaction at the time through that kind of belief - I can't change everything on my own, so, why bother and rock the boat?

On the other hand, prosecutors who prosecute unpopular or risky cases are admirable. None changed the world on their own, but, pursuit of justice is always worth it. What's important ethically is that they believe they have evidence to support a conviction, not whether there are political roadblocks, or risks to one's own career.


That's true, but I'm referring to the consensus assumption that there will be no impeachment because they don't want to make Trump's supporters mad. If they're thoroughly building a case, great.

Yes and I do care more about getting Trump out of office which is the right thing to do. This fucking country which includes all of us lost the privilege of being idealistic. This is political civil war at this point and requires extreme steps. Voting with your heart etc is going to get at least 4 more years of Trumps.

Trump supporters are already mad. They're mad every day. We have immigrants in congress that hate america, there's a crusade against trump that's neverending despite "no collusion". If trump isn't re-elected their way of life is going to instantly end. Doesn't matter than none of that is true. They believe it with all their being. They're going to vote. So in my mind all you're left with is showing that you're cowards.

The mad Trump supporters are also going to vote no matter what. The Dems win by convincing enough people who sat out last time to come out and vote for them this time. The danger is if rather than trying to inspire people that they're fighting for them and against Trump, to just sit back and hope Trump disgusts enough people to get off their ass. But I guess there's a long way to go, and of course the nominee will be able to dictate the approach to some extent. But again, their previous approaches with him do not inspire confidence.

The wording is goofy, but what is the "righter" thing? Carrying out impeachment proceedings full well knowing it won't work, and could possibly cost the Dems the election, or just focusing on beating him in 2020?

Trump could literally shoot Omar in the head on national TV and his supporters would vote for him. He wouldn't lose one ounce of support with them. I am not being hyperbolic either, this is where we are at as a country, we are Nazi Germany.

The Dems need the fringe voters and people on the fence. I have a ton of people in my life who voted him last time, and they justify it with the economy, and saying the "other side" tries to make him look bad. If they impeach all that will do is make the Dems look like they can't beat him in 2020, and enough people buy that narrative that they would lean his way.

But what if the person you were running against would be an absolute menace that would destroy the local government?

Shouldn't that factor in?

People want to talk about impeachment being the morally right thing to do, but these decisions don't exist in a vacuum.

I find it difficult to believe that the difference for those voters between voting Trump and voting for a woman, or a gay man, or a minority, or a self-described socialist will be how mean the Dems are to Trump. (Maybe some of them would vote for the safe old white man...but I think that might be a net loss with reduced turnout from Dems in that scenario.) And even if it was, the Dems can't possibly get through the 2020 campaign without being really, really mean to Trump. Unless they just start complimenting him I guess. Which would be a bold strategy.

Trump has actually normalized outward racism from the presidency. I didn't think that could ever happen. It's not even that noteworthy anymore. It's just what it is. The more we fear upsetting his supporters the more we're complicit in that normalization.

Edit: The Dems shouldn't insult the voters. I agree that the "they're too dumb to vote in their self-interest" stuff isn't helpful. But they have to go all out on Trump. Whoever sticks with him, that's on them, that's who they are.

Democrats are actively participating in making these things standard. Once something is allowed to pass, it's very hard to later come back and fix it. The corruption, the cruelty, the lack of any barrier between the government and the political party, etc. will all be just standard politics if they aren't fought vigorously now.

What does "work" mean? Getting the Senate to remove him is unlikely, but I don't think it's impossible. Getting a more clear picture of the multitude of legal and ethical lapses going on in the executive branch is "working" for me.

I don't buy the idea that a vigorous investigatory agenda will somehow make Trump more popular. Not enough people know that government departments are shoveling money to the Trumps through their hotels. Not enough people know that security clearances have been handed out over repeat objections of the FBI, and holders of those clearances are sharing secret information with people they shouldn't. Not enough people know that McConnell and Chao sure seem to be working with the Chinese and Russians. And I could go on and on.

Exposing all of this is not going to make him more popular. It's also going to make it more difficult for the next president to do the same things. Trump benefits from silence, which, fortunately he's too dumb to realize. The more he's in the news, generally, the worse his poll numbers.

Epstein denied bail. Judge not too happy with his lawyers efforts to get it either.

Yes. Also it seems that some are pushing impeachment as a political gambit in and of itself. They think dragging all of the stuff to the light of day will make people stop supporting him, which is nonsense. It's not going to succeed with a Republican Senate and Mitch McConnell will put the most favorable possible spin on the 'trial' and then it fails, Trump can claim victory and say the crazy Dems couldn't get impeachment so he's innocent.

It requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Right now it's impossible to remove him.

I don't think we can guarantee what happens when all of the bad stuff gets publicized. Probably not, but I won't rule it out after a series of investigations.

I don't think it will get anyone to stop supporting him, but he has 30% or less of the country that voted for him. He's not popular right now and there's no reason to think investigations will make him more popular.

Eh, Republican support for Kavanaugh went up after Ford's allegations. Rally around the picked-on white guy.

A Final Look At Where Voters Stand On Kavanaugh Before The Senate Votes | FiveThirtyEight

Who are the voters that would otherwise stay home or vote D, but for investigation/impeachment? I know a lot of Trump voters. I know a lot of people that won't vote. I know some GOPers that won't vote for Trump. I don't know anybody that will be motivated to vote Trump only by investigations/impeachment.

What exactly do you think is going to come out that hasn't been said already?

Yes we can.

The reality is politicians govern to get reelected. If you are from a republican district and you vote to impeach Trump you have zero chance of reelection.

Why do you think they all kiss the ring? It isn't because they agree with him or like him, hell, look at some of the stuff they all said about him prior to the election. It is because to go against him is political suicide.

Most people aren't paying attention. You can't make decisions based only on the politically engaged.

I think that's more true than in the past, but it isn't completely true for a lot of districts and states. At some points rats jump off a sinking ships.

I just think it's defeatist to say a president can get away with all sorts of crimes because doing anything might cost some votes.

I just hope that this desire to appease Trump's supporters ends with declining to impeach.

Simple: if you believe he has committed offenses that are impeachable, you impeach. If you don't do that, you've made the decision to turn a blind eye to high crimes and misdemeanors, and you've abdicated your duty as a member of Congress.

Even if the public perception does not support starting the endeavor? Once you go down that path, you can't take it back. It's not a path to be taken lightly. That doesn't mean that we've far exceeded Nixon at this point, but the people will still have the final say. Would you start the process, and keep your duty, knowing that it's going to result in failure, and keep the man in the powerful office for another 4 years?



You did your duty after all. What's more important? So much changes in the power structure when you gain the Executive. If sticking to your guns and your duty helps you sleep at night; I hope you're happy playing the political underdog for it.

Correct, Dems really don't need even moderate Republicans to win an election.
Dems need to maximize voter turn out and win independents. In the current landscape, even with the electoral college leaning GOP, it would be nearly impossible for the GOP win the Presidency if the dems do those 2 things well.

yes


yes



yes


This principle is something I've thought about a lot in various life circumstances. For example, we have some good friends who sensed a calling to go be missionaries to refugees in Germany. Many of them are Muslims. Some of them are terrorists. It's fully conceivable that they and their small children could end up dead as a result of doing the right thing. But "I could end up dead" should have nothing to do with the decision as to whether they should have gone. Similarly, "it might cause Trump to win" should have nothing to do with this decision.


(And yes, JPhillips is correct in that you also send a message that the offenses are acceptable.)

Public support for Nixon's impeachment was at 19% when the inquiry started. As of June 54% believed Trump committed an impeachable offense even though 41% currently support impeachment.

I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that an impeachment inquiry would help or hurt Trump's chances in 2020. However, it's the right thing to do. At this point continuing to investigate his administration while refusing to take the evidence gathered and use it isn't helping anyone. The only thing it's doing is making Trump and his administration more confident in ignoring subpoenas and not cooperating in any way.

Thank you for putting these words on here. I hope you don't get dinged for playing the race card though.

I don't think Nixon had a cult-like following like Trump. Nor did he have his own state-run media.

I was listening to Fox this evening. HRCs mentor is a KKK member. A big liberal is Al Sharpton who said that whites were living in a cave while his race was building empires and pyramids.

Where does the hypocrisy and double standard stop?

Isnt it more of a economic issue than a race issue?

The Robert Byrd from the 40s through the 60s was far different than the Robert Byrd Clinton knew. Not excusable, but calling him a mentor in a statement after he passed is different from him actually being her mentor.

Regardless, what did Clinton do that would be considered racist?


Dems have never voted Al Shartpon into any elected official position so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. That both sides have racists? Sure, but the vast majority on the left don't take Shartpon seriously and call him out for his racist comments while Trump was not only voted into office but is being cheered on for his openly racist behavior.

There's one party supporting an openly racist agenda right now and it's not the left.

If we were to have a racist draft for both parties based on current political figures I'll let you guess who ends up with the stronger roster.