While impeaching and convicting Trump is a hugely seductive idea, the division and angst it would is probably not worth it. It is better to beat him by electing liberals and moderates and make his last two years miserable.
Ford pardoned Nixon to avoid division and angst, and that decision has haunted us for most of the last 50 years. Division and angst are unavoidable, so people should do what is right and legal whatever the possible 'division and angst.'
How does this help anything… and what actually changes because of it?
You call it “political theater,” then point to it as evidence Congress is getting “wobbly.” A different vote count can show disagreement, sure. It does not, by itself, show that anyone is closer to facing consequences. Where have you established that connection?
I’m not saying accountability stops being part of the job because a vote fails. You point to a new Congress in January as a reason another attempt might go differently. Fine but what outcome are you expecting, and how would a different vote count get us there? Explain what this effort establishes or makes possible beyond registering opposition. Are we getting closer to accountability, or just keeping score?
You’ve explained who voted differently. Congrats. Now explain what that changes for the public.
So, I called it political theater because it was a foregone conclusion that the resolutions would fail. And the only point of going through this exercise was to force Republicans to take a stand, either with Trump or not, and with the war in Iran or not, that could be used against them in the next several weeks on the campaign trail. Assuming Democrats take over in January--the polls strongly suggest this is the case absent some draconian election interference--there won't be show votes like this but, rather, committee investigations in which sufficient evidence is gathered to make the case at trial in the Senate. By then, there would, theoretically, be enough votes in the House to pass an impeachment resolution even if it would be an uphill slog in the Senate to gain a conviction. What would change for the public? Depends on outcomes, right? It is a fair question to debate whether the country would be better off were J.D. Vance to succeed Trump and, politically, whether that would be the Democrats' best idea going into 2028. If you are a Democrat running for president, would you rather campaign against Trump's awful legacy or face his successor with two years, perhaps, under his belt and the incumbent? Politically, there's a case to be made to investigate Trump's criminality, but not impeach, so two years hence the Dems could control Congress and the White House. That would not surprise me at all. That's if politics is your main interest. It's not mine. I care about competent governance, public policy directed toward the general welfare of the American people as opposed to the oligarch class, etc.
Thank you for such a timely and informative update, empowering when being informed.
While impeaching and convicting Trump is a hugely seductive idea, the division and angst it would is probably not worth it. It is better to beat him by electing liberals and moderates and make his last two years miserable.
Ford pardoned Nixon to avoid division and angst, and that decision has haunted us for most of the last 50 years. Division and angst are unavoidable, so people should do what is right and legal whatever the possible 'division and angst.'
How does this help anything… and what actually changes because of it?
You call it “political theater,” then point to it as evidence Congress is getting “wobbly.” A different vote count can show disagreement, sure. It does not, by itself, show that anyone is closer to facing consequences. Where have you established that connection?
I’m not saying accountability stops being part of the job because a vote fails. You point to a new Congress in January as a reason another attempt might go differently. Fine but what outcome are you expecting, and how would a different vote count get us there? Explain what this effort establishes or makes possible beyond registering opposition. Are we getting closer to accountability, or just keeping score?
You’ve explained who voted differently. Congrats. Now explain what that changes for the public.
So, I called it political theater because it was a foregone conclusion that the resolutions would fail. And the only point of going through this exercise was to force Republicans to take a stand, either with Trump or not, and with the war in Iran or not, that could be used against them in the next several weeks on the campaign trail. Assuming Democrats take over in January--the polls strongly suggest this is the case absent some draconian election interference--there won't be show votes like this but, rather, committee investigations in which sufficient evidence is gathered to make the case at trial in the Senate. By then, there would, theoretically, be enough votes in the House to pass an impeachment resolution even if it would be an uphill slog in the Senate to gain a conviction. What would change for the public? Depends on outcomes, right? It is a fair question to debate whether the country would be better off were J.D. Vance to succeed Trump and, politically, whether that would be the Democrats' best idea going into 2028. If you are a Democrat running for president, would you rather campaign against Trump's awful legacy or face his successor with two years, perhaps, under his belt and the incumbent? Politically, there's a case to be made to investigate Trump's criminality, but not impeach, so two years hence the Dems could control Congress and the White House. That would not surprise me at all. That's if politics is your main interest. It's not mine. I care about competent governance, public policy directed toward the general welfare of the American people as opposed to the oligarch class, etc.