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.'
“That decision has haunted us” is an argument about consequences. “Whatever the possible division and angst” says another category of consequences should not determine the decision. The missing piece is why the first should carry weight while the second should not. “Unavoidable” does not mean “irrelevant.” Some conflict being inevitable does not make every conflict equally necessary, equally harmful, or equally justified. Your conclusion needs that distinction; the word “so” does not supply it.
Then there is “do what is right and legal.” That names a standard. It does not establish that the particular action under discussion meets it. Which response is right is precisely the disagreement.. you cannot settle it by putting “right” into the description of your preferred response. Someone defending a different course could repeat those exact words without resolving anything. The evidence and reasoning have to distinguish the positions.
Division does not automatically make an action wrong. But its inevitability does not establish that a particular action is justified, either. The argument still needs to show why the proposed response meets the standard you invoke and why the costs do not outweigh its justification. “Do the right thing” states the obligation. It does not establish that you have identified the right thing.
My comment was a brief comment on an article, not a full analysis and alternative recommendation. If you had read the comment to which I replied, you would have seen that the commenter posited the "the division and angst is probably not worth it." This appears to indicate that division and angst in the situation is reason enough to avoid the decision or circumstances. I was not even suggesting the ultimate answer of what is "right and legal" in this particular circumstance. I was making the statement to show what any analysis of this or other circumstance should use as its goal--what is right and legal. The people making the decisions will have to make those assessments. It seems lately members of Congress have been unable to get to even that elementary point--simply aiming to do what is right and legal, instead of following instructions or avoiding hard decisions.
It’s true the first commenter brought up division and angst, but you’re the one who picked that line out and ran with it. So context cuts both ways. When you answered with “whatever the possible division and angst,” you were already saying those consequences shouldn’t control the decision.
And your own Ford/Nixon example undercuts this “right and legal” framing. The pardon was legal. You still think it was wrong. So those are obviously two different standards. Then you say Congress is “following instructions or avoiding hard decisions.” That’s a claim about their motives, and you haven’t shown it. They can reach a different judgment from you without being dishonest, obedient, or cowardly. Disagreeing with you is not evidence that they abandoned the standard.
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.
Your reply gets to the distinctions the article needed. Removing Trump is not automatically the same as improving governance, having the votes to impeach is not the same as securing a conviction, and a change in Congress would not establish that these impeachment votes helped cause it. A change driven by economic dissatisfaction would be an entirely different explanation. The article moves from failed votes to a “wobbly” Congress to the possibility of another attempt in January. Your reply separates that political opportunity from the question of what the public actually gains; including what a Vance succession would mean. Those distinctions belong in the original analysis, not just the discussion afterward.
My bigger problem, though, is how you turn a voting record into a statement of intent. A vote establishes a decision. It does not, by itself, establish why someone made it. A representative could be balancing district priorities, maintaining party cooperation to secure something for their constituents, or objecting to the particular proceeding rather than endorsing the conduct behind it. Party strategy and representing a community are not necessarily separate considerations. You even supply the counterexample yourself: Democrats could investigate Trump while choosing not to impeach him for political reasons. Yet you describe the Republican choice as being “with Trump or not” and “with the war in Iran or not.” You cannot acknowledge strategic complexity in one case and treat the other as a confession of loyalty without additional evidence. That does not put anyone’s vote beyond criticism; the decision and its consequences remain open to scrutiny. But using it against someone on the campaign trail does not make the motive you attach to it a fact. Your own example demonstrates why that distinction matters.
As far as consequences….as I work to GOTV, I’ll be using my MAGA Reps Nay vote to emphasize he supports the war and therefore is complicit….lives lost,cost of our groceries/gas +++.He is definitely feeling the 🔥. Rep Haridopolos Supports The War…It Costs Us All More!! 🪧
Since you’re emphasizing consequences, let’s be precise about them. Your comment moves from a “nay” vote to support for the war, then to “therefore complicit” in lives lost and higher prices. Those are separate claims. They may be connected, but the connection still has to be established. Public statements can establish what someone supports. The resolution and voting record identify the decision they actually made. Attributing responsibility for the harms you list requires explaining how that decision contributed to them. “Therefore” is not a magic word that supplies the missing evidence. Criticizing a public decision does not require reading someone’s mind, and responsibility does not require being the sole cause. But it does require more than attaching consequences to a vote without explaining the relationship.
Civilian deaths and household costs belong in the discussion. So do the policy’s stated objectives, the risks it was supposed to address, the available alternatives, and whether its results justify its costs. Naming costs does not complete that assessment; just as invoking Iranian repression would not establish that this war protects anyone’s freedoms. Neither the stated intention nor the existence of harm, taken alone, settles the comparison with other courses of action. The question is what the policy achieves, what harm it causes, and how that compares with the alternatives.. not simply which accusation can be attached to a vote.
Thank you for such a timely and informative update, empowering when being informed.
oh come on. Its theatre. If the democrats do it, you can be sure the republicans will do it next time
Waste of time on either side. Just get on with business. Its like click bait, he is just trying to get attention it seems.
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.'
“That decision has haunted us” is an argument about consequences. “Whatever the possible division and angst” says another category of consequences should not determine the decision. The missing piece is why the first should carry weight while the second should not. “Unavoidable” does not mean “irrelevant.” Some conflict being inevitable does not make every conflict equally necessary, equally harmful, or equally justified. Your conclusion needs that distinction; the word “so” does not supply it.
Then there is “do what is right and legal.” That names a standard. It does not establish that the particular action under discussion meets it. Which response is right is precisely the disagreement.. you cannot settle it by putting “right” into the description of your preferred response. Someone defending a different course could repeat those exact words without resolving anything. The evidence and reasoning have to distinguish the positions.
Division does not automatically make an action wrong. But its inevitability does not establish that a particular action is justified, either. The argument still needs to show why the proposed response meets the standard you invoke and why the costs do not outweigh its justification. “Do the right thing” states the obligation. It does not establish that you have identified the right thing.
My comment was a brief comment on an article, not a full analysis and alternative recommendation. If you had read the comment to which I replied, you would have seen that the commenter posited the "the division and angst is probably not worth it." This appears to indicate that division and angst in the situation is reason enough to avoid the decision or circumstances. I was not even suggesting the ultimate answer of what is "right and legal" in this particular circumstance. I was making the statement to show what any analysis of this or other circumstance should use as its goal--what is right and legal. The people making the decisions will have to make those assessments. It seems lately members of Congress have been unable to get to even that elementary point--simply aiming to do what is right and legal, instead of following instructions or avoiding hard decisions.
It’s true the first commenter brought up division and angst, but you’re the one who picked that line out and ran with it. So context cuts both ways. When you answered with “whatever the possible division and angst,” you were already saying those consequences shouldn’t control the decision.
And your own Ford/Nixon example undercuts this “right and legal” framing. The pardon was legal. You still think it was wrong. So those are obviously two different standards. Then you say Congress is “following instructions or avoiding hard decisions.” That’s a claim about their motives, and you haven’t shown it. They can reach a different judgment from you without being dishonest, obedient, or cowardly. Disagreeing with you is not evidence that they abandoned the standard.
The speaker of the house is a wimp, coward and without any decency. He does not do his job. He kisses up to Trump instead
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.
Your reply gets to the distinctions the article needed. Removing Trump is not automatically the same as improving governance, having the votes to impeach is not the same as securing a conviction, and a change in Congress would not establish that these impeachment votes helped cause it. A change driven by economic dissatisfaction would be an entirely different explanation. The article moves from failed votes to a “wobbly” Congress to the possibility of another attempt in January. Your reply separates that political opportunity from the question of what the public actually gains; including what a Vance succession would mean. Those distinctions belong in the original analysis, not just the discussion afterward.
My bigger problem, though, is how you turn a voting record into a statement of intent. A vote establishes a decision. It does not, by itself, establish why someone made it. A representative could be balancing district priorities, maintaining party cooperation to secure something for their constituents, or objecting to the particular proceeding rather than endorsing the conduct behind it. Party strategy and representing a community are not necessarily separate considerations. You even supply the counterexample yourself: Democrats could investigate Trump while choosing not to impeach him for political reasons. Yet you describe the Republican choice as being “with Trump or not” and “with the war in Iran or not.” You cannot acknowledge strategic complexity in one case and treat the other as a confession of loyalty without additional evidence. That does not put anyone’s vote beyond criticism; the decision and its consequences remain open to scrutiny. But using it against someone on the campaign trail does not make the motive you attach to it a fact. Your own example demonstrates why that distinction matters.
As far as consequences….as I work to GOTV, I’ll be using my MAGA Reps Nay vote to emphasize he supports the war and therefore is complicit….lives lost,cost of our groceries/gas +++.He is definitely feeling the 🔥. Rep Haridopolos Supports The War…It Costs Us All More!! 🪧
Since you’re emphasizing consequences, let’s be precise about them. Your comment moves from a “nay” vote to support for the war, then to “therefore complicit” in lives lost and higher prices. Those are separate claims. They may be connected, but the connection still has to be established. Public statements can establish what someone supports. The resolution and voting record identify the decision they actually made. Attributing responsibility for the harms you list requires explaining how that decision contributed to them. “Therefore” is not a magic word that supplies the missing evidence. Criticizing a public decision does not require reading someone’s mind, and responsibility does not require being the sole cause. But it does require more than attaching consequences to a vote without explaining the relationship.
Civilian deaths and household costs belong in the discussion. So do the policy’s stated objectives, the risks it was supposed to address, the available alternatives, and whether its results justify its costs. Naming costs does not complete that assessment; just as invoking Iranian repression would not establish that this war protects anyone’s freedoms. Neither the stated intention nor the existence of harm, taken alone, settles the comparison with other courses of action. The question is what the policy achieves, what harm it causes, and how that compares with the alternatives.. not simply which accusation can be attached to a vote.
I understand what you’re saying….although that’s a lot to put on a sign!😉
FWIW,he has publicly supported the war.
lol true. that may exceed the word limit for a sign