Impeachment is a lost cause at this point. Focus on 2020.

[Yavin4]

And not just the presidency, but all other elections as well.

[oregonjen]

1. Nope, I don't agree

[Yavin4]

2. I was very pro-impeachment not too long ago, but the moment has passed.

At this point, impeachment may detract people from our candidates.

[Moostache]

5. Nope...having a clown car full of 24+ candidates is distracting voters...

We should have no more 8-10 viable candidates at this point, MAYBE 12...but anyone polling at 0-1% is just sucking up coverage away from candidate that MIGHT earn the nomination...

The longer we have so many at once, the worse this is going to get...

[MFM008]

128. I agree

Especially a new age kook.
Very distracting.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

134. Very true. That anyone polling at 1-2% has the right

To be on stage with 10-20-30%ers is just plain ridiculous.

Thank goodness the threshold will rise. Hopefully then, they will start acting like they are running against the most evil, crazy, anti-intellectual, sleezebag ever to grace the office instead of this meaningless quibbling with each other.

[Hortensis]

19. Your moment has clearly passed, but you weren't in this

in the first place. None of us know a fraction of what we need to to make these calls.

Fwiw, I've read a few analysts who've said for a while that if we impeached it would probably be in the autumn.

But who could disagree with focusing on 2020? After all, THAT's when our big role to play is scheduled for, November 3. And preceding that by putting in some months or weeks with an activist group that's been making a difference would also be a genuine way to fight for our nation.

[JHB]

85. While I hate the source for this, there was a certain accuracy to...

..."you don't introduce new products in August." (Discredit to the (mal)administration of the now-second worst president.)

We definitely need a daily drum-thumping of hearings. We definitely need an every-few days trickle of new revelations similar to how the slow roll of Wikileaks dumps affected the news cycle. While Trump's MAGA cultists are are having too much fun despising the things they like to despise to shake loose, there is at least the potential for affecting the ones who went head-in-the-sand in 2016 by voting for Johnson.

Perhaps more than that, though, we need it for ourselves. We simply can't "focus on 2020" without that drumbeat. Democrats in congress and Democratic candidates need to be seen as putting up a fight. That's what people worked for in the 2018 elections. Doing something. Nothing will sap morale in 2020 like the perception that nothing was done.

[Hortensis]

111. I'd really like that drumbeat growing each week also

(Bolero now beating away in my mind). but the reasons why the nation takes off in August, including congress, have geographic and deep-seated social factors at base, and even biological. It's the slowdown season in many ways. But worse, though summer heat makes people angrier, it also makes us meaner, more reactionary, and less caring about others and in general.

Nancy could technically have canceled the August recess, but she couldn't cancel the electorate's summer doldrums and, now, distractions due to unusual heat. If the past and current polls are predictors, most of the citizens who don't want to hear it now should be more receptive after the weather cools down. Even those of us who don't know how to read electorates' pulses can read explanations of long patterns and wonder if and just how they apply this time.

Speaking of the hottest summer on record ever in many places, global warming is advancing to its own inexorable drumbeat that can't be turned off. Among its threats are a scary-real one to liberalism in government. Just check a global ideological map against the observation that climates that make life unusually difficult tend to result in more conservative societies.

It's not too much to wonder if leaving people a period to notice the heat, huge utility bills, stressed landscaping, water shortages, and so on, uncomplicated by constant political yammering for attention, has become incorporated into our strategy. It unquestionably is Democratic Party strategy to let the media connect the Republicans with the atrocities against migrants, in a daily beat, without constantly distracting the coverage with partisan political discussion.

I've wandered beyond the usual small, CNN/MSNBC-delineated, range of political discussion here, but that's because I paid our power bill this morning. You can bet, though, that leaders in both parties are very aware of the effects of global warming on populations and have read not just books on it but studies they've commissioned on how it will affect (is affecting) American politics short- and long-term.

[CentralMass]

3. If I had such a vote I would vote for new party leadership.

There is a case to be made both publically and procedurally against this president that our leadership should unequivocally be making loud and clear.

[Moostache]

4. Rule of Law is a lost cause. Just be happy that the stormtroopers haven't taken you (yet).

This whole idea that Impeachment was some kind of means to an end (removing Trump from office) has always been a fallacy. The GOP Senate has SHOWN they will do nothing that is against Trump's desires, so removal from office is not going to happen...

BUT!!!!

History will not look kindly on the current leadership or Democrats who cravenly support a 'do-nothing' approach in the face of clearly criminal acts by a president that was already installed under at best suspicious circumstances with aid from hostile foreign powers. Impeachment inquiries are the only way to shed light on the depth of the obstruction from this White House and to put the GOP on record FOREVER as saying "well...obstruction of justice is not REALLY a crime and we think Trump should be allowed to ignore the rule of law."

Apparently a good percentage of the Democratic Party is A-OK with letting Trump walk totally free of consequences...there should be a permanent stain on this president and instead our leaders are content to hand him bleach and soap and call it a day...

We look weak because we ARE weak. Americans HATE to appear weak...you do the 2020 math from there gang, but it ain't pretty.

[ehrnst]

27. What is "do-nothing" about dozens of investgations, public testimony by Mueller....

Perhaps you aren't keeping up with the news?

[Moostache]

45. Let me know when the REQUIRED BY LAW tax returns are handed over...

Now, if I see McGann compelled to appear before Congress and testify, then MAYBE we are getting somewhere with these so called investigations...

I was heartened to see Nadler start formal impeachment inquiry on Friday, but I would feel a lot better if every single one of Trump's minions that is defying a congressional subpoena were behind bars for contempt right now...

My original point however was that Impeachment of this imposter "President" should not be undertaken because of the math in the Senate for a conviction and removal from office - just that holding him fully accountable, exposing every lie and documenting every transgression is a moral imperative on its own...

[ehrnst]

51. The courts are currently deciding on his tax returns....

Pehaps you are counting on Dems to fail before you need to.

Defying a congressional subpoena didn't result in jail time for Eric Holder.

What does forcing a Dem Senator from a red state, or a Dem rep from a swing district to choose between voting with Dems and keeping their seat gain us?

[Snackshack]

61. I could not agree more.

You are absolutely correct that history will not look kindly on the Democratic Party’s lack of action. I understood waiting for Mueller’s report but once that was released the Dems should have got in gear. I am not sure when upholding the law and defending the Constitution took 2nd place to political calculations but it has.

Yes- the Dems went to court and that takes time but there was much more the Dems could/should have done in terms of contempt votes, fines, up to and including confinement. I still think they should impeach (hopefully they will follow thru).

[DemocracyMouse]

106. Of course they should and will impeach. Naysayers make me wonder who they are working for.

[ehrnst]

124. Are you talking about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?

Perhaps you're on the wrong board.

[DemocracyMouse]

133. No, others

[ehrnst]

135. Who? (nt)

[klook]

127. THANK YOU

I agree 100%. The point of the impeachment inquiry is to bring all the corruption to light AND to get the Republicans on the record defending the corruption. After that, let the chips fall where they may.

[kacekwl]

131. +1000

[wasupaloopa]

6. You are right. So many are in denial. Trump holds

all the cards.

First Hillary’s election was going to get rid of trump.

Then the Russian investigation was going to get rid of trump.

The meeting in trump tower was going to get rid of trump.

The women accusing trump were going to get rid of trump

Michael Cohen testimony was going to get rid of trump

The Mueller report was going to get rid of trump

Mueller’s testimony was going to get rid of trump.

Now impeachment will get rid of trump. Millions will rise up and demand his resignation. Millions of minds will be changed. Congressional Repubs will see the light. Evangelicals will come to Jesus.

MAGAs will see the light and repent

[Joe941]

90. Nope. Impeachment is the answer. We can't wait a whole year more!

[Mister Ed]

7. TrumPutin would be very pleased to have us focus only on 2020...

...which they are planning to steal.
This isn't either/or. There's no reason we can't focus on both.
Impeachment is a matter of law enforcement. It's the only means the Constitution provides to enforce the law on a criminal president.
I hope my local law enforcement never decides whether to purse criminals or ignore them depending on public opinion polls.

[ehrnst]

28. No, impeachment is not a matter of law enforcement- it's a political process not a judicial one.

You seem to be unfamiliar with what impeachment does.

Congress holds hearings and votes to remove him from office. The SENATE makes the decision whether or not the recommendation of congress be carried out.

We know that the Senate won't remove him. Mitch McConnell won't even acknowledge that Trump is a racist. None of the GOP will.

I hope my local law enforcement never decides whether to purse criminals or ignore them depending on public opinion polls

Again - you are confusing a political process with a judicial or law enforcement action.

I hope that clears things up....

[Mister Ed]

105. I'm not at all confused, thank you.

We on DU have quibbled for months about whether impeachment is "political" or not, without anyone really defining what that means. I've used the term to mean, "having to do with elections", and yes, that is one of its dictionary definitions. By that standard, impeachment, as set forth in the Constitution, is not a matter of politics - or, at least, it shouldn't be.

I concede, though, that the broader and more common definition of "political" is "having to do with governance", and by that standard, impeachment certainly would be "political".

Now, it doesn't escape my notice that you've deftly substituted the term "judicial" for my term "law enforcement". That sets up a straw man that is easily knocked down, because of course impeachment is not a "judicial" matter - that is, it is not a matter for the courts or the judiciary. But "judicial" here is your term, and not mine.

I repeat - and surely you agree - that impeachment is "the only means the Constitution provides to enforce the law on a criminal president". It's for that reason that I call it a matter of law enforcement.

I assure you that I understand very well that impeachment does not mean "removing a president from office", which of course is the result of conviction in the Senate, and not impeachment in the House.

I can also assure you that I understand very well that conviction will never occur while Mitch McConnell is Senate Majority Leader. Bad enough, to my way of thinking, that Mitch McConnell runs the Senate, without having him run the House as well. I don't think the House should make its decisions by asking themselves what Mitch will say. I'd much rather they ask themselves what the Constitution says.

I also understand that the House may conduct impeachment without ever sending the matter to Mitch at all. That might well be what House leaders have in mind with the impeachment process they've already started.

I'll finish now where I started off: by stating once again that those who say that Democrats need to forget about impeachment and focus instead on the next election are presenting a false choice. It's not either/or. The party can certainly do both.

I look forward to your further thoughts on the matter - but, going forward, could you kindly dispense with the condescending tone? Thank you.

[ehrnst]

109. Impeachment is a political process and not a criminal proceeding.

That is what is meant. People seem to think that it follows judicial or law enforcement rules. It is affected by politics, and is carried out by politicians - who are elected by us to represent us.

I don't think the House should make its decisions by asking themselves what Mitch will say. I'd much rather they ask themselves what the Constitution says.

No, It's not about "asking themselves about what what Mitch will say" it's about what the GOP Senate will DO. The Speaker of the House and the Judiciary committee are making decisions on impeachment that they know will not lead to a removal by the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, led by Mitch. That changes outcomes, yes? Are you suggesting that they ignore that reality? If there was a possibility of removal by the Senate, the conversation would be very, very different. They need to weigh the possible outcomes of an impeachment, including on the 2020 Senate and House races, good and bad.

I also understand that the House may conduct impeachment without ever sending the matter to Mitch at all.

Where did you hear that? Also You keep using "the Senate" and "Mitch" interchangeably, as though somehow the only GOP Senator is McConnell. If it was just "Mitch" who was voting to keep Trump in, it would be a very different conversation. I think that kind of condescending dismissal of the realities of a GOP majority Senate isn't giving our Democrats in Congress much respect for what obstacles they actually face.

those who say that Democrats need to forget about impeachment and focus instead on the next election are presenting a false choice. It's not either/or. The party can certainly do both.

I never said that Democrats can't do both. Tell it to the OP.

[Joe941]

8. I refuse to accept that.

[OliverQ]

9. So we're banking on fixing things in an election

that's guaranteed to be corrupted by foreign powers and Republican cheating yet again?

Yeah, I have zero faith in that succeeding.

Let's just accept the fact that America is dead, and the country needs to be burned to the ground.

[ehrnst]

30. Well, it's certainly pointless to bank on impeachment to remove him, isn't it?

We know that won't work.

We do know, however what happens to Dem Senators in Red states if they vote against something Trump wants.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

107. I am curious

Why should ANY democrat be voting for anything that the orange clown wants?
Shouldn't they be voting for what democrats want?

I mean if they vote like republicans how are they NOT republicans?

[ehrnst]

108. You mean shut down all legislative activity? How does congress not vote on a budget without

shutting down the government?

You seem to be advocating that Democrats behave like Republicans in 2009... how did that work out for the country?

Congress has a constitutional duty to legislate, investigate, research and work in committees. One cannot do the job and exclude working with GOP legislators. You seem to be uniformed about legislating - the Legislative branch can't simply divide the work down party lines and not vote on anything the other party has touched. Are Democrats also supposed to refuse to sit on committees Republicans are also on? How would that turn out?

Perhaps you are privileged enough not to have felt any pain from the government shutdown in January. However, millions of others did.

If a GOP congressman says the sun rises in the east, do you expect Democrats to contradict that?

[Trumpocalypse]

48. If the people come out to vote in big numbers

and don’t stay home like they did in 16, Russian and GOP cheating won’t matter.

[maxsolomon]

10. Conviction is.

Impeachment is what he deserves, and what I voted for.

The RW drumbeat of "give it up, give it up" has gotten to you. Tune out for a week or two, recharge.

[ehrnst]

31. Impeachment won't "convict him" because the Senate won't vote to convict him.

That's not a 'RW drumbeat."

[maxsolomon]

34. I know how Impeachment and the Senate trial works. Hence my comment.

Conviction is a lost cause. Impeachment is not.

The RW drumbeat is "give it up, give it up, give it up".

[ehrnst]

40. Um... what is a "conviction" via impeachment worth when we already know the outcome

the Senate "trial" will be to not remove him?

The RW drumbeat is going to be "he WON we WON he WON" when, not if, that happens.

[maxsolomon]

57. It is not a conviction.

Its IMPEACHMENT. If he's impeached in the House, he's now IMPEACHED. Impeached like Bill Clinton. Impeached for history.

Conviction is a separate matter. I have no hope for that, except to expose the venality of the Senate GOP (and probably CJ John Roberts) for all the planet to see.

The GOP didn't pay at all for Impeaching Clinton. We may or may not pay for doing it to Trump, who richly deserves it. More than Nixon did.

If we don't try, and he wins in 2020, we look like chumps.

[ehrnst]

70. So what does being IMPEACHED change for him or us?

I have no hope for that, except to expose the venality of the Senate GOP (and probably CJ John Roberts) for all the planet to see.

I am more concerned by what happens at the polls in 2020 that 'showing the planet' with impeachment. The rest of the planet knows who he is better than his fans, who will never get it. The rest of the planet is not voting in the 2020 election.

If we don't try, and he wins in 2020, we look like chumps.

What if we try, which forces red state Dem senators and congressional reps in swing districts to come down on a side that kills their chances?

Can you tell me how impeachment could positively effect outcomes for Dem Senators in Red states, or congressional reps in swing districts?

And why should I take your judgement on that over theirs?

We may or may not pay for doing it to Trump, who richly deserves it.

And if that 'paying' takes the form of not taking the Senate, how do we start to undo what he's done? Wouldn't that be making the next generation 'pay?'

I'm far more concerned about that than what 'the rest of the planet' sees in an impeachment.

[Trumpocalypse]

49. So if Trump weren't President

you wouldn’t have voted for a Democrat?

[maxsolomon]

52. Right, that's exactly what I wrote.

[Trumpocalypse]

63. Just asking a question

Why not answer it?

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. 2020 won't matter if the Constitution isn't protected

By not impeaching, not even opening an inquiry sets the precedent that ALL of Trump’s conduct is normal and acceptable behaviour for a president, and not worthy of even an attempt of Congress holding him accountable.

Some things are more important than elections, but if Pelosi is as wise as everyone says she is, she’ll find a way to defend the Constitution and inflict maximum political damage to the GOP.

[ehrnst]

17. There's some fear based defeatism there.

I think you fear that somehow the Constitution itself will morph into something else, tyvek, perhaps, if there is not an impeachment.

There was no "damage" to the constitution itself when Nixon was pardoned - which set the precedent a POTUS could be exonerated of crimes if they just resign. That's way more shitty in terms of precedent than not impeaching when we know it won't won't remove him, and he won't resign..

Certainly impeaching Clinton for lying about a blow job didn't "damage" the Constitution And that set a shitty precedent for actual witch hunts to be financed by the taxpayers.

Some things are more important than elections,

You're certainly not talking about the 2020 elections, are you?

she’ll find a way to defend the Constitution and inflict maximum political damage to the GOP.

That would involve getting the SENATE back in the 2020 elections, that you seem to think aren't as important as an impeachment that won't shorten his term in office by a minute...

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. I prefer the Dems show courage and principles, and not shrink from their sworn duty nt

[ehrnst]

21. Ah, so shirking strategic thinking is preferable to a personal need for

catharsis? It certainly is more manly, something more along the lines of "pistols at dawn" to settle the question, isn't it?

Perhaps you'd like them to also do their "sworn duty" and remove Clarence Thomas ASAP. Why aren't you demanding that as well?

That would be another example of shooting ourselves in the foot in the name of "duty," as you well know.

Please. There are people who will howl "why aren't you doing your DUTY???" at Speaker Pelosi when DT isn't frogmarched out of the WH in cuffs once the Senate votes to keep him in. Because that's totally her fault, too.

It always is.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. I'd like to think Dems in Congress can do both

Fulfil their oaths while thinking strategically- hence the timing of each phase of the impeachment process.

Impeachment is the ultimate power granted by the Founders to Congress to attempt to restrain a would be tyrant who has ignored or defied all of Congress’s lesser powers of oversight.

To shrink from using that power is a dereliction of duty.

It is better to enter into a battle that, despite the unlikelihood of removing Trump office, shows the American people that the Dems place the Constitution and rule of law above politics, versus accepting defeat without a fight.

[ehrnst]

23. Actually, Impeachment isn't a duty until 218 of them think it is.

A quick check of my calculator says that 105 < than 218, so as of now, no, it's not a 'dereliction of constitutional duty."

I think Speaker Pelosi is uniquely qualified to make that call, and her Democratic peers agreed. That's why she's in this position.

So, tell me, how would impeachment would 'restrain' Trump? What would it do to his powers that Congress could not do otherwise?

No one's been able to explain that. Perhaps you can?

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. Each individual rep took an oath- it is up to each of them to take a stand

Regardless of the actions of the others; using your logic, any party in the minority should remain passively inactive, since they will never “have the votes” for any action they might contemplate.

Trump has ignored, obstructed or defied Congress’s attempts to use their lesser powers of oversight (subpoenas, etc), so Impeachment is the last, strongest power they can use in an attempt to intervene- it’s all they have left.

[ehrnst]

46. And until 218 of them

using your logic, any party in the minority should remain passively inactive, since they will never “have the votes” for any action they might contemplate.

Straw man....

Trump has ignored, obstructed or defied Congress’s attempts to use their lesser powers of oversight (subpoenas, etc), so Impeachment is the last, strongest power they can use in an attempt to intervene- it’s all they have left.

Intervene? Intervene in what, that investigations aren't already intervening in? You are giving impeachment all these magical powers that it just doesn't have to "intervene" in what he's doing. The courts are the ones with that power, along, unfortunately with the DOJ.

I get it, you need this sort of public display emotionally. It sounds like it's all you have left in terms of ideas on what would feel like something is happening.

But magical thinking and unrealistic expectations always end up in a spectacular let down. I predict the morning after the GOP Senate "exonerates" him, as his supporters will chant, there will once again the cry will go up "WHY AREN'T YOU DOING YOUR JOB?? WHY AREN'T YOU HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE??" at Democrats in congress, by people suffering from unrealistic expectations.

[Fiendish Thingy]

64. I get it, you're afraid

You're afraid of the bad things that might happen if Congress moves to impeach Trump, and that fear outweighs any concerns about the bad things that are happening, right now.

On that we clearly disagree.

I'm not looking for a "public display"; Congress could hold closed door hearings if they wish. If they impeach, and the senate acquits, as long as every Dem votes to convict, and every Dem rep votes to impeach, I will be satisfied that each has done their sworn Constitutional duty.

[ehrnst]

67. Actually, no. You don't get it.

On that we clearly disagree.

[DaDeacon]

69. We do disagree, too bad.

Our party could use more activism.

[ehrnst]

73. Perhaps you might consider supporting our party leaders.

Our party could definitely use more activism and support on that front!

[DaDeacon]

84. Lol, I'm Good!

I support people who support our party and our nation. I don’t blindly follow people “just cause”. Good red herring move lol.

[ehrnst]

88. It sounds as though you follow certain causes "just cause."

It's sad that some Democrats feel our Democratic leaders haven't earned the confidence that people have in them, and think it's "blind."

I don’t blindly follow people “just cause”.

That's what I'm referring to when I encouraged you to support them for their experience, and their track record.

Nice false dillema, LOL.

[DaDeacon]

91. Any one who was in leadership when we lost to Trump

Should be questioned often in my opinion.

[ehrnst]

92. What was their responsibility in that?

That you think should be 'questioned?'

I don't believe anyone in Democratic leadership voted for Trump or Jill Stein. And certainly Democrats chose the most qualified candidate ever for POTUS, who got more votes than anyone not named Obama. Do you have other information?

Are you saying Senator Sanders should be questioned as well?

How about the Democratic leadership that was there when we took back the House in 2018 in a blue wave?

Doesn't that also hold true as well?

[DaDeacon]

94. They didn't win.

Against an open white nationalist, adulterous, con man they lost! And lost big. They lost the house and senate the election before that. Yet you don’t think questions are in order!?!? Ok, we disagree there. 1/2 of 1/3 is good enough for a victory lap for some I guess.

[ehrnst]

113. Who is "They?" And who exactly in leadership should we be "questioning?"

Which Democratic leader are you holding personally responsible for Hillary winning more votes than any candidate other than Obama?

Which Democratic leader are you holding personally responsible for Russian interference?

Which Democratic leader are you holding personally responsible for 25 years of debunked smears and misogyny towards HRC?

Which Democratic leader are you holding responsible for local GOP voter suppression of Democrats?

Which Democratic leader are you are you holding personally responsible for the Blue Wave?

Or are you saying that we should doubt/question all our Democratic leaders' competency if they were in office in 2016?

You keep evading actually specifying what you mean. If you have a valid complaint, or inside information about Democratic leadership not being trustworthy to make decisions, then share.

If you're afraid to, then maybe you're really in the wrong place.

[ehrnst]

123. Crickets.

I can imagine why.

[DaDeacon]

136. Not silent my comment was flagged?!?

Almost yes to all your claims. To be clear DNC leadership with many of the same house and senate leaders now were the same power players in the party for the for mentioned defeats. I’m not going to play the name game so some clown on this board can flag what I say as “an attack on Democrats” but there is no reason to pretend that party leaders had nothing to do with our election losses. While secretary Clinton won the popular vote that’s not how we win white house. There was a lack of real democratic counter messaging and no clear path of branding the opposition. They still chant “lock her up”! We still don’t know how to message through a news cycle. As it currently sits in congressional ”break” what is the official Mueller messaging from the Democrats?!? What are they all saying in town halls?!? The Republicans have a narrative. Witch-hunt & lies. Easy to say and remember. Trump may be an ass hat but he plays the media like a fiddle and our party seems to be unwilling embrace people who counter him.

[Trumpocalypse]

50. Elections are not important?

[Fiendish Thingy]

65. Country before party nt

[Trumpocalypse]

66. And how does losing elections

help the country?

[ehrnst]

79. Indeed.(nt)

[ehrnst]

78. In what way does the Democratic party and the good of the country conflict? (nt)

[ehrnst]

97. Apparently not. (nt)

[Poiuyt]

12. The only problem with that strategy is that Trump and the fascists cheated last time

and are going to cheat again in 2020. I fear that Russian interference will be much more forceful and successful than in 2016. There could be widespread election machine hacking to really throw things to the republicans.

[ehrnst]

24. So how would impeachment change that, or be an alternative to electing him out?

[JaneQPublic]

13. Trump deserves impeachment, but what's the end game?

With McConnell's Senate, the chances are zilch of impeachment leading to conviction and removal from office.

But let's say Senate GOPers decide they want 45 gone, too, and vote to convict. That puts Pence in office, allowing him to run as the incumbent AND to pardon Trump on day one.

In that case, Trump misses out on the last year of office, but is free to move to Moscow and build his Russian Trump Tower.

The most likely scenario is the House impeaches and the Senate "exonerates," to use the word 45 wI'll no doubt use.

Yes, Trump will go down in history as an impeached president, but in the present he'll campaign on beating the Dems' attempt to oust him.

And what do we Dems get from it? Satisfaction of pursuing justice? At the same time, we just made all our many freshman reps in Orange County and elsewhere walk the plank to vote for impeachment and endanger reelection.

If they lose, we are in danger of losing the House. Worth it?

I agree with Pelosi: I want to see Trump in prison, which he may well be if we don't letr him get pardoned OR reelected.

[uponit7771]

14. There is no longer any reason to think 2020 will be a free and fair election

[ehrnst]

25. How does that strengthen the argument to impeach him? Impeachment isn't an alternative to voting him

out, we know that.

[uponit7771]

26. Because we don't have anything else left. A well timed impeachment is our best shot to bring down

... Red Don's polling numbers during the election and then dare the Russians to help him again.

If Red Don's numbers are in the 20s and he gets reelected again we'll pray for the revolt or the house to not certify his election etc etc.

[ehrnst]

32. You actually think impeachment will convince those who are still his fans to turn on him?

The House doesn't 'certify' the results of the POTUS election.... is that yet another power being granted to House Dems so that people can accuse them of being responsible for Trump?

[uponit7771]

33. No, it'll convince the people who don't vote somethings wrong and their vote will stop it ...

... and if the election is stolen they'll be our best allies in convincing congress not to certify his Russian helped election.

[ehrnst]

35. If people they don't vote, then they don't get a say afterwards...

What are you talking about?

Congress doesn't have power over "certifying the POTUS election results" either.

Where do you get this stuff?

[uponit7771]

39. I'm talking about the people who usually don't vote in presidential elections, yes congress does hav

... the right to certify the EC votes and effectively the election for Red Don.

[ehrnst]

42. No, Congress doesn't have the power to overturn the EC.....

Where did you hear this?

[ElementaryPenguin]

15. And depend on a FREE AND FAIR election - with this fascist thief as the incumbent?

We can't depend upon the election alone - and we can't wait that long for this desperate lunatic to start a nuclear war with somebody (probably an ally)

[ehrnst]

37. "Can't wait that long..." Are you under the impression that he's going to resign or can be removed

before January 2021?

By what means?

[triron]

16. Good luck with that. Trump et al have the Russian federation behind them.

And we are burying our heads in the sand. Hitler would have loved our attitude.

[ehrnst]

18. So, impeachment fixes that how? If you think that impeachment will remove him instead

you're the one with the head in the sand.

And now you're comparing wieghing the real negative consequences of impeachment right now with "doing Hitlers' bidding?"

Godwins' Law, seriously?

[onecaliberal]

29. Yes let's count on an election at least 5 countries can hack.

What a great idea... NOT

[ehrnst]

36. So focusing on impeachment changes that how?

[DaDeacon]

41. We need to do it all!!!

We have to work on the primary, fight to impeach, and look good while doing it! Sorry kids this will not be easy but it must be done! You are starting to loose hope, good. Replace Hope with determination and grit and get to work! Demand impeachment, you probably won’t get it but demand it because it’s the right thing to do! Work hard to get past the clutter and vote for the party member that best embodies your beliefs and story! Debate the issues, listen, and at the end of the day support who wins. Repeat as needed!

[ehrnst]

43. So... what happens to all that "HOPE" around an impeachment when it fails

to remove him?

Sorry 'kid.' Unrealistic, false expectations always lead to people turning on whoever led them to believe it in the first place.

Or Speaker Pelosi, even though she didn't.

Magical thinking doesn't produce results.

[DaDeacon]

44. I said get rid of hope...

Hope is done for tee shirts but as I said in my post “replace Hope with determination and grit”. Get to work. If it fails, it fails. You demand it because it’s right! We bust ass to GOTV and so on as well. We do it all. Making a binary argument is weak sausage. Our party can chew gum and walk damnit!

[ehrnst]

47. Magical thinking is not "determination and grit."

Get to work. If it fails, it fails.

If? We know it will fail to remove him. Are you not clear on the process - that the Senate is the one that is tasked with removing him? They will not - anyone entertaining the idea that any GOP Senator will give up their seat to vote him out is truly suffering from Magical thinking. He and his fans will call it a victory, and Dem Senators in red states will lose their seats if they vote against him as well. We need to take back the Senate more than we need a temporary fix of catharsis. No amount of GOTV helped Heidi Heitkamp after she voted against Kavanaugh, and "Justice Democrats" are looking to primary every incumbent Dem they possibly can, so we have that working against us as well. Sorry, reality can be a downer, sometimes.

You demand it because it’s right!

Why haven't you - or any reasonably informed Democrats - been demanding Clarence Thomas's impeachment since January when we took back the house? Isn't that also right?

Demanding impeachment right now is not the same as "determination and grit." It's being cautious about something that has no real life effect on what DT can actually do or not do, and could possibly cost us the Senate.

Our party can chew gum and walk damnit!

What do you call dozens of ongoing investigations? Well they don't make for watch parties, but they're a hell of a lot more than "chewing gum" or walking. They're not "nothing" and working on the election. Making a binary argument is weak sausage.

[DaDeacon]

55. I get it...

You’re scared of the political fallout and that’s OK . Fear is a powerful motivator and to be honest you might be good to just focus on winnable flights you know low hanging fruit. I am not there anymore. I would like to see Clarence Thomas impeached for conflict of interest. I would love to see Barr ring up as well but unlikely. We play the statesman game for the media and our base while Republicans play for the party. They get the steal Supreme Court nominations and we get to play virtuous.
Again I say we can do it all. we can impeach and all these things and focus of the 24 person primary and the election season to follow.
If you think that’s too much to do then I got some news for you buddy we’re gonna have to do a lot, like it or not. we need to press the attack at some point sitting back and hoping America just sees the folly of her ways is what got us here.
I firmly believe that Bill Clintons impeachment killed Al Gore presidency. As I was told by a friend of mine he just couldn’t vote for Gore after all the controversies. Bill Clinton was not removed for office But the impeachment scared our party for almost a decade.
You don’t like the idea of impeachment that’s fine. It feels too risky? Let me ask you a question what do you think public opinion will be if Democrats got voted into office and the general public perception is that Trump walked all over them?!? Step outside of the political Bubble ask one your moderate nonpolitical friends if they feel enthusiastic about voting for the Democrats in 2020. They may very well hate Trump but they jumping over the moon to vote against him. That’s what I hear for people I talk to and many of them have told me that all they see the Democrats talking but not doing anything.

[ehrnst]

103. No, actually you don't.

Again I say we can do it all. we can impeach and all these things and focus of the 24 person primary and the election season to follow.

I don't think that all the GOTV focus in the world will get a red state or swing district to forgive a vote to impeach Trump.

I firmly believe that Bill Clintons impeachment killed Al Gore presidency.

Actually, the statistical probability of a party holding the WH for more than two consecutive terms was more of an issue. Even so, it was so close, the GOP had to steal it. And there was Ralph Nader.

You don’t like the idea of impeachment that’s fine.

You are oversimplifying it. I just don't see it as this simple win/win. I'm seeing the bigger picture, and thinking long term.

Let me ask you a question what do you think public opinion will be if Democrats got voted into office and the general public perception is that Trump walked all over them?!?

What do you think the public opinion will be that they picked a losing fight? Because that's what it is, if the goal is to shortent Trump's time in office, or hinder him from doing anything - and handed him an "exoneration" in his eyes and the eyes of his supporters?

Step outside of the political Bubble ask one your moderate nonpolitical friends if they feel enthusiastic about voting for the Democrats in 2020

I think you're the one in the bubble, and my very real points are bursting it. But you didn't really want to know what my friends think at all.

Everyone I know is ready to vote for a Democrat for POTUS. They are jumping over the moon to vote against him. I'm an activist, though, and you seem to run with a different crowd.

You were looking for an opening to say this:

That’s what I hear for people I talk to and many of them have told me that all they see the Democrats talking but not doing anything.

Well then - if you were half as enthusiastic to GOTV for Democrats as you are to complain about them here, then perhaps that would actually be activism that might make that go team go! scolding you're doing to anyone who brings up the idea that WE CAN BOTH WIN IN 2020 AND IMPEACH if we JUST TRY!! It's just like walking and chewing gum!!!!!1111!!! less contradictory.

Just a thought.

[DaDeacon]

59. I'm negative, because I say we need to work hard?!?

Lol, hahahahahahahaha.
My word what has had happened to my party.
Don’t rock the boat Democrats are just the best.
Every door knock on and every weekend and I spend in a call bank next year. I will remember all the positive post I saw for saying we have to work hard and do it all. I will keep in mind all the keyboard Crusaders he told me we should just focus on the little things.

[ehrnst]

68. Straw man....

I guess that beats responding to the actual post.

[DaDeacon]

71. Please read all post...

I feel you are only skimming.

[ehrnst]

74. I read "all post."

[DaDeacon]

81. Then tell me...

A straw man/ is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

When did I do this !? ... no no i’ll Wait.

I address the original poster’s lack of hope. I was then accused of being negative oh and thinking that impeachment was “magic”.

[ehrnst]

82. Here's the straw man you attacked:

I'm negative, because I say we need to work hard?!?

Is that clearer?

I was then accused of being negative oh and thinking that impeachment was “magic”.

Straw man #2.

Thinking that impeachment would not have any negative consequences or that GOTV would negate any and all of them is what I called magical thinking.

Is that clearer now?

[DaDeacon]

86. try again

You called me negative after a post that I stated we needed hard work over looking for hope , a clear response to the first post. You “negative” personal attack was out of line and without merit.

[ehrnst]

87. Read it again.

There was no personal attack.

You seem upset, and that may be why you are rationalizing that there was one.

[DaDeacon]

89. Honestly, This is a personal attack

Negative
I don't think I've ever come across a more negative person in my life. Maybe you should go back to your bunker.

This is what you wrote !

[ehrnst]

93. Where did I attack you? Please.

A reverse ad hominem, used as a red herring.

Interesting.

You used none of "my words." Are you confusing me with someone else you're upset with?

[DaDeacon]

95. Post 57?!? Would you like a screen capture?!?

https://ibb.co/xM8SLg2

[ehrnst]

98. Um... that's Brutus Smith. I'm ehrnst.

Look at the screen shot.... then at the name of the person you're responding to..

Brutus was attacking me, not you.

You are confusing me with someone else...

Maybe it's time for a break.

And an apology would be in order.

[DaDeacon]

99. I am sorry...

However, you accused me straw man and did ignore the attack on me in the string ?!? Hmm the board is not easy to navigate on the old cell phone.

[ehrnst]

100. Apology accepted.

I have no idea what you said in the sentence after that.

[DaDeacon]

102. Cool

[ehrnst]

101. Projection....

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2019, 10:26 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't think I've ever come across a more negative person in my life. Maybe you should go back to your bunker.

People in glass "negativity bunkers" shouldn't heave grenades...

[Kurt V.]

53. the poll free data says the 2020 election is already won. the only variable left is voter depression

or surge. bottom line is whether impeachment affects that variable.

[NightWatcher]

54. And when that election is hacked????

[pbmus]

58. If we cannot impeach the most corrupt president in America's history...

We are all fucked...the rule of law is fucked...

Anarchy will rule, chaos and confusion will cause a giant vacuum which will inspire fascism all over the world....

We not only must start impeachment, we have to start to save a world of laws...

[DaDeacon]

60. Thanks, 100% agree!

[ehrnst]

96. "Anarchy will rule, chaos and confusion will cause a giant vacuum which will inspire fascism"

all over the world....

You really think House Democrats have that sort of mystical superpower to stop any and all of that, even that which started long before, with a simple vote to impeach?

If they had that, why do you think they won't use it on the GOP Senate?

[NurseJackie]

112. Oh brother.

Anarchy will rule, chaos and confusion will cause a giant vacuum which will inspire fascism all over the world....

[pbmus]

114. Yes, anarchy...we have a lawless president who supports absolute freedom of individuals

an·ar·chy
/ˈanərkē/
noun

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"

synonyms: lawlessness, absence of government, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, riot, rebellion, mutiny, disorder, disorganization, misrule, chaos, tumult, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium

"the country is threatened with anarchy"
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

///////////////

The Con is an anarchist...more specifically his handlers are anarchists...he is surrounded by anarchists....

[NurseJackie]

116. LOL!

Yes, anarchy...we have a lawless president who supports absolute freedom of individuals

That's not what anarchy is.

an·ar·chy
/ˈanərkē/
noun .... (etc etc etc)

That's the definition of anarchy. However, our country is not in a state of anarchy. We don't have an absence of government, nobody is rioting in the streets. Nobody is living in "The Purge" or whatever dystopian horror flick anyone is imagining.

Hyperbole and exaggeration are often effective in making one's point. But going overboard with the hair-on-fire declarations and predictions aren't always as helpful as people imagine they will be. Great for clickbait headlines and posts, but when it comes to promoting thoughtful discussion, it can also have the opposite of the desired effect.

[pbmus]

118. I used the definition of anarchy to prove that I am not being hyperbolic.

You used the words riots, purge, dystopian horror flick. You are being hyperbolic.

Your depiction of our current crisis is not accurate. If you want to argue, argue with proper words, not your definition of anarchy.

///////////////////////

At least 8 people were killed and almost 50 were injured in 8 mass shootings across the US this weekend

https://www.insider.com/mass-shootings-in-the-us-weekend-of-july-26-28-2019-7

[NurseJackie]

119. No I'm not.

You used the words riots, purge, dystopian horror flick. You are being hyperbolic.

No I'm not. I'm being nothing of the sort.

What I am doing, however, is explaining that what "anarchy" really is, and that what you're describing has no correlation to reality. We are not in a state of anarchy, it's as simple as that.

Your depiction of our current crisis is not accurate.

I'm not "depicting" anything. I'm simply telling you that such hair-on-fire and sky-is-falling depictions are so over that top that it would be difficult for reasonable people to take it seriously. It will instead cause people to chuckle or roll their eyes, rather than to be concerned.

If you want to argue, argue with proper words, not your definition of anarchy.

That's your word, not mine. I'm just pointing out that it's not true or accurate. You're the one who provided a dictionary definition that helped me to illustrate my point.

At least 8 people were killed and almost 50 were injured in 8 mass shootings across the US this weekend

That's tragic and horrific... but it does not mean that our country is in a state of anarchy.

[pbmus]

120. Saying no your not, and explaining what anarchy really is..

Is simply your definition of anarchy...it is Not the true definition of anarchy...

You can chuckle all you want, while using your own definition of anarchy.

State of anarchy is a game...we are in a crisis,

You are stating your opinion using your own definitions...not a factual argument

[NurseJackie]

122. Yeah, whatever.

[lapucelle]

121. Trump wants "the absolute freedom of individuals"?

That's not true. There are several people he'd like to "lock up".

He wants stricter libel laws to silence journalists.

[guillaumeb]

62. We can do both. eom

[DaDeacon]

72. Agreed!!! 100%

However, many people on this board don’t agree?!?

[guillaumeb]

75. Or they feel that impeachment will distract from the election.

But in my view, they go together.

The impeachment process can reveal to the average voter what Trump really did.

[DaDeacon]

76. Bingo!

[ehrnst]

104. An impeachment, now, before the General would not "go together" with the election.

[empedocles]

77. Wish that people here would pay more attention to a giant harbinger of a clue . . .

. . . that is what do trump and his 'cons who desperately need dem help- what does trump want most for some dems to do?

[Hekate]

80. Nothing is lost. Nothing is wasted. nt

[customerserviceguy]

83. I'm in agreement

I don't see anything that will get the GOP's head out of its collective asses to remove Trump.

Right now, if any of you favor a candidate other than the top two or three, then you need to have the public's focus on that candidate's message. Impeachment drama will close the crucial window that those longer-shot candidates have between now and the Iowa caucuses.

[spanone]

110. Impeachment is gaining strength every day.

[budkin]

115. No, it's not.

At all.

[H2O Man]

117. Respectfully disagree 100%.

[Catherine Vincent]

125. No

It wasn't a lost cause when they impeached Clinton.

[Grasswire2]

126. better educate yourself on the probability that a free/fair election is NOT HAPPENING.

Have you been paying attention to that issue??

[TheRealNorth]

129. We will never get back a murdered loved one

But that doesn't mean that we don't charge the murderer.

[LanternWaste]

130. Please don't project your own limits of focus onto everyone else.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Yavin4,
Than are dreamt of in your self-professed limitations."

[VOX]

132. It's not Republicanism any more, it is FASCISM. The rule of law is dead.

The 2020 election is squaring up to be the 2016 election on amphetamines. Does anyone honestly believe that the election will be free and fair, based on the chaos, nihilism, lawlessness and blind hatred that’s emanated from the White House and Senate over the past 2 1/2 years? This is NOT defeatism, it’s cold, hard reality. The monsters currently in control aren’t even worried about the 2020 election— they’re busy appointing lifetime right-wing judgeships, shredding regulations, denying healthcare, separating families and putting women and POC into positions of permanent servitude.

Mitch McConnell has done everything but verbally guarantee a Russian-assisted victory in 2020. It will not be Democrats versus Republicans, it’ll be Russia, too, and every other bad actor on the planet who wants to stamp out liberal democracy. Steve Bannon has been crisscrossing the globe, promoting and advising individuals bent on the destruction of liberal democracies in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the UK, France, Italy and even Brazil. It’s certain that he’s still very much in Trump’s camp, consulting behind the scenes.

Of course impeachment will not rid America of Trump, there can be no illusion about that. But it will bring to light (and establish on record) the tonnage of calculated criminality, corruption, white nationalism and the enlistment of a hostile foreign power to influence the direction of this nation.

Democrats have made a litany of “Republicans putting party before country,” which is true, of course. But if Democrats shy away from using the Constitutional tool of impeachment to shine a bright light on the collapse of law and morality, simply because they believe it could hurt their chances in 2020, well, sadly, they’re putting party before country as well.

There is a moral imperative here— the country is in the clutches of some genuinely evil people who are prepared to do much worse. The United States has been thrown into a “Germany 1933” moment. The time to act is NOW.