Impeach Trump Y/N

I don't really get why that is a problem for Dems, though?

Because they can't wipe out virtually the entire top line of the GOP administration *and* automatically take back the White House in the same move without playing in to all the current bs talk of a coup. Constitutional or no, taking out the president, VP, AG and SoS all at once seems impossible. So does leaving any of them where they are.

As if the Senate would convict!

I know, exactly. If anything, the Senate's unwillingness to convict, like I think I said days back, gives the Dems cover to go forward, because they get to impeach without having to deal with the headache of getting rid of all these people. And yet in the end, they (and we) will still be stuck with all these people, which is pretty bad. There's your 2020 campaign slogan: vote for the democrat or all these assholes will get even worse.

For sure it worked last time ...

That's always been my wish.

And in that case they get a good slogan out of it? It's really not a problem for Dems that the Trump administration is so absurdly corrupt that they can't just easily cut it out. To both sides it a bit, it's like in Virginia, all three top Dems in the line of succession should have probably resigned, but then none of them did. That's a win for Republicans.

Leaving them where they are isn’t a problem for the Dems, it’s a problem for GOP Senators up for re-election in 2020, when the vote comes around and they have to decide that the most unpopular president in living memory is actually OK and not at all guilty.

Also, IF everybody really wanted to leave a GOPer in power, isn't the solution pretty easy: Begin by going after Pence, have Trump name a new vice president, then have him resign? Kinda like what happened in 74

In this administration we'd get an Acting Vice President.

i could see trump gladly throwing pence under the bus thinking it would save his skin.

for sure

Get Pence off the table, force Trump out of office... President Pelosi, baby!

all the shit still popular in those states with more cows than people

Rank State Human Cattle Ratio
1 South Dakota 844,877 3,650,000 4.32
2 Nebraska 1,868,516 6,150,000 3.29
3 Montana 1,015,165 2,550,000 2.51
4 North Dakota 723,393 1,770,000 2.45
5 Wyoming 582,658 1,270,000 2.18
6 Kansas 2,893,957 5,800,000 2.00
7 Idaho 1,612,136 2,190,000 1.36
8 Iowa 3,090,416 3,700,000 1.20
9 Oklahoma 3,850,568 4,300,000 1.12

do rats:people next

surely Manhattan would top that list

Brooklyn has more of both i think

but we are not states

I'm trying to figure out where we're hiding all these cows tbh

In burgers.

if we could count rats in the census then the Blue states would have all the Reps

it was a rhetorical device, mh

you can't divert my momentary curiosity

the manhattan ratio depends on whether you count tourists as rats

wildebeests

I agree with you that things are certainly getting worse. I do believe, honestly, that we are seeing the collapse of liberal democracy, and speaking as someone who grew up believing in liberal democracy, believing that it was the least worst political system, that's scary.

But it's also liberating, there's also a lot of hope there, and that's part of the reason I don't pay attention to the polls because according to the polls basically nothing has changed. Ask me in 2016 how I felt about Trump and the response would be "strongly negative". Ask me now and the response would be "strongly negative".

I already had my doubts about liberalism, but after coming out as trans I can't any longer see a political ideology that's willing to compromise on the apparently complicated and challenging question of whether or not I deserve human rights as an ideology I need to defend at all costs.

The fear of civil war, at its root for me, is the fear that, oh my God, what if we don't all basically want the same things at heart? What if we can't compromise for the common good? What if the people on the other side actually hate me and want me dead?

Which I think is what I feel like I can relate to with the paranoid right. It's not a triumphalist ideology. It's built on twisted excuses for why it's necessary for them to violently oppress their opponents. Most of what they say seems to amount to "We have to kill them, because if we don't THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US FIRST."

The first episode of the podcast, I don't want to nitpick everything it gets wrong - there's a lot - but one of the things it gets wrong is the first American Civil War. The notion that it was some explosive conflict that magically erupted at Fort Sumter is ludicrous. The conflict was a slow build from the time Andrew Jackson got elected, from the time defenders of slavery started to posit it as a positive good. Over the twenty years before the civil war the nation truly split over slavery. Every facet of American life diverged over the issue - churches, businesses, political parties, were all torn apart, and not just on geographic lines. Decades of violent outbursts, praised as "justice" by the people on their side and denounced by the other side.

The point here is not to evoke how much those times are like ours, but to see what it actually took for what we call the "Civil War" to start. It took no less than a professional military insurrection before opponents of slavery were willing to take up arms. The Commander in Chief can call for armed insurrection to the fullest extent that Twitter will countenance (by the way, I would like to make one of my periodic requests that anybody who uses Twitter consider not doing so), but he's yet to inspire anyone more organized than the partisans of Bleeding Kansas were. It is not valid to assume that anybody who "supports the President" is on board with his calls for violence, or even if they are, if they will do anything more than follow the example of their virile leader and tweet about it (at which point, presumably, Twitter will suspend them because they're not the commander-in-chief of anybody).

All this shit is scary, sure, but I am very optimistic about the other alternatives. The choices are not liberal democracy or violent armed conflict. The choice I have asked myself over the past few years is, well, to what extent do I go along with this? And if I decide that I am not going to go along with this, then what?

I'm not suited to "defend my freedom" by force of arms, so that's out. What's changed for me is that I realize how much I've bent over backwards, how much of myself I've compromised or denied, in the service of the ideals of liberal democracy, and how much I've hurt myself by doing so. Am I going to respond in kind to people who request that I kill myself? No, but I'm also not going to view their opinions as valid, or them as worthy of consideration or discourse with. I believe in "going along to get along", I think it's a good principle, and here we have some 40% of the country who I absolutely fundamentally cannot get along with politically (I can get along with some of them fairly well personally, even though I will never be able to trust them or consider them friends.)

So I, and other people, we're trying to work around the problem. The Republicans can't govern, can't lead, can't _rule_. But shit's still got to be done. People still have problems, and we all still need to be valued and cared for and heard. I sure as hell need that, and the people around me are doing that for me, like I'm trying to do that for them. Now that I'm out, I necessarily live in fear, but it's a different sort. Instead of spending my days worrying about what could happen to me, I ask myself what I can do, what I need to do, and I let the fear push me forward instead of holding me back.

Magnificent response - thank you!

Now that I'm out, I necessarily live in fear, but it's a different sort. Instead of spending my days worrying about what could happen to me, I ask myself what I can do, what I need to do, and I let the fear push me forward instead of holding me back.

Now that is one hugely inspiring post! Thank you for being able to live that thought, let alone elucidate it so clearly to the rest of us.

jfc, just listen to him here:

Trump goes on rant about the UK, Australia and Italy plotting against him during the 2016 campaign. pic.twitter.com/8pDZxd6IKT

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) October 4, 2019

his new theory is that "the UK", australia, and italy were all possibly plotting against him in the 2016 election.

*over the roar of helicopter noise*

"I was investigated. I was investigated. ME. ME."

"2016. I ran. I won. You probably won't say that."
Should be on his tombstone

hooked on a feeling

when will the very unfair and corrupt media report that donald j trump won the presidency in 2016

"This morning, President Donald Trump claimed that the United Kingdom, Australia, and Italy possibly conspired with President Obama to sabotage Trump's chances of winning the 2016 election. Donald Trump ran in 2016, and won."

this has been your "The world in 2019 is completely fucked, how is any of this real?" News Flash update

fucking lunatic

He's just maintaining the storied tradition of winners throughout history who have celebrated victory by accusing literally everyone of trying to compromise what they achieved. This is definitely the normal behavior of a normal human being.

He's the very rare sore winner.

its pretty clear that the whole "losing the popular vote" thing still eats at him on a daily basis

"I hope that the press recognize that they have a right and a responsibility, if they're against a President, to give him the shaft, but also recognize if they give him the shaft, put one lonely reporter on the campaign who will report now and then that the President won the 2016 election."

mitt romney, paragon of courage:

By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) October 4, 2019

gotta make fun of mitt at any chance, but sadly he's one of the most outspoken critics of trump in the republican senate these days

Okay, my new suggestion for the press is to constantly ask him questions about what he wishes he'd done differently after losing the 2016 election, what he might've done if he'd been elected president in 2016 instead of losing so hard, etc.

By all appearances

I mean fuckit, he's gonna call you a bunch of liars either way, might as well lean into it and see if you can get live footage of the blood vessel bursting his brain.

"president trump, how does it feel to have won the popular vote in 2016 by almost 3 million votes but to have lost the electoral college, 304 - 227?"

When someone with power continually barks unreality, it's usually assumed he is a Grifter (as I call DJT) or "just a bullshitter" (as Obama was reported to call him). Is the general assessment now that this guy believes all or most of his bullshit? Because that makes him deranged rather than a con man.

the whiniest alternative universe: imagine trump losing in 2016 in the same way that hilary clinton did, and how much whining would have come from trump for eternity

xp i choose to believe in the deranged con man combo

Yes, Morbs, he's legitimately deranged. He's a 'Nigerian prince' email-forwarding uncle getting super high on his own supply.