Election 2020

[Kaelik]

During Obama's term, there was only a narrow period where there was a governmental trifecta, and it was never a 'filibuster proof majority'. Without breaking the laws, there's no way to get to where you want to go.

This is a really dumb point. Obviously there are tons of things you can do without legislation "we couldn't do anything without legislation" is pretty undermined when in 2015 and 2016 you do a bunch of regulations you could have done in 2009 on climate change and agriculture and labor stuff.

But also, the filibuster isn't a law! It's a made up procedural gimmick that was created by accident. Nothing about just passing laws with 50 votes breaks any law. When the first senate sat, they literally had a majority rule provision to stop debate, they only deleted that senate procedural rule years later and the reason they deleted it was because they THOUGHT there two identical rules that said the same thing and they were just cleaning up the rules. Turns out there weren't duplicates, oopsie. So the idea that anyone should respect an accidental mistake in the senate rules as a law is just really bad.

There are things that Biden will be able to do early in 2021. For example, the stimulus checks that the Republican Senate refused to pass can be passed using the reconciliation process between House and Senate - which doesn't require actually passing a new law so can't be held hostage by a filibuster. The reconciliation process can be passed with a simple majority.

This is just.... all kinds of wrong. First off the reconciliation process does involve passing a new law. Reconciliation is a senate procedural rule that allows the senate to end debate on a LAW they are going to pass with just 51 votes. Also the 2000k checks can't actually be passed under reconciliation! The rule is only for things that are budget neutral. So a massive stimulus is exactly the kind of thing you CAN'T pass under reconciliation.

Republicans passed their tax cuts by raising taxes on the poor after 6 years and saying "well over the whole budget window of 10 years it's neutral" and they still lied about magic fake increased taxes from economic growth to get that neutral number. This is, fundamentally, just like ignoring the rules for reconciliation, and is a good argument for not you know, respecting the imaginary senate rule mistake as a law.

Now, maybe getting rid of the filibuster is worth doing - knowing that you could do that legally. But the Senate is heavily weighted toward favoring Republicans. Do you think Manchin will win reelection in 2024? How about John Tester? Even with 2 Democratic pick-up opportunities in 2022 (PA, WI), control of the Senate is likely to change sooner rather than later. So that's one of those things that definitely will come back to bite you before long. Undoing everything you accomplish now becomes a lot easier if the filibuster doesn't exist...

This is the kind of thing you say when you are incredibly fucking stupid.

Right now the situation is that when the Republicans have the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, they pass whatever they want with 50 votes and laugh about how stupid democrats are to believe that anything could ever stop them. The thing is republicans don't want to pass lots of laws because the laws right now are just fine for them! If they wanted to pass more laws, they would!

But what DeadDM wants to sell you on is that Democrats should just agree to never pass any law ever for the rest of eternity because they can only pass laws when they have 60 votes because WHAT IF the republicans pass laws by having a majority in all three branches.

Here's an alternative theory: Just have control over ONE of the House, Senate, and Presidency at all times and then abolish the filibuster and then republicans can never pass any laws! (except all the ones democrats keep agreeing to which are mostly bad too).

Some things you could do to make that happen are: 1) pass laws that help people so they vote for you, instead of not doing that and then people blaming you when you have ALL THREE BRANCHES AND EVERTHING STILL SUCKS AND IT IS YOUR GODDAM FAULT BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE FIXED IT. and 2) Pass laws that make the US an actual democracy, since democrats keep getting more fucking goddam votes, this would make it very unlikely that republicans would ever control all three branches.

I'm confident that the current Republican Party will continue to try to lie, cheat, and steal. But I don't think that ignoring the rule of law is the right response.

Again, DeadDm is trying to dishonestly sell the idea that passing laws with 51 votes is ILLEGAL here because he doesn't want democrats to actually be responsible for the power they do hold now. But in fact, it is totally legal.

And sometimes that means what you can achieve is limited by what kind of coalition you can build. There's a lot of support for SOCIALISM in the Democratic party, but not a lot of support for COMMUNISM.

DeadDM has not the faintest clue what socialism or communism are.

There's a narrow window of opportunity to do some good, but there isn't carte blanche ability to pass whatever legislation you want. Changing the system requires agreement from the minority party which won't happen.

Back to lying to you and telling you that you have to get McConnell to agree to things to pass them because that way it's always the republicans fault that Democrats have the power to do good things and refuse to do them.

I cannot stress enough how much this isn't true. Republicans never ask permission from democrats to pass laws because their goals are to pass laws. Democrats only ask permission so they can deflect blame when they fail. You can pass literally whatever you want with 51 votes and Democrats are responsible for every law they don't pass.

ESPECIALLY the ones that could create a permanent democratic majority like admitting currently unrepresented people as states and other laws to make voting easy. For example, a law mandating polling place locations based on a formula so that republican AND DEMOCRATIC state governments can't get away with closing all the polling locations in poor and minority areas. Automatic Voter Registration. Zero ID laws. Ect.

[hyzmarca]

The Stop the Steal protestors breaking through the barricade and invading congress while the cops stand by and watch the day after democrats win the senate is also extremely Republican Party.

EDIT: Police have started blocking doors in riot gear to keep them physically out, but as yet storming past the walls at the perimeter has not caused cops to actually use any of their rubber bullets or tear gas or start running over protestors. Can't imagine why.

Because Trump sabotaged them. The National Guard had been called in to help secure the Capitol earlier, and Trump ordered them to stand down before the insurrection started. The USD was told to expect something like this and prevent large gatherings, but the USCP brass send out a token force that would have been appropriate for handling a normal smattering of tourists and told them to only expect small numbers of protesters.

Individual cops on the ground would have gotten beaten to death by the mob, which was explicitly prepared to kill cops, if they put up serious opposition. As is, the insurrectionists put several cops in the hospital and the Capitol Police put an insurrectionist in the morgue. But there's a difference between taking a stand at a heavily fortified chokepoint and taking a stand out in the open when heavily outnumbered. You can only shoot your gun so fast and only have so many bullets, and there were enough insurrectionists that any cop who started shooting out in the open would quickly be overrun by the hoard and likely beaten to death.

If you look at the video of the police walking away from the flimsy metal barricades, there's no way in hell they could have survived if they fought the rebels there. Not enough of them, too densely packed together, the mob would have engulfed them and slaughtered them. They did make a stand in the capitol building, where the hallways limited the ability of the insurrectionists to bring all of their numbers to bear.

While I have no problem calling out the police on malfeasance. This is a case where Trump used his executive powers to make sure they were undermanned and undergunned in the face of his coup attempt.

Now the ones taking selfies with the rebels, fuck them. Also fire them.

[PhoneLobster]

Ok so anyone could have predicted these riots in the capital.

Anyone could have predicted the police being extra nice with them.

But the whole police just letting them in to trash places actually powerful people work at?

Yeah OK that's a bit surprising. And a kinda major development. Powerful people do not like their bubble being disturbed.

But I think that Republican schism wise this mostly just further exaggerates an existing dynamic that doesn't really have any good end (or intermediate) states.

I don't think I see any good outcomes from this. I foresee laws and crack downs that will mostly end up effecting peaceful left wing protesters. I foresee a Democrat party enabled to do nothing good while talking big patriotism and enabling the authoritarian security state. And the future of the Republicans will remain a waiting game for them to field someone who can convince fanatical idiots that they are their fated chosen one. A not especially Herculean task which, remember, even Donald Trump managed to achieve, largely by accident.

This isn't and cannot be a "wake up call" for either party. And if the Republicans miraculously implode their electoral future tomorrow that will only make the Democrats even worse and whatever remains of the Republicans also even worse.

[Kaelik]

The Stop the Steal protestors breaking through the barricade and invading congress while the cops stand by and watch the day after democrats win the senate is also extremely Republican Party.

EDIT: Police have started blocking doors in riot gear to keep them physically out, but as yet storming past the walls at the perimeter has not caused cops to actually use any of their rubber bullets or tear gas or start running over protestors. Can't imagine why.

Because Trump sabotaged them. The National Guard had been called in to help secure the Capitol earlier, and Trump ordered them to stand down before the insurrection started. The USD was told to expect something like this and prevent large gatherings, but the USCP brass send out a token force that would have been appropriate for handling a normal smattering of tourists and told them to only expect small numbers of protesters.

Anything to defend the police am I right?

Everyone knew about this riot that was being publicly called for by senators and the president with Alex Jones doing daily fucking updates about how big January 6th was going to be, but the only reason the cops FORGOT all their tanks and tear gas and rubber bullet guns they brought to every BLM protest is because the big bad Trump tricked them by not telling them about it so they had no choice but to leave all their ordinance at home and bring only a few officers.

[hyzmarca]

The Stop the Steal protestors breaking through the barricade and invading congress while the cops stand by and watch the day after democrats win the senate is also extremely Republican Party.

EDIT: Police have started blocking doors in riot gear to keep them physically out, but as yet storming past the walls at the perimeter has not caused cops to actually use any of their rubber bullets or tear gas or start running over protestors. Can't imagine why.

Because Trump sabotaged them. The National Guard had been called in to help secure the Capitol earlier, and Trump ordered them to stand down before the insurrection started. The USD was told to expect something like this and prevent large gatherings, but the USCP brass send out a token force that would have been appropriate for handling a normal smattering of tourists and told them to only expect small numbers of protesters.

Anything to defend the police am I right?

Everyone knew about this riot that was being publicly called for by senators and the president with Alex Jones doing daily fucking updates about how big January 6th was going to be, but the only reason the cops FORGOT all their tanks and tear gas and rubber bullet guns they brought to every BLM protest is because the big bad Trump tricked them by not telling them about it so they had no choice but to leave all their ordinance at home and bring only a few officers.

No, I'm saying that their bosses litterally ordered them not to. In the case of the DC National Guard, that boss is Trump himself, who forced them to stand down after Bowser called them up. In the case of the Capitol Police, the buck stops with Steven Sund.


There were cops posing and taking selfies with the insurrectionists. There was even one who directed them into the building and he needs the book thrown at him. But there were also cops who blocked off hallways to impede the insurrectionists and shot the one who got too close in the face.

And since this is the one time I can in good conscience support cops who shoot unarmed protesters in the face.

[MGuy]

I do not know why you would weigh in on a conversation you have no interest in reading. Lines like this

And sometimes that means what you can achieve is limited by what kind of coalition you can build. There's a lot of support for SOCIALISM in the Democratic party, but not a lot of support for COMMUNISM.

in response to that

I mean, honestly, it's because the Dems and Reps are basically on the same side, that of capitalism and personal power. Remember that Obama killed plenty of civilians and deported plenty of immigrants in his term, just like Bush, not to mention, condoning brutal police actions in response to peaceful protests for civil rights. While there is substantive difference between the two parties, it's not a lot, and in general, pols prefer to protect their power and reputations over condemning the crimes of their fellows, because ultimately, both sides have the same goal, and that goal has nothing to do with representing us.

Do not make sense. Even in the context of this and other threads there has been no discussion of a good deal of what dead is talking about. He should really try actually reading what people here are saying.

Anyways...

Remember that Obama killed plenty of civilians and deported plenty of immigrants in his term, just like Bush, not to mention, condoning brutal police actions in response to peaceful protests for civil rights.

As many gripes as I have about Obama I would not see any reason for Dems to go after him. Even if 'I' were made king of the dems the year after his term ended, he came out of office with a good approval rating. Many dems are like dead. They are willing to completely ignore the really shitty things he did. I suspect even more dems don't actually think he did anything shitty in his time in office at all or don't care even if you were to tell them (which has been my experience). It just wouldn't be worth the effort to try and drag him down. Bush on the other hand came out with a pretty bad approval rating and as a dem it would be worth it to make sure everyone associated with him would be ushered swiftly out of government.

The people operating in Washington also aren't thinking in the terms that I am. As far as I can tell most of them don't really care about crimes against humanity and if they ever did they've been through enough compromises to put "not building concentration camps" on the back burner behind making sure to verbally stand against antisemitism.

No, I'm saying that their bosses litterally ordered them not to. In the case of the DC National Guard, that boss is Trump himself, who forced them to stand down after Bowser called them up. In the case of the Capitol Police, the buck stops with Steven Sund.

I don't think anyone is or at least should be defending these cops. I'm still hearing different reports about what happened on the ground so we are probably still in the stages of figuring out what the details all are. I do not think they were sabotaged myself. I think that they definitely knew this might happen but actually figured it would be more like what a BLM protest is actually like with big numbers but with people keeping themselves under control. I do think they were legitimately unprepared for an angry armed mob and that a lot of police are no more brave than your average citizen. They just have a badge that allows them to harm you without going to jail over it. When met with a force they believed could actually harm them, they folded. At least that's part of it. I'm sure that a lot of them are also sympathizers and/or were in on it. Their desire for back up being ignored was fucked but there is no real reason that the security staff there couldn't get a lot more aggressive about defending themselves or the capital. Quite a bit of it is probably due to incompetence, some of it is likely do with how the authorities tend to deal with people who fall along certain axis (white vs not/right wing vs left wing) but there's not going to be any good excuse even if some of them actually did their best.

I foresee a Democrat party enabled to do nothing good while talking big patriotism and enabling the authoritarian security state.

Foresee? They are doing it right now. They did it right after the riots. All this talk about national healing and unity is code for 'going back to what we were doing'. This is what I was worried about would be the case the entirety of the last 4 years. Trump is being made into an anomaly. Biden has never stopped saying that he refuses to believe Trump is at all representative of the Republican party and acts as if they are all good friends despite all evidence to the contrary.

10:30 Republican (Senator?) is predicting the breakup of the Republican party.

Possible or not?

I'm leaning toward not. Not that I think it's impossible but my prediction is situation D. I think history has shown that courting fascists tends to be the easiest path. Actually defeating fascism would require that people instigating it face consequences. That ain't gonna happen. So our leaders will either find a way to co-opt that energy (Reps) or vigorously wag their finger at the issue (dems). We'll see how that works out.

It would be real interesting to see the Republican party collapse but I am not going to get my hopes up.

[Kaelik]

Because Trump sabotaged them. The National Guard had been called in to help secure the Capitol earlier, and Trump ordered them to stand down before the insurrection started. The USD was told to expect something like this and prevent large gatherings, but the USCP brass send out a token force that would have been appropriate for handling a normal smattering of tourists and told them to only expect small numbers of protesters.

Anything to defend the police am I right?

Everyone knew about this riot that was being publicly called for by senators and the president with Alex Jones doing daily fucking updates about how big January 6th was going to be, but the only reason the cops FORGOT all their tanks and tear gas and rubber bullet guns they brought to every BLM protest is because the big bad Trump tricked them by not telling them about it so they had no choice but to leave all their ordinance at home and bring only a few officers.

No, I'm saying that their bosses litterally ordered them not to. In the case of the DC National Guard, that boss is Trump himself, who forced them to stand down after Bowser called them up. In the case of the Capitol Police, the buck stops with Steven Sund.


There were cops posing and taking selfies with the insurrectionists. There was even one who directed them into the building and he needs the book thrown at him. But there were also cops who blocked off hallways to impede the insurrectionists and shot the one who got too close in the face.

And since this is the one time I can in good conscience support cops who shoot unarmed protesters in the face.

So you are saying rank and file cops are nazis, and cop leaders are nazis, but cops are good because some of them just did like 1/20th of their job as a token gesture?

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

The real lesson to be learned from yesterday's events is that cops don't really like getting shot at more than anybody else does. That's probably why they folded - angry mobs with guns are scary. And very American, sadly.
Hopefully people will learn how to engage in nonviolent protesting while still being armed, but I doubt that because I'm not very optimistic. Although I'm sure it happens.

[Orca]

When Trump was last impeached we got a spectacular demonstration of Republican party unity. Anyone talking about the GOP breaking up needs to take a look at that episode, likewise anyone talking about impeachment or any other means of removing Trump before Jan 20.

[Prak]

While there is substantive difference between the two parties, it's not a lot, and in general, pols prefer to protect their power and reputations over condemning the crimes of their fellows, because ultimately, both sides have the same goal, and that goal has nothing to do with representing us.

This sentence is paradoxical. Substantive means: having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable. If there are considerable differences between the two parties, it is a lot.

Ok, but you see that "or bit that you put in there? Right before the part you bolded? That means that substantive does not need to mean all of those things. There is a real, important, meaningful difference between the Dems and Reps, but it is not considerable, which means "large." The difference between the Reps and Dems is basically that the Reps hate poor, LGBTQIA+ and nonwhite people, and want them to die in ditches, while the Dems want them to be alive to give them money, but still hates them (generally speaking. Exceptions exist because America is on some Two Parties Only, Final Destination run, so those who go into politics and want to actually help people tend to go Dem).

And sometimes that means what you can achieve is limited by what kind of coalition you can build. There's a lot of support for SOCIALISM in the Democratic party, but not a lot of support for COMMUNISM.

""""Socialism""""

Things like Social Security and Medicare are good programs and they make people's lives better. And they could be better programs - but the fact that they still exist despite repeated Republican attempts to dismantle any social program for the past 90 years is a 'substantive difference'. I don't expect the Green New Deal to be perfect any more than I think Social Security is perfect, but I think we're actually going to see some legislation along those lines. I also think that major financial help in the form of stimulus and student loan forgiveness are possibilities - and those are things that can really help the economy - which could help expand the Democratic majority.

Really? Because I fully expect Biden's admin to be the "Obama Pt 2, now more white!" that he ran on early on. Which means more Middle East bombings, more riot police responding to peaceful protests against systemic racism, and more deportation and people in concentration camps.

There's a narrow window of opportunity to do some good, but there isn't carte blanche ability to pass whatever legislation you want. Changing the system requires agreement from the minority party which won't happen.

So I hear there's these things called Executive Orders and Presidential Pardons....

I do not know why you would weigh in on a conversation you have no interest in reading. Lines like this

And sometimes that means what you can achieve is limited by what kind of coalition you can build. There's a lot of support for SOCIALISM in the Democratic party, but not a lot of support for COMMUNISM.

in response to that

I mean, honestly, it's because the Dems and Reps are basically on the same side, that of capitalism and personal power. Remember that Obama killed plenty of civilians and deported plenty of immigrants in his term, just like Bush, not to mention, condoning brutal police actions in response to peaceful protests for civil rights. While there is substantive difference between the two parties, it's not a lot, and in general, pols prefer to protect their power and reputations over condemning the crimes of their fellows, because ultimately, both sides have the same goal, and that goal has nothing to do with representing us.

Do not make sense. Even in the context of this and other threads there has been no discussion of a good deal of what dead is talking about. He should really try actually reading what people here are saying.

Anyways...

Remember that Obama killed plenty of civilians and deported plenty of immigrants in his term, just like Bush, not to mention, condoning brutal police actions in response to peaceful protests for civil rights.

As many gripes as I have about Obama I would not see any reason for Dems to go after him. Even if 'I' were made king of the dems the year after his term ended, he came out of office with a good approval rating. Many dems are like dead. They are willing to completely ignore the really shitty things he did. I suspect even more dems don't actually think he did anything shitty in his time in office at all or don't care even if you were to tell them (which has been my experience). It just wouldn't be worth the effort to try and drag him down. Bush on the other hand came out with a pretty bad approval rating and as a dem it would be worth it to make sure everyone associated with him would be ushered swiftly out of government.

The people operating in Washington also aren't thinking in the terms that I am. As far as I can tell most of them don't really care about crimes against humanity and if they ever did they've been through enough compromises to put "not building concentration camps" on the back burner behind making sure to verbally stand against antisemitism.

I wasn't trying to say Obama should have been prosecuted (though honestly I'd love to see all four living former presidents, the current president, and everyone who enabled any of them hauled up to the Hague to face war crimes and human rights violation charges), I was explaining why Dems don't have any interest in prosecuting the Rep presidents they follow.


edit: tl;dr- The Republicans are the party of "Prisoners and Slaves should be put into gladiatorial arenas for the entertainment of aristocrats!" and Democrats are the Bread and Circuses party.

[Kaelik]

When Trump was last impeached we got a spectacular demonstration of Republican party unity. Anyone talking about the GOP breaking up needs to take a look at that episode, likewise anyone talking about impeachment or any other means of removing Trump before Jan 20.

I'm totally fine with the republicans voting lockstep to say they support coups. It's really stupid to give them deniability but also never impeach anyone because you assume they will vote against removal. For god sakes make them say so.

(Also I think if you REALLY wanted to stop a coup you'd pass a resolution for anti fascist organization saying that you think it is a moral duty for americans to oppose fascist riots and to remove dictators by any means necessary. But there is zero chance in hell congressional democrats who have spent 2 years fighting Pelosi's strong opinion that oversight shouldn't be allowed are going to actually do that.)

[OgreBattle]

Hope y'all and yours have maintained bodily safety in these mega dumb dumb dumb times

[Thaluikhain]

The real lesson to be learned from yesterday's events is that cops don't really like getting shot at more than anybody else does. That's probably why they folded - angry mobs with guns are scary. And very American, sadly.

Not just a mob, though, a band of heroic patriots out to fight a corrupt state. If the police had actually tried doing their job, "The Capitol Martyrs" might end up in the next generation's history books.

Not saying there wasn't incompetence, cowardice or treason going on, but I'd not want to risk being remembered as the person who sparked "The Great American XXXXX". Letting them have their way is not much of an improvement, however.

[Mistborn]

"Donald Trump has incited a literal putsch therefore it's more important now than ever to unite against the real enemy, the Democratic leadership!" - Kaelik as far as I can tell.

[Kaelik]

"Donald Trump has incited a literal putsch therefore it's more important now than ever to unite against the real enemy, the Democratic leadership!" - Kaelik as far as I can tell.

If hypothetically your abusive spouse stole your kids and threatened to kill them when you have a restraining order against them and the cops refuse to enforce the restraining order and tell you to fuck off and go home and maybe your kids will be returned, it is true that the abusive spouse is doing bad things, but it actually isn't weird to make your pleas for aid to the cops to change their mind instead of the abusive spouse.

Also I made one entire post about the Democratic leadership and like 5 about cops, but sure whatever, defend Nancy Pelosi while she's busy trying to talk her caucus out of impeachment and into "a declaration of unfitness for office" that is constitutionally dubious and could be pocket delayed until Trump leaves office depending on when/if it even passes.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Trump's on his way out and the Democrats are on their way in. What the fuck are you blabbering about, Mistborn?

[Mistborn]

Trump's on his way out and the Democrats are on their way in. What the fuck are you blabbering about, Mistborn?

Have you've been living under a rock the past few days? Trump ordered the people at his seditious rally up Pennsylvania Ave. Then those very same goons were let into the Capitol Building by traitors among the Capital Police. While Congress and the Vice President were certifying the election!

In response to this both the Speaker of the House and the soon to be Senate Majority leader have called for the invocation 25th Amendment and have announced that articles of Impeachment will be drafted if Trump is not swiftly removed. Which according to Kaelik is a craven betrayal because the imaginary Democratic leadership that lives in his head are only capable of only duplicity and betrayal.

[Kaelik]

In response to this both the Speaker of the House and the soon to be Senate Majority leader have called for the invocation 25th Amendment and have announced that articles of Impeachment will be drafted if Trump is not swiftly removed. Which according to Kaelik is a craven betrayal because the imaginary Democratic leadership that lives in his are only capable of only duplicity and betrayal.

This is incorrect. Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Chuck Schumer has announced that articles of impeachment will be drafted. A bunch of other democratic house members have already drafted them. Chuck Schumer called for impeachment but would have nothing to do with drafting articles. Nancy Pelosi adjourned the House and announced she is making plans for about Wednesday to meet with generals to subvert the authority of the President by having the generals agree they will not obey the Presidents orders, but also she has not said that there will be an impeachment and has a specific section about removing the President that only talks about the 25th amendment (a thing she has nothing to do with) and nothing about impeachment (a thing she could if she didn't adjourn the House.)

Perhaps if you don't actually know what Nancy Pelosi has done, and you think she has done things she hasn't, maybe it is possible that your view that the democrats have totally done enough isn't 100% correct.

Maybe the Speaker of the House could IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT instead of announcing plans to meet with generals after the adjourning the House.

I want to stress how much this criticism of Pelosi is actually the boring liberal criticism of Pelosi, not the left criticism of Pelosi. Right now you could go find a bunch of Biden supporting journalists saying that Pelosi should not be adjourning the House and doing meetings, but should be impeaching.

[Mistborn]

Pelosi just said today that impeachment will go forward if Trump does not resign immediately. If I had to guess the reason Pelosi was making noises about the 25th yesterday is that it could have been logistically faster to arrange. These various backroom shenanigans are happening not instead of an Impeachment but alongside an impeachment.

[Kaelik]

Pelosi just said today that impeachment will go forward if Trump does not resign immediately. If I had to guess the reason Pelosi was making noises about the 25th yesterday is that it could have been logistically faster to arrange.

She made an announcement TODAY the day after Pence said that the 25th amendment will not be invoked, and it didn't say anything about impeachment it only said the 25th amendment.

She's the speaker of the house. If she's even willing to write the word impeachment down then why the fuck do you have to keep saying that she's calling for impeachment. She adjourned the house and keeps saying all the things she's going to do to waste time until January so she doesn't have to impeach.

It is POSSIBLE that the house democrats will finally get tired of her shit and FORCE her to impeach him, but she clearly fucking doesn't want to because she keeps making up reasons to avoid doing it, including asking pence to answer a question HE ALREADY ANSWERED.

This guy was literally posting about how Tara Reid was a liar during the primary:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/ ... 0748901382

"In our constitutional system, it is Congress’s job, not Gen Milley’s job, to intervene and prevent an unstable president from launching nukes. In extremis, the VP and cabinet could do it too. We have these mechanisms so that we don’t sacrifice civilian control of the military."

But now he's making criticisms of Pelosi's refusal to impeach.

This is not hard to figure out if you aren't desperately committed to defending every person with D in front of their name at all times.\

EDIT: Joe Biden has now said he approves impeaching the president. So that makes 2 of 3 Democratic Leaders. If only we had that third one this guy would be impeached already.

[Mistborn]

“Today, following the president’s dangerous and seditious acts, Republicans in Congress need to follow that example and call on Trump to depart his office — immediately,” she wrote. “If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action.”

What action would Congress proceed with if not impeachment, haven't other members already drawn up the articles?

[Kaelik]

“Today, following the president’s dangerous and seditious acts, Republicans in Congress need to follow that example and call on Trump to depart his office — immediately,” she wrote. “If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action.”

What action would Congress proceed with if not impeachment, haven't other members already drawn up the articles?

Yeah man I'm sure that Ilhan Omar doing something really proves that Nancy Pelosi on board because I understand how fucking politics works. Famously whenever Ilhan Omar does something you know Pelosi is really behind it because she's always working tight with her.

There is CURRENTLY an argument going on between democratic congress members about whether or not they should IMPEACH or pass a bill declaring the President unfit for office, a thing which is constitutionally not okay and also won't do anything because Trump can wait 10 days before it becomes law even if the Senate passes it.

Pelosi didn't write the word "impeach" because she is on the side of not impeaching in that argument and so her public statement is leaving it open to what action congress might take.

That is to say, Pelosi might lose this fight and be forced to impeach him, but only if she loses. And in the meantime she has promise that in the future she will do something if Mike Pence answers a question he answered YESTERDAY.

The impeachment resolution, led by Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, was cosponsored by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and a handful of other Democrats as of Thursday afternoon.

There's actually a huge number of them who have signed on by now. But this doesn't sound like Nancy Pelosi ordered this to me. Does it to you?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet said whether the House will vote on impeachment, and the caucus is meeting at noon to discuss the idea after pro-Trump supporters ransacked the Capitol on Wednesday.

This is an AP release from 11:25 today saying that Pelosi still hasn't said it.

What would possibly convince you that Nancy Pelosi hasn't called for impeachment besides Nancy Pelosi not using the word and also the AP saying she hasn't said they will?

[Mistborn]

The NYT summary of that letter said impeach, so I assume Impeachment is what is being considered.

[Kaelik]

The NYT summary of that letter said impeach, so I assume Impeachment is what is being considered.

So you..... have decided to not read the letter?

[Mistborn]

Edit: Of course I read the letter, I quoted some of it even and like the NYT I don't see how what I quoted implies any but Impeachment.

Honestly I'm not interested in arguing narrow semantics. What would it take for you to believe that Pelosi is seriously doing impeachment and not just cravenly kicking the can down the road? 'cause I assume that if impeachment doesn't happen you'll blame Pelosi and if it does you'll credit someone else and blame Pelosi for it not being faster. So I don't see a point in extending this argument.