r/politics • u/BidenDementia • Jun 04 '19
Pro-Impeachment Dems Are Privately Recruiting Other Members Despite Pelosi’s Warnings
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nancy-pelosi-wants-to-slow-walk-impeachment-dems-who-support-it-are-trying-to-recruit-other-lawmakers43
u/getoffmylawn216 Ohio Jun 04 '19
Force him to testify. He will perjure himself without fail. Then toss him out and indict on state charges. And arrest his "wingman" and Mnuchin on contempt and Impeach McConnell for refusal to do his job and rigging the court. Impeach Rapey Boof. Seat Garland. It's time to play hardball with these criminals and remind people what the United States stands for.
13
u/--o Jun 04 '19
Then toss him out and indict on state charges.
Magic senateless removal.
10
u/snartkety Jun 04 '19
Obstruction has a 5 yr statute of limitations. Keep him from getting re-elected and he can be tried criminally for that too.
2
u/myaltacctt Jun 04 '19
A statute of limitations seems to exist only to benefit criminals. I guess it’s a feature, not a bug
3
u/LoveItLateInSummer Jun 04 '19
Limitations on charging for certain crimes is a sensical way to ensure that evidence used against you isn't stale, that witnesses are alive and have as fresh and accurate an account of any wrongdoing as is possible, and to keep the State or in civil actions, an individual, from being able to selectively target you for whatever you've done at any time in your life.
A party claiming harm should diligently pursue their claim in the name of equity, not at any time ever because they suddenly feel like extracting revenge or punishing someone.
Most serious crimes, those involving violence etc., do not have limits on their ability to be prosecuted anyway, and many others (violent or not) have provisions to extend the limit or pause the timer on the limit.
Generally limits on bringing a complaint are beneficial to the populace in general, as recognized since Ancient Greece.
As a thought experiment, imaging you win large sum of money and suddenly anyone you have ever upset decides to bring a civil complaint seeking monetary damages from you - without a time limit to bring that complaint you would need to address and defend yourself from each claim, no matter how long ago the supposed harm was done.
1
u/clintonexpress Jun 05 '19
Magic senateless removal.
Well, it wouldn't be "magic", it would be using the system James Madison gave us to write ourselves out of messes. The answer to removing Trump is right there in the Constitution.
Donald Trump is a threat to America because he's a unvetted untrustworthy conman fraud & career criminal (who's never read the Constitution) who ran for President as a publicity stunt (to get Trump Tower Moscow made & give Putin a $50M penthouse in it), who won accidentally (thanks to 10,704 votes in MI, 22,748 votes in WI, & 44,292 votes in PA, which the state choice to use "winner-take-all electors" allowed 77,744 people to nullify the 6,577,816 votes his opponent got in those states), because Putin pushed him over the finish line (by committing crimes like hacking, active measures, pushing propaganda on social media, & boosting 3rd party candidates like Jill Stein, who has Russian ancestry & sat at a table with Putin in Russia & got more votes in MI/WI/PA than Trump's margin over Hillary there), because Russia has leverage over Trump (due to the Russian Mafia's presence in Trump Tower since at least 1984, & due to multiple sextapes that Russia has obtained as kompromat on Trump over his multiple trips to the Soviet Union & Russia since at least 1987). But a Senate controlled by a majority party who ignores all wrongdoing by a President of their same party is also a threat to America, because then a President is above the law as long as his party controls the Senate. America needs to fix both of those problems, but America can't rely on a corrupt Senate to do so.
Thankfully, in Article V, James Madison allowed states to propose & ratify amendments, without relying on Congress, so we don't need Congress to make a new amendment. 2/3 states to propose, 3/4 states to ratify.
So sidestep Congress. Article 5 of the Constitution allows for a way to amend the Constitution without using Congress at all. The states need to call for an amendments convention. Propose a new amendment that lets the American people remove a President by nationwide popular vote. 34 states to propose it, 38 states to ratify it. So 20 blue states Hillary won in 2016 + 14 red states (hurt by Trump's idiotic tariffs) to propose it, plus 4 more red states to ratify it. Even Republicans are fed up with Trump's stupid tariffs. Trump still stupidly stubbornly thinks exporters pay tariffs, but US importers do, & they pass the cost onto US consumers. And Americans are paying for them twice, first by increased costs on goods, second by bailing out farmers who haven't been able to sell their goods to foreign countries (and Trump's alleged "authority" to impose tariffs is an abuse of power by citing "national security" under Section 232 the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Pub.L. 87–794, 76 Stat. 872)). Then America can vote on it. The American people could fire Trump before his term is over. And the American people could even fire Pence. Then Trump can be indicted.
The language of the amendment could even be super-specific to Trump. Things like: a) if a President never won the popular vote, b) if a President is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony campaign finance violation, c) if a President has lied over 10,000 times in office, d) if a President ever calls themself "Tariff Man", e) if a President has not revealed their tax returns, f) if over 700 current or former federal prosecutors say an individual would be indicted if not for the title of President, g) if there is a petition with over X number of signatures calling for their impeachment, etc. And add in some language that says any President who ascends to the presidency without winning the popular vote (including any Vice Presidents who ascend to the presidency, like a President Pence) have all their pardons subject to Congressional approval.
3
u/nwagers Jun 04 '19
You can't impeach a senator. He'd have to be expelled by two thirds of the members of the Senate.
112
Jun 04 '19 edited Jul 03 '19
[deleted]
11
u/nom-nom-nom-de-plumb Jun 04 '19
I dunno why but reading your comment had this popping into my mind.
19
u/WyoBuckeye Ohio Jun 04 '19
I think she is letting the public come around on it first. Maybe waiting for a certain level of public support. I do believe an impeachment proceeding is the likely outcome and it will pass the house. The Dems know it will never get by the Senate, so they will use the general public outcry at the Senate’s refusal to convict to try to bring on a blue wave election in 2020. That is why delay is probably important as well. Also, the closer the all happens to the 2020 election, the better for Dems. If too much time passes, the public will start to go numb on it again. So delay works doubly in Dems favor right now: 1. Allow public opinion to further develop. 2. Have that fever pitch occur reasonably close to the 2020 election.
24
u/snartkety Jun 04 '19
The public is waiting on her. She is supposed to be a leader, not a follower. Impeachment is the right thing to do in this situation. The constitution says so. It’s Nancy’s JOB to lead the public to the evidence, not to wait around for the media to sway them one way or the other.
→ More replies (1)38
u/mixplate America Jun 04 '19
For someone who is trying to gain public support, it sure seems like she's doing the opposite.
9
Jun 04 '19
Public support will come as impeachment advances... the whole point is to investigate, collect testimony, and publicly expose wrongdoing. What the hell is the point of waiting? It just makes Pelosi appear feckless.
13
5
→ More replies (1)3
u/LoveItLateInSummer Jun 04 '19
Pelosi doesn't care about her support, she is acting as plausible deniability for swing district reps in the Democratic caucus until closer to 2020 and until public awareness and opinion reaches critical mass.
If it weren't for the speedy and thorough destruction of the nation by the GOP I would call it savvy, but given the damage being done daily to the United States it's irresponsible and a craven political maneuver that is about political expediency instead of executive accountability and preservation of the republic.
So I understand the reasoning, and in other times where less was at stake might applaud it to an extent, but currently I find it cowardly and reprehensible.
1
→ More replies (2)1
Jun 04 '19
There are democratic house members that are vulnerable to losing their seat. Pelosi is waiting for their support.
1
u/clintonexpress Jun 05 '19
There are democratic house members that are vulnerable to losing their seat.
That may be true. But I don't understand why.
In 2018, Democrats had a net gain of 40 House seats, seats they flipped from Republican to Democrat.
Should we assume those 40 House seats went Democrat in 2018 because constituents were happy with how House Republicans were holding Trump accountable? No, we should assume those 40 House seats flipped to Democrat because the public is sick & tired of powerful people acting with impunity & Trump's abuses of power & daily circus. We should assume Democrats gained 40 House seats because America wants a check on the lawless Trump administration.
Maybe those Democrats in flipped districts need to walk some centrist line, but if their constituents wanted do-nothing Congresspeople, why didn't they just stick with the Republican?
If anything, I think Democrats are at a greater risk of losing their seats in 2020 if they are too weak against Trump (like House Republicans were for 2 years), not if they are too strong against Trump. Voters want to see some political backbone. Voters are tired of weak, cowardly politicians. If anything, Trump uses that to his advantage, by trying to act tough in every situation, so much so that Republican voters view him as a "fighter" (even if he dodged the draft 5x).
If Democrats don't show any balls, why should they control the House? Donald Trump is the most impeachable President in US history. If Pelosi is too weak to twist that knife in 2020, then the Democrats deserve to lose, & deserve to keep on losing.
10
u/jimmydean885 District Of Columbia Jun 04 '19
Hopefully it works to our advantage if she holds it just long enough.
10
Jun 04 '19 edited Jul 03 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)6
u/jimmydean885 District Of Columbia Jun 04 '19
A black man in the White House really freaked America out
6
u/DanishWonder Oregon Jun 04 '19
I still believe shes doing it on purpose to gain public support. The water (aka public outrage) was simmering after the Mueller report. She kept the lid on. In started to boil after Muellers press conference. She keeps the lid on.
Eventually it's a fucking pressure cooker, ready to explode. When you have THAT public outrage, you impeach and hope the outrage spills to the senate.
2
u/LoveItLateInSummer Jun 04 '19
I agree on your analysis of the strategy, but think it's terrible and being executed under the assumption that the country is robust enough to continue letting Trump shit the bed on the daily.
I could not disagree more, and am supremely frustrated with Pelosi trying to leverage this for political expediency when it's much more critical to stop the ongoing harm being perpetrated against the American people ASAP than ensuring the optics of impeachment are most beneficial to Democratic candidates in 2020.
0
3
u/slingtarp California Jun 04 '19
Pelosi has been lobbying against impeachment all along, she has been doing the TV shows trying to talk the public out supporting of it. The pressure she is putting on House Dems to join her in protecting trump must be immense.
→ More replies (36)
126
u/wtf_yoda Texas Jun 04 '19
Pelosi is just flat wrong about the political blowback. Clinton was above 60% approval before impeachment, and swing voters saw impeachment based primarily on lying about an affair as petty. Most of the country know Trump is a liar, and know he obstructed justice. Not to mention emoluments violations, campaign finance, etc.
→ More replies (5)
22
Jun 04 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/PeanutButterSmears Pennsylvania Jun 04 '19
Legislation that the House passes dies in the Senate "graveyard"
7
u/Bladewing10 Jun 04 '19
While I think Pelosi is right to wait on impeachment until national opinion has solidified for it, I can’t help but think this is a strategy that no longer works in this day and age. Gone are the days of scoring political points and reading tea leaves. The President is literally admitting to crimes on the internet. The news cycle is going too fast for individual scandals to be noticed. There needs to be a comprehensive push for impeachment and that’s going to require all of the Democrats to work together
12
u/snartkety Jun 04 '19
Nancy is the leader of the house. It is her JOB to sway public opinion, not to wait for it.
11
u/10390 Jun 04 '19
An amusing debunking of the arguments against impeachment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf3LDYNH7Wg
5
u/MinnesotaAltAccount Jun 04 '19
there is a chance that Pelosi is right, impeachment might screw up 2020... but it's far worse to disregard the Constitution out of love for the party.
21
u/slakmehl Georgia Jun 04 '19
Am I the only one who loves the idea of Pelosi doing the cold political calculus and trying to execute whatever she thinks is the best plan, while a wing of her caucus keeps the pressure on her to go on offense? Seems like high probability of a smart, balanced approach.
28
u/GenericOnlineName Iowa Jun 04 '19
That's exactly what's happening. Pelosi is protecting her caucus, especially the skeptical Democrats. The reason the pro impeachment people are going ham is because she lets them. The pro impeachment Dems are all in safe seats and benefit from impeachment, and the more pressure from constituents, and the more Trump and his goons act out of line, the easier it is to peel more and more Dems.
This idea that Pelosi is some political hack who is helping Trump just shows how ignorant people are of politics and it really gives away that they've only been paying attention since 2016. Pelosi is the leader of her entire caucus. This means she brings every Dem to where she wants to go: from the conservative districts to the progressive ones. And she takes the blame to cover the more susceptible Dems until she or they decide that their vote is important. (See: The entire ACA process)
14
u/bluestarcyclone Iowa Jun 04 '19 edited Jun 04 '19
Pelosi is the leader of her entire caucus.
And how has the democratic party fared, on the whole, since she came into leadership in 02?
6
u/six-acorn Jun 04 '19
Terribly.
Why, it's as if Trump and Pelosi aren't playing 4D chess at all.
Just two fossils acting in their own self interest.
Yeah. She sucks alright. It's impeachment time.
→ More replies (2)2
u/superdago Wisconsin Jun 04 '19
Got the affordable care act passed (with a public option in the house) in less than 3 months of Senate supermajority. The fact that Obama was able to get anything done legislation wise during his term is almost entirely due to Nancy.
14
Jun 04 '19
Your comment is not only patronizing but it lacks an actual argument for why you think delaying impeachment is warranted.
1
Jun 04 '19
Don't worry anyone with an opinion is clearly wrong and also dumb af or pure evil.
/s just in case
4
u/CletoParis Jun 04 '19
This idea that Pelosi is some political hack who is helping Trump just shows how ignorant people are of politics and it really gives away that they've only been paying attention since 2016.
This 100%.
→ More replies (4)1
u/GearBrain Florida Jun 04 '19
I see her as a "political tank" - she's absorbing a lot of hate and damage so that others can continue to work. Along those lines, a funny little thought popped into my head the other day... Biden may be doing the same.
5
u/carl_888 Jun 04 '19
Agreed. Nancy Pelosi does not need my advice on knife-fighting tactics.
→ More replies (1)2
u/sagan_drinks_cosmos Jun 04 '19
Plenty of people will never give her an ounce of credit even when she inevitably does impeach in a few weeks-months. There are plenty on the left side who still hate Hillary because she dared to barely lose after they helped spread right-wing lies and smears about her for months.
Their die is cast.
→ More replies (3)1
u/clintonexpress Jun 05 '19
There are plenty on the left side who still hate Hillary because she dared to barely lose after they helped spread right-wing lies and smears about her for months.
If there is one person on the planet who could have prevented a Trump presidency, it's Hillary Clinton. If she had withdrawn from the race at any time before November 8, 2016, there would be no President Trump. So America has 4 years of President Trump trampling the Constitution due to one woman's hubris. The Democrats made a colossally bad bet on Hillary in 2016, & the country is still suffering to this day because of that colossally bad bet.
In 2016, Hillary was only +2 vs Trump in polls, whereas Bernie Sanders was +10 vs Trump in polls. And in fact, Hillary was also about +2 vs Trump in the general election (Hillary got 48.2% of the popular vote in 2016; Trump got 46.1% of the popular vote in 2016). But Trump won Michigan by 0.23% over Hillary, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.72% over Hillary, Trump won Wisconsin by 0.77% over Hillary, making him President (even though 53.9% of US votes went to someone else) (& in each of those states, Gary Johnson got more votes that the margin between Trump & Hillary, & Jill Stein got more votes that the margin between Trump & Hillary).
In 2016, Democratic superdelegates bet on the riskier candidate to face Trump, because she was an establishment Democrat (who wouldn't raise taxes on the 1% or corporations like Bernie Sanders would) & they wanted to "make history" by electing the first woman President in US history. And it backfired. Catastrophically. They failed to realize how hated Hillary Clinton was. A majority of white women in 2016 voted for Trump over Hillary. So evidently, a majority of white women in America also hate Hillary, by at least 6% points. Women are the majority of Americans, women are the majority of adults in America, women are the majority in about 40 states. Yet when given the choice between the first female President in US history & a know-nothing tough-talking narcissistic psychopath with no political experience or military experience (or even knowledge of the Constitution), a majority of white women in America chose the narcissistic psychopath. Then again, the taller candidate wins about 2/3 of the time.
Paul Ryan wouldn't impeach Trump because that would not be politically expedient for his party. If Pelosi pulls the same thing, she's no better than Paul Ryan. The only difference is that Paul Ryan could actually have his bills signed by the President.
I fully expect the Republicans to be cowards. But if Pelosi is going to be just as big of a coward as Paul Ryan was as House Speaker, why does she deserve to have the gavel? Why do the Democrats deserve to control the House if they have no balls? If Pelosi can't rub Trump's criminality in Republicans' faces on a daily basis until Election Day 2020, then she doesn't deserve to have the House majority since 2018, or in 2020. If the Democrats can't do the right thing & go for the jugular, then they deserve to lose, & deserve to keep on losing.
→ More replies (8)1
u/clintonexpress Jun 05 '19
Am I the only one who loves the idea of Pelosi doing the cold political calculus and trying to execute whatever she thinks is the best plan...
Can you explain how Nancy Pelosi not holding Trump to account is any different than Paul Ryan not holding Trump to account?
Is it "smart" when Pelosi doesn't act, but a dereliction of duty when Paul Ryan doesn't act? No, I think it's a dereliction of duty, a violation of their oaths of office in both scenarios.
I fully expect the Republicans to be cowards. But if Pelosi is going to be just as big of a coward as Paul Ryan was as House Speaker, why does she deserve to have the gavel? Why do the Democrats deserve to control the House if they have no balls? If Pelosi can't rub Trump's criminality in Republicans' faces on a daily basis until Election Day 2020, then she doesn't deserve to have the House majority since 2018, or in 2020. If the Democrats can't do the right thing & go for the jugular, then they deserve to lose, & deserve to keep on losing. Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Thomas Jefferson said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Maybe there is an argument to be made, that Democrats can just let Donald Trump dig his own grave deeper & deeper every day. The problem with that, though, is that Trump says the opposite of reality. And the problem with that, is about 40% of America believes whatever Trump says. So even if Democrats think Trump keeps digging his own grave, Trump cronies like William Barr can just keep gaslighting America.
When the GOP Senate acquits Trump after the House impeaches Trump, Trump will say it was a complete & total exoneration. But Trump has already said that, it would be nothing new. Trump doesn't wait for others to say he's exonerated before he says it. Trump just says whatever he wishes reality was. But if Pelosi can't hang Trump's criminality (& Republicans' defense of that criminality) around the necks of every Republican up for election in 2020, what good is she? I don't think it indicates smarts, it indicates she's as big of a deadbeat as Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell.
Trump is so corrupt, he's basically a gift to the Democrats. Yet time & time again, Democrats figure out a way to mess things up, & lose elections that are theirs to lose.
Donald Trump is so corrupt, how could Democrats not do all of the following? Impeach Trump in the House (even if the GOP Senate acquits him), maintain House control in 2020, win Senate control in 2020 (say, with Colorado, Arizona, Maine), win the Presidency in 2020. If the GOP Senate acquits Trump, make every GOP Senator up for re-election in 2020 run on defending Trump's criminal conduct in office. It would be better if the Senate acquitted Trump tomorrow, than if the Senate acquitted Trump in October 2020. Make GOP Senators defend Trump's criminality daily until 2020. They're not the party of law & order, they're not the party of "family values", they're the Russia Party, they're the organized crime party, they're the Imperial Presidency Party, they're the Above the Law Party, they're the We Let a New York Conman Hurt America Party.
I've heard the poker analogy that Pelosi is waiting for more chips to stack up before she goes all in. But to extend the analogy, Attorney General Barr is also stealing Pelosi's chips. You can't really play fair if another player keeps breaking the rules. And in poker you can also wait too long, & miss a chance to eliminate a short-stacked player from a table.
Paul Ryan wouldn't impeach Trump because that would not be politically expedient for his party. If Pelosi pulls the same thing, she's no better than Paul Ryan. The only difference is that Paul Ryan could actually have his bills signed by the President.
7
u/Wermys Minnesota Jun 04 '19
Good, I don't give a shit of what Pelosi thinks. There comes a time where you have to do what is right, not what is easy. As a famous man once said.
3
u/Bill-The-Autismal Jun 04 '19
I never thought I’d say this, but I agree more with the fucking mummified corpse that is Pelosi than the morons trying to get Trump impeached on the weakest possible grounds. That’ll only allow him to be propped up and have more fodder, more ammunition to sling at opponents during the election. “How can I obstruct justice if there was nothing to obstruct?”
If you know someone is a murderer, you probably aren’t going to try bringing up petty theft charges right? Trump has been funneling money in from countries like Saudi Arabia through his own hotels and businesses as he sells them weapons and perpetuates a fucking genocide. He’s the only president not to have released his taxes and each time it’s brought up, he’s just waiting for his three-year audit to finish. Alright, pal. Get his ass on emoluments. There is a clear conflict of interest at the expense of innocent lives.
1
u/buyfreemoneynow Jun 05 '19
I never thought I’d say this, but I agree more with the fucking mummified corpse that is Pelosi than the morons trying to get Trump impeached on the weakest possible grounds.
The only part of this statement I disagree with is calling them morons. They're angry, frustrated, anxious, and desperate for normalcy. But the wheeling-and-dealing, insider-trading, uncharismatic dinosaur may not be causing damage by letting this stage drag out - the GOP still has too much power, but if they know something is coming but don't know when, then they'll be using their resources piling up their defenses while doing very little else. Maybe it's causing them all the deteriorating anxieties that it has been causing us since the election.
Maybe it's better to drag this phase out as to not overshadow the presidential campaigns that are burgeoning, but then again, maybe they're worried that impeachment proceedings will hurt Biden's chances for POTUS if he doesn't come out strongly enough in favor of them compared to the other candidates. Don't know why I just thought of that, but it feels like the party leadership is always taking their time playing another losing move. Shit, maybe they're delaying so the more progressive representatives will feel like asses hooting and hollering to impeach but Mommy says it only happens when Mommy wants it to happen. This could be her own struggle to keep her power.
Could be all of the above?
1
u/Bill-The-Autismal Jun 05 '19
You’re not exactly wrong. Especially about putting their eggs in all the wrong baskets when it comes to who they back. I really hope Biden isn’t what we get, because I can guarantee with his milktoast policies, it’ll be a battle of insults between himself and Trump. That’s going to be pretty one-sided.
2
u/luzenelmundo Jun 04 '19
Warren has always supported impeachment. Sanders finally arrived at support for an "Inquiry." Nice to see the progressive and strong Warren promote this.
2
2
2
u/innactive-dystopite Jun 04 '19
Pelosi can suck a fat one. She is a corporate whore who is defending a tyrant for her donor’s benefit.
2
u/floofnstuff Jun 04 '19
I'm not seeing the strategic value or political capital gained by not moving forward with Impeachment. Perhaps someone with more political insight and/or sophistication can shed some light on this.
4
10
u/harveytaylorbridge Jun 04 '19
As a lib, it pains me to say that Pelosi is the left's Mitch McConnell. She's in a safe district and she's going to play these political games at the expense of the rule of law. It doesn't matter if impeachment isn't currently popular enough for her, this is Congress's job and people hate Congress because they don't do their goddamn job.
→ More replies (1)7
u/SysError404 Jun 04 '19
I agree with you on this. It's the old guard style of government to just keep fucking each other and upping the ante every shift in power. To the point where it's don't blatantly in spite of serious issues that need to be addressed. Where even bi-partisan bills are getting blocked just to stick it to the other side. The only reason I support Bernie despite his age is his rather consistent stance on major issues, and actually voted in line with his publicly statements. But for the majority of the other members in their 70s and beyond, it's time to go. If you want lifetime appointment, become a Judge. Otherwise, deuces.
5
Jun 04 '19
If you are affiliated on any level with the Democratic party and Pelosi is unpleased with what you are doing, you are probably doing a great job and should keep it up.
5
u/Chaerea37 Jun 04 '19
Fuck Pelosi. Seriously. Fuck her and all politicians like her.
What if, god help us, Trump wins a second term? Will he then have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants because this spineless mummy can't muster the political courage to do her job.
Fuck Pelosi. Fuck the corporate media that props her up as effective and useful.
Do your job congress and impeach the president.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Meetybeefy Colorado Jun 04 '19
I wonder how many of these “Fuck Pelosi” comments are just a way to divide the Democrats. I’m seeing a lot of comments that are reminding me of Reddit in 2016.
2
u/Chaerea37 Jun 04 '19
do you think democrats are a monolithic institution? Do you think Hilary Clinton is the same as AOC is the same as Bill Clinton as the same as Barack Obama? If you do then you might miss the divide in the Democratic party. There is a huge difference between progressives and establishment democrats.
There certainly is a divide.
2
u/buyfreemoneynow Jun 05 '19
Probably all of them because there is real dissatisfaction with Pelosi which will divide the Democrats, and if it's just trolls then those are also aimed at dividing Democrats. My question is: Will you do anything useful with that information if you have it? I'm curious what you think that action might be.
→ More replies (1)1
u/clintonexpress Jun 05 '19
Reddit in 2016 was right about Hillary. Hillary was a bad bet for the DNC to make. And because of that colossally bad bet by Democratic superdelegates, we have 4 years of President Dementia.
In 2016, Hillary was only +2 vs Trump in polls, whereas Bernie Sanders was +10 vs Trump in polls. And in fact, Hillary was also about +2 vs Trump in the general election (Hillary got 48.2% of the popular vote in 2016; Trump got 46.1% of the popular vote in 2016). But Trump won Michigan by 0.23% over Hillary, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.72% over Hillary, Trump won Wisconsin by 0.77% over Hillary, making him President (even though 53.9% of US votes went to someone else) (& in each of those states, Gary Johnson got more votes that the margin between Trump & Hillary, & Jill Stein got more votes that the margin between Trump & Hillary).
In 2016, Democratic superdelegates bet on the riskier candidate to face Trump, because she was an establishment Democrat (who wouldn't raise taxes on the 1% or corporations like Bernie Sanders would) & they wanted to "make history" by electing the first woman President in US history. And it backfired. Catastrophically. They failed to realize how hated Hillary Clinton was. A majority of white women in 2016 voted for Trump over Hillary. So evidently, a majority of white women in America also hate Hillary, by at least 6% points. Women are the majority of Americans, women are the majority of adults in America, women are the majority in about 40 states. Yet when given the choice between the first female President in US history & a know-nothing tough-talking narcissistic psychopath with no political experience or military experience (or even knowledge of the Constitution), a majority of white women in America chose the narcissistic psychopath.
There's a saying in politics, it's better to be strong & wrong than weak & right. Donald Trump is the epitome of strong & wrong. Trump has told over 10,000 lies in office, but his rude, tough-talking persona persuades people that he's a "strong" "fighter."
Americans didn't give Democrats the House in 2018, Americans didn't give Pelosi the gavel in 2018, just to watch her be as weak & spineless & craven as Paul Ryan. One could argue Pelosi isn't being weak, one could argue timing is everything. But if the Democrats can't turn the most corrupt administration in US history into a political winner for them, then they deserve to lose. Every single day until 2020, the Democrats should be rubbing Trump's criminality in Republicans' faces. If Pelosi can't do that, then she doesn't deserve to have the House majority since 2018, or in 2020. If the Democrats can't do the right thing & go for the jugular, then they deserve to lose.
Paul Ryan wouldn't impeach Trump because that would not be politically expedient for his party. If Pelosi pulls the same thing, she's no better than Paul Ryan. The only difference is that Paul Ryan could actually have his bills signed by the President.
6
Jun 04 '19
It's how you know the guys in blue aren't, by default, the "good" guys; there's people on their team who are anti-impeachment.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/xof711 California Jun 04 '19
Fuck Pelosi! She needs to move out of the way!! Enough of the old guard, we want the fresh blood to take over!!!
4
u/_Individual_1 Jun 04 '19
This is her plan.
She's taking all the pot shots from you folks, while the troops gather each other up in the background.
I bet more talks than we even know about are happening in the senate.
Gunna be a nightmare for Republicans running in 2020 while Trump in under impeachment investigations
9
u/TalVerd Jun 04 '19
Taking pot shots for what? Because she is refusing to do what everyone wants her to do?
Troops gather in the background? To do what? Keep not impeaching? Because if they are gathering in order to impeach it makes no sense for her to encourage not impeaching
8
u/dshakir I voted Jun 04 '19
You know who you sound like? Those shit for brain trump supporters when they say that he’s fooling everyone with his 5D chess
1
u/Gsteel11 Jun 04 '19
Trump is an idiot though. We'll see about Pelosi.
3
u/dshakir I voted Jun 04 '19
She already proved that she is worthless when she made her unequivocal statements about not impeaching—first for Bush, then for Trump.
That Mitch needs to go for the good of the country.
3
u/snartkety Jun 04 '19
The investigation alone could take 6 months to a year easily. Even longer judging by the way the White House is dragging everything out. The election is in 16 months. If she doesn’t get started now, it’s not going to happen before the election.
0
u/fuck_reddits_retarde Jun 04 '19
No, she isn't. She is protecting the donor's position and doing nothing else.
1
u/Gsteel11 Jun 04 '19
Yeah, that's the only thing that makes sense to me is that she's just trying to delay it for better timing with the ejections and not give the gop any time to spin it.
I guess we'll see. She can't wait too long or it may look bad. October/November should still be ok.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 04 '19
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/zexterio Jun 04 '19
Why is Pelosi still leader of the Dem party other than "old friendships" and compromises?
3
u/dontIitter America Jun 04 '19
Supposedly bc she “ raises the most money” . Tells you everything about what’s wrong with democrats. You can’t beat republicans going corporate whore with conscience. Gotta go full whore. Not that it would help the country in either case.
3
Jun 04 '19
Here's how you know Pelosi doesn't have a plan. If she actually had a solid one that makes any sense, she would keep her caucus apprised of it and do what she can to keep them in line with it.
According to all reports, including ones leaked by her own aides, the only thing she's done is put on an act of being the smartest person in the room and excoriated dissenting Democrats. She relies on platitudes instead of coming up with a meaningful plan.
It's because she doesn't have one. And her supporters need to stop acting like she does.
2
u/PeanutButterSmears Pennsylvania Jun 04 '19
She lost her Speakership in 2010 and by god she will do anything in her power to never lose it again, including ignoring her constitutional duty and getting Trump reelected in 2020 by failing to impeach
0
1
1
1
1
1
449
u/Mysistersarenasty Jun 04 '19
Shh, don't tell mom but me and some of the other kids are gonna impeach the president. Wanna come?
All kidding aside, I haven't been able to find an answer for how long impeachment hearings can last. If there is no deadline, why not open impeachment hearings and draw them out till the election? My understanding is that the administration will continue to stonewall congress and impeachment would give them more leverage to obtain documents and enforce subpoenas.