I’ve been going back and forth with this. I don’t think it was pre-meditated at all, but I don’t think it matters. He had been carrying on for months about the election being rigged, denying the results, pretending the courts were corrupt and then ultimately lashing out at his own VP right up until the riots. Sure, morons like Stacey Abrams claimed election rigging and shit, but Trump took it to a stratospheric level and it’s not hard to believe some of his most ardent supporters would accept that truth into their bones. Presidents have immense power and a great deal of influence. They should be held to a higher standard than literally everyone else. So I don’t care about his intention, his rhetoric created the framework for the riots and for that he deserves to be held accountable.
this is the part that I just don't get. I also think, at this point, a conviction doesn't really matter. The information is out there. If someone votes against convicting him, their political career will be very short, and their private sector careers will be nonexistent. There's zero chance the government will allow Trump to run again, especially given the increasing likelihood that he'd have to run that campaign from prison. I just don't get how GOP members can make the calculation that it is in their best interests to vote against conviction at this point. I mean they will, but I don't understand how that math works out.
Yup. People around here don’t even like Ed Markey. He’s basically a complete zero. But he runs against such weirdos that he essentially wins by default.
They can make the calculation very easily, when there are 70m+ true believers who will side with whoever showed themselves loyal to their God. It's not a question of "being allowed to run". If he's not *legally* disqualified from doing so, then he absolutely will, and his voters will show up to make it happen.
You mean like the guy in charge of GA elections not recusing himself from the very election he was running in? The poll locations switched up or just plain removed from certain communities? The voting data that was deleted after an audit was requested? EDIT: But hey, screwing her out of the Governor's Mansion only left her with a ton of free time to mobilize Black voters and turn the whole damn state. Karma, I guess.
Is that supposed to be proof of something? None of those shows that voting was suppressed or that it explicitly prevented anyone from voting. Minority voting in the state was the highest it had been since the early 80s. As far as I can tell, the only people that were prevented from voting were those that had voter registrations at a different address than the one listed on the their state ID. Online voter registration had already been fully implemented prior to that election cycle, so I'm not sure what the excuse is, unless we're supposed to hand-hold every single able-bodied adult through the ballot process. It's not hard to believe that people just found her unlikeable, when she is, in fact, unlikeable. She doesn't get the benefit of doubt. She needs to provide hard proof that it occurred. That's the same burden that applies to Trump supporters.
Sure yeah, here's new GA Governor Brian Kemp fixing all the imaginary voting irregularities he'd just benefited from. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/7099...ng-some-criticisms-of-contested-2018-election
The is the line I use to describe your current Vice a president. Because I’m still waiting to see if anybody in your entire government besides Tulsi Gabbard has the balls to call her out for her past, she still hasn’t answered for. They didn’t want Hillary Clinton in the White House, but THAT phoney fucking woman is a-ok?
Challenging Markey was such a clear "I'm doing this because I'm a Kennedy and I feel entitled to ever greater office." It's not like Markey had been failing to deliver on the politics that Kennedy was pushing, or that Kennedy had amassed a wealth of experience that was being wasted in the House. Kennedy just wanted it, and therefore thought he should have it.
His campaign ads were endless. Every single one had something to effect of, "HEY DID YOU KNOW MY GREAT UNCLE WAS PRESIDENT AND MY GRANDPA WAS ALMOST PRESIDENT?"
MY FATHER MY FATHER MY FATHER MY FATHER MY FATHER MY FATHER Fuck nepotism. It devalues EVERYTHING it touches.
I think there's two issues that will factor into the impeachment failing to convict: 1. Someone else said it here, but Trump is not a political figure, he's a religion. His followers and his converts in the GOP won't vote to impeach him, IMO, even if he murdered a baby on the White House lawn. The senate is not split 2/3 for the Dems, ergo it will not have enough votes to convict. 2. From a legal perspective, I can imagine all the senators and their advisor - who are almost all lawyers themselves - being nervous about setting a precedent that you can convict a politician based off the rhetoric that he espouses in a speech or on a campaign. Things like, "Go down there and fight like hell!" are general enough that, but for the context of February 6th, most politicians have likely said something similar. If, legally, it is now assumed that those words are literal then it could have far-reaching ramifications. That being said, Trump unquestionably worked his followers up into a lather in the months preceding then incited the riot that eventually happened. Anyone with common sense can see that. Barring some tangible proof (Trump on video calling individual rioters personally beforehand and instructing them to break skulls, as an example), I don't think the senate will want to wade into those waters.
Most of these folks are afraid of what happens in the primaries. That's when they are the most vulnerable, and how people like Marjorie Taylor Greene get elected: they carry a head of steam into a primary. It's why the rhetoric is so intense for folks like Cruz and Hawley: their biggest threat isn't from Democrats, it's from someone even further right. The threat of Trump up-fucking them with some whackjob sycophant's at the primary stage is still real, even if it's not clear how he can do it without Twitter. There is some concern about what happens from here, with the threat of violence and high percentage of the electorate that doesn't believe in the election results, and the few of them used to playing the long game understand the danger the whole damned party is in (if the electorate doesn't have faith in the elections, and the GOP doesn't do shit about it....they stay home next election). But the majority of them are just worried about their fundraising and what happens in the next primary. Each cycle, the GOP has seen upsets by new entrants from an increasingly fringe right-wing. Trump's cult is easy for them to support, because he gives them air coverage to go a bit further right than is advisable and secure their right flank. The price for that air coverage, though is loyalty, and well....he lost them the majority and did so in damaging fashion. It'd be one thing if Trump lost gracefully, and quietly receded, but he fucked them over the entire way out the door. The base doesn't care, so they can't publicly go against him, but most of them know they need to distance themselves from him and the toxic elements of the base, especially as many of them aren't likely to vote for anyone in the next few cycles. This impeachment, from what I understand, doesn't set some legal precedent for the rest of the government. It's solely focused on Trump's actions, for anyone else to get in trouble for their role in the 6th, it would come in the form of a censure or another proceeding entirely. So, I disagree that they are worried about a precedent. Guilty by association in the eyes of the public, sure, but they aren't nervous about being implicated. It's....kind of legally pointless, I think. Trump can't run for office in 2024 would be the main result of a guilty verdict. By the time 2024 rolls around, he would get crucified, and I don't think it matters to Trump (hell, he'd be 78). He can be stripped of his benefits of ex-President, but it's not exactly a ton of stuff to a billionaire. Sure, if he can't run, he can't technically be "the face/head/balls of the GOP", but that doesn't matter. I'm curious if the families of the dead folks aren't considering a civil suit, THAT would make the OJ trial look like a lame Super Bowl ad. He needs to be held accountable for his part in it. However, I don't think getting impeached (again) bothers Trump very much. He knows he's done, and if I was Trump, I'd be more afraid of financial investigations or folks peering into his election expenditures than an impeachment that is ultimately a toothless stain on his shit-spackled record. He's got more to fear from his empire being seized or his kids being jailed than not being able to run again. If the question is: is Trump responsible? Yes, I think so. Does the impeachment represent justice? No, I think it's a feel good measure that doesn't actually do anything to restore faith in government, punish those responsible or prevent it from happening again.
I think #1 completely dominates #2 here. If the Republicans thought it was politically advantageous to impeach him, they'd do it in a heartbeat; there's more than enough hair to split here to avoid setting a broad precedent ("His call with the Georgia Sec State was a violation of Georgia law, and therefore his actions on Jan 6 were in the furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and this is different than regular political speech blah blah blah...")
In case you thought we were done with Marjorie Taylor Greene, she's back in the news for having an affair with a dude who cosplays Zangief from Street Fighter. Spoiler
Even if they don't follow or believe in him directly, they don't want to risk losing his supporters if they come out against him. To me that is the big fear that most of them have. The QAnon fanatics are much more of an exception than the rule in the GOP, in my opinion. There are some very, very smart people in the party that are doing the math on how do they stay in power. A big part of that equation is made up of the votes from Trump Supporters. Those GOP you've seen vote against party lines, I think, are genuinely voting their conscience irregardless of the outcomes, or voting their conscience after doing their own math and thinking that the downside won't hurt them.
I slightly disagree. I don't think any of them have a conscience. I think it's a calculation: you need something to gain for going against party lines. The bet here is one of three scenarios: 1. Trump will be disgraced, forcibly. That can happen now, and it's toothless, or later when it'll be worse. More exposure of crimes/transparency won't hurt Trump, but it will hurt those who support him. Impeach now, then stand aside and say "see? I told you so" when the rest of the shit storm falls from the skies and onto your colleague's faces. 2. Trump's toxicity will lose his funders, and the GOP apparatus won't support the people he backs in the next primaries. They will be looking for people who aren't afraid to stand up to a Trump threat. 3. You have a serious threat of losing to a Democrat in the next cycle/are at risk of anti-Trump blowback, or need Democratic support for a thing. You have no hope of being a "law and order" conservative in a purple race and vote to acquit. The more I think about it, the outlook for Trump is bleak, and the impeachment proceedings are a great way to get him out of the equation. "Don't bother me about x investigation or y accusation, I voted to impeach." It's wishful thinking, but I don't think an acquittal is going to make for brighter skies for Trump or the GOP. This is just getting started, although it'll be the highest profile proceeding.
Highest proceeding YET. So I know I keep asking this, but when is SDNY going to slap some cuffs on his orange ass?