Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread

[Redz]

10 GOP votes for impeachment constitutes the highest number from the president’s own party ever, and 231 overall votes (so far) is the highest number in history. In other words, this is the strongest and most bipartisan repudiation of a president by the House.

— Jonathan Allen (@jonallendc) January 13, 2021

Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Given what we know about certain factions of the people who went into the Capitol last week, you should consider that some of the people who did not vote for impeachment may be concerned about their personal safety and/or future electability, rather than ideology.

Not that I don’t have compassion for people who’ve been threatened, but they swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution.  Not a small or trivial obligation.  If they voted based on intimidation they’ve broken their oath.  If democracy at its highest levels is mob-run then we have no democracy.  So I’d be interested to know if congresspeople made their decision based on perceived threats (understandable) v.  actual direct threats.  If the latter, are they being investigated?    If not, our congresspeople not only have been successfully intimidated but are withholding information about criminal behavior. 

Re: future electability as a factor.  Yes I get that it is, but if being fair and impartial is the standard, I don’t think electability should enter into the  equation.  Though I know it does.

If the reason for so many people voting against impeachment was the threat of violence, wouldn't it stand to reason that at least a few democrats would for vote against it for that reason?

The voting 100% along with the party line is really silly.  I'm as anti-Trump as you could imagine, and while I do think they should impeach the [dang] fool, I do understand the argument against it because of the timing.  It's as implausible that no Democrat truly feels that way, as it is that all but a few Republicans truly feel there is no merit to impeachment.

I wish to god they would just vote how they feel, not how they think it is going to effect their political standing.

[ozgod]

10 GOP votes for impeachment constitutes the highest number from the president’s own party ever, and 231 overall votes (so far) is the highest number in history. In other words, this is the strongest and most bipartisan repudiation of a president by the House.

— Jonathan Allen (@jonallendc) January 13, 2021

Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Unfortunately these politicians, because they are politicians, have to factor in the opinions of the people who elected them to those positions...and for a lot of them, if they vote to impeach the next thing they get is a primary challenge for not being loyal to the God King. That to me is the bigger issue - they're just a reflection of the divisions in our country.

That said I agree, in an ideal world people would be principled and vote according to the merits. That very rarely happens in politics though.

[Amonkey]

10 GOP votes for impeachment constitutes the highest number from the president’s own party ever, and 231 overall votes (so far) is the highest number in history. In other words, this is the strongest and most bipartisan repudiation of a president by the House.

— Jonathan Allen (@jonallendc) January 13, 2021

Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Unfortunately these politicians, because they are politicians, have to factor in the opinions of the people who elected them to those positions...and for a lot of them, if they vote to impeach the next thing they get is a primary challenge for not being loyal to the God King. That to me is the bigger issue - they're just a reflection of the divisions in our country.

That said I agree, in an ideal world people would be principled and vote according to the merits. That very rarely happens in politics though.

This is where perhaps having the Ranked Election could come in to play. Having a person that is not as extreme but well liked would bode well because the voting wouldn't just have to go to the person that you think would win the primary.

[SparzWizard]

Republicans: No need to rush the impeachment of Donald Trump

Also Republicans: Immediately scrambling to bring in Amy Coney Barrett the same week while RBG passed away.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Republicans: No need to rush the impeachment of Donald Trump

Also Republicans: Immediately scrambling to bring in Amy Coney Barrett the same week while RBG passed away.

I definitely am not concerned about the GOP's preferred timeframe for the impeachment of their once popular leader.

Bill Clinton is a creep and Hillary is clearly unpopular. Does anyone think she would have been this disgraceful?

Nostradamus I am not, but I do not think that it was hard to predict that Trump would be a mistake in 2016.

I want the GOP to groom more candidates that are likeable and normal so 2016 doesn't repeat itself.

I'm fine with the pendulum swinging back and forth every 4-8 years, but each party needs to have a viable candidate when it's their turn.

[pearljammer10]

Republicans: No need to rush the impeachment of Donald Trump

Also Republicans: Immediately scrambling to bring in Amy Coney Barrett the same week while RBG passed away.

Republicans: No need to rush the impeachment of Donald Trump

Also Republicans: Planning on impeaching Joe Biden on January 21st

[Kernewek]

Republicans: No need to rush the impeachment of Donald Trump

Also Republicans: Immediately scrambling to bring in Amy Coney Barrett the same week while RBG passed away.

I definitely am not concerned about the GOP's preferred timeframe for the impeachment of their once popular leader.

Bill Clinton is a creep and Hillary is clearly unpopular. Does anyone think she would have been this disgraceful?

Nostradamus I am not, but I do not think that it was hard to predict that Trump would be a mistake in 2016.

I want the GOP to groom more candidates that are likeable and normal so 2016 doesn't repeat itself.

I'm fine with the pendulum swinging back and forth every 4-8 years, but each party needs to have a viable candidate when it's their turn.

Worth pointing out that, amidst all of the lies and nonsense that was spewed by the Trump campaign in 2016, he did manage to hammer home on some very obvious truths about his opponent. Specifically that Hillary Clinton was three things:
1) a friend of the banks who had sunk the US economy and of the financial powers who had destroyed the rustbelt
2) a Washington insider with no sympathy for the majority of working-class Americans
3) a habitual liar.

The fact that Trump was in nearly every respect a worse choice than Clinton doesn't detract from that.

By all indications, Trump's core support is now more hardened than it was five years ago. Now you have millions of voters who came to believe, delusionally, or perhaps to ‘believe’, that Biden, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the centrist Democrats were ‘radical leftists’, ‘socialists’, ready to impose ‘Chinese-style communism’. They were also, variously, at the beck and call of ‘Marxists’ and ‘anarchists’, and of course, directing a Black Lives Matter terror campaign against the suburbs.

This, obviously, has less basis in reality, inconvenient as it may seem for some. However it garnered more votes. This is deeply concerning.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

In the eyes and ears of white supremacists, President Trump is one of them. A black soul for the white cause. MAGA aka Make America (White) Again is the modern day, masked as politically correct,  "Sieg Heil!"

[gift]

In the eyes and ears of white supremacists, President Trump is one of them. A black soul for the white cause. MAGA aka Make America (White) Again is the modern day, masked as politically correct,  "Sieg Heil!"

If you say it enough and enough people believe it, then yes, of course. That becomes the brand. Just be careful of what you find easy to believe.

[tazzmaniac]

In the eyes and ears of white supremacists, President Trump is one of them. A black soul for the white cause. MAGA aka Make America (White) Again is the modern day, masked as politically correct,  "Sieg Heil!"

If you say it enough and enough people believe it, then yes, of course. That becomes the brand. Just be careful of what you find easy to believe.

Did you say the same for the vilification of Hillary?

[tazzmaniac]

In the eyes and ears of white supremacists, President Trump is one of them. A black soul for the white cause. MAGA aka Make America (White) Again is the modern day, masked as politically correct,  "Sieg Heil!"

Trump would have to believe in and care about something other than himself to be a white supremacist.  He uses them like he uses everyone else for his own power, celebrity and financial gains.  He'd turn on them if it was to his advantage. 

[gift]

In the eyes and ears of white supremacists, President Trump is one of them. A black soul for the white cause. MAGA aka Make America (White) Again is the modern day, masked as politically correct,  "Sieg Heil!"

If you say it enough and enough people believe it, then yes, of course. That becomes the brand. Just be careful of what you find easy to believe.

Did you say the same for the vilification of Hillary?

I'm not sure I found any easy truths to believe about Hillary, personally. But that advice I do believe to be universal.

[Donoghus]

In the eyes and ears of white supremacists, President Trump is one of them. A black soul for the white cause. MAGA aka Make America (White) Again is the modern day, masked as politically correct,  "Sieg Heil!"

Trump would have to believe in and care about something other than himself to be a white supremacist.  He uses them like he uses everyone else for his own power, celebrity and financial gains.  He'd turn on them if it was to his advantage.

Absolutely.

[gift]

In the eyes and ears of white supremacists, President Trump is one of them. A black soul for the white cause. MAGA aka Make America (White) Again is the modern day, masked as politically correct,  "Sieg Heil!"

Trump would have to believe in and care about something other than himself to be a white supremacist.  He uses them like he uses everyone else for his own power, celebrity and financial gains.  He'd turn on them if it was to his advantage.

I agree with you. Trump will use and turn on anyone as he deems necessary. The danger with accepting easy narratives is that you'll find some who see Trump using a certain group and therefore label them as white supremacists. This can potentially be as harmful or more in the long run than Trump actually motivating white supremacists.

[Amonkey]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests/u-s-now-says-no-evidence-of-kill-capture-teams-at-u-s-capitol-idUSKBN29K0K7

I had posted a story with one of my friend's group but there has been an updated follow-up but the point that I would like to make is that I recognize that the vast majority of these conversations don't really follow-up to much in the grand scheme of things. I love these discussion on this forum because it's civil but regardless of where it goes, unless you work in the government or are an active activist, these discussions don't really go far in the course of the country (although I still see the value in us discussing it).

What I get concerned though are the dangerous side of giving way to these conspiracy theories and provoking more extreme ideas like the article highlighted. You may agitate somebody that will take these thoughts to a whole other level. This is not a criticism of Trump supporters or Qanon believers as much as a Muslim radical, BLM or any other organization that may have a fringe version of a certain ideology. You give extreme ideas a greater platform and you may see the loonies coming out.

What I am saying it's one thing to have that crazy uncle spitting out random things but you know he won't do anything about it, but when Trump promotes some crazy conspiracy theory and just says he's just posting it, than with the amount of followers, you can have 2-3 people that may take it far enough to create real damage. Then with the more support, the more people may follow suit and before you know it, it becomes a movement that can seriously damage our way of life.