Or in Hacker News terms:

Downvote only if the comment detracts from the discussion, not just if you disagree.

Impeach only if the President commits crimes while in office, not just if you dislike the President's politics more than the VP's.

>Putting on my non-partisan hat, though, I am nervous about the precedent of removing a president from office iff it is seen as a partisan move. The removal of Trump without widespread Republican support (as opposed to a small defecting faction) might be seen as precedent for a higher frequency of partisan impeachments - a danger to be weighed against (in my not-very-objective opinion) the dangers of a Trump presidency.

We already have a one-party state in which the Republican Party plays partisan hardball, as much as possible, to prevent elections from altering their control over the government. Why not fight back for once?

Unilateral disarmament is not a good idea, but neither is escalation.

Is there something about Pence's track record that suggests he'd be better for USA on foreign policy?

I doubt Pence would accidentally put American international agreements, institutions, and treaty organizations into question with weird rambling tweets. I also doubt he'd find any value in antagonizing Mexico over a silly monument to xenophobia.

Pence is no foreign policy wiz but I'm not worried about him precipitating huge geopolitical shifts against America's interests.

Pence is predictable. Diplomats can build plans around predictable. You can make deals, treaties and alliances with predictable. Your opponents know what to expect from you.

If nothing else, it at least provides some stability.

In other words: Who knows, because we don't know what Trumps foreign policy will be tomorrow. And every day will be like that.

As far as I know he's more or less the proverbial generic Republican on foreign policy. Which sounds a lot better to me than Trump's uneducated unpredictability.