Except that didn't work out, did it? Remember he was impeached for trying to cheat at an election. And people (lots of people) warned he'd continue on that path.
I mean, let's be honest: it would have been better in hindsight to have actually removed him from office.
The GOP having had enough of GOP President Nixon that they were going to impeach and remove him is what led to him resigning first.
And the country got on just fine.
Although...who am I kidding. The right-wing media would probably have covered the full impeachment trial in the same way they covered the House impeachment proceedings. Just play a silent video of politicians talking, and have their own pundits say "This is BS we won't even insult you by making you listen to it".
Basically he knew that the Senate would cover for any crime so long as he delivered the votes, so he ran the place like a mob boss.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc...
edit: Guys. By resorting to ad hominems and offering no incentive for changing one's mind, you are practically guaranteeing calcification and re-entrenchment. Are you happy that you contributed to the situation in a positive way?
Let them earn respect by demonstrating that they understand their wrongs and taking ongoing substantive action to change.
What offers even less incentive is when someone knows they will never be held accountable.
Give them some credit when they give a mild amount of evidence that they have actually changed their ways. Doing the right thing in a single instance is not enough evidence.
I've been in abusive relationships, fuck a single apology, change materializes due to consequences. There need to be consequences first.
You don't appease Hitler, you stop him.
Any one off act is meaningless. What matters is continued, persistent good behaviour. Once in a blue moon is just bad behaviour.
Your standards are too low, and encourages people with bad behaviour to not change. After all, you get accolades for doing one good thing in a sea of bad, but get admonished for one bad thing amidst a sea of good
They're refusing to undermine the system from which their own legitimacy and power derives. There's nothing moral about it.
The party needs to split into the anti-democracy, pro-Trump faction, and the rest of the party. The moderate wing could easily pull some people that voted Democrat this year, and form a stable, coalition government.
This would help de-radicalize our political system.
Then you could have the progressives, the moderates, the ultra conservatives, and I guess a Texas separation party, and it'll be like Canada
It makes sense that they'd leave it alone to do it's thing
The cops have a strange affinity for certain kinds of 'protesters' too, we all know it would end differently if BLM or 'Antifa' did this.
You mean they would have let the protestors occupy several blocks of the city while declaring independence for several months until their private security forces murdered too many black teenagers?
This is bad and these folks should be punished, but this not the second coming of Vladimir Putin. Hyperbole is not helpful, and it's exactly what these idiots want. Don't give it them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662616
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25595546
We're trying for quite a different sort of discussion, and the two sorts are not compatible, the way forest fires and hiking are not compatible.
I'm not qualified enough in foreign affairs to justify the allusion to Putin or Erdogan, but let's not play this down either.
Not to mention, trump will clearly be out by the end of the month, and won't be Putin
Grow up. The courts shot down the accusations multiple time already. If you have any concrete proof you better present it now.
Some people don't agree with the courts decisions, especially when they are ruling contrary to state constitution or law. You can see this in some of the rulings for PA election law. For example, some counties were counting mail-in ballots with deficiencies, while others were not. In some cases, like the PA senate seat that spans Alleghany and Westmoreland counties, this would lead to some people's deficienct mail-in votes either counting or not counting based solely on if they live in one county vs the other. Or that the PA constitution and voting law is very explicit in detailing what events qualify one to use a mail-in ballot.
So in specific scenarios (which may or may not have swayed the election), it appears that rule of law may have been violated. And that in itself is concerning.
They shot it down because the accusations made in court were all petty nothings. For all the big talk of fraud and theft, that's not what was in those filings.
Unfortunately we have many examples of debunked theories that maintain a public consciousness for a very long time. MSG, Flat Earth, Vaccine induced autism, Creationism, etc... All it takes is for motivated people to refuse to accept the evidence and continue repeating unfounded claims as if they were still valid. They can do this until they grow old and die, and there will always be at least a few people who follow.
Lawsuits regarding PA election where dismissed, it was legal.
I think it is also time for people to face the fact that this is not hyperbole.
Trump and Trump supporters have been more caustic by far to Republicans who don't toe the line. They seek retribution and engage in threatening behavior, including death threats.
This morning Trump expressed his displeasure at the Vice President's unwillingness to engage in illegal activity, and then Trump sent a mob to the capitol where Pence was doing his job.
Four people are dead on a day of performative action, merely to count votes, with an outcome that was guaranteed on December 8.
Following this violence and death, most Republicans in the House supported and voted for this cynical, delusional lie of their cult leader. And had very little to say about the mob that was send toward them, by him. They had more lies to tell.
Trump spent five years of the previous presidency trying to delegitimize that president too, just like he's trying to delegitimize the next one.
Don't lecture people on how they should become milquetoast.
They all came out against Trump when this started in 2016. Was not even a speed bump.
That would have been more than a speed bump. They had the opportunity to act, chose not to (well except for Romney).
If they were openly and clearly disagreeing with Trump, then they wouldn't be at fault. But they're giving tacit approval.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-there-are-so-few-mo...
Edit: Yes, it's true that the top leader and his acolytes have engineered this outcome, but the majority of the republican leadership did not want this and do not benefit from this, they were (with some exceptions) simply too cowardly to speak out against it.