Des-Bal wrote:Senkaku wrote:A reasonable idea on its face, but it usually functions in practice throughout history (including the US today) as the inverse-- "if you're not willing to shake hands with the opposition, then destroy them."
I wouldn't say most often. Violence is common but coexistence is more common than mass killing.Cannot think of a name wrote:That doesn''t at all seem like the standard you were stomping your feet about earlier, and there are certainly some deep complications, but no one wants that dumbass can of worms re-opened.
Plus, there's a more pressing and immediate issue...
I have to ask again...you do understand how impeachment works, right? That if Trump is impeached not only is it just Trump that is impeached but it would have to be done in cooperation with Republicans in office? And that Republicans cannot be forced to impeach the president-where that true we would have impeached this asshole last year and wouldn't be here right now.
Just what is it exactly do you think it is that's being proposed?
It's absolutely the same standard, the condemnation of violence and the refusal to make excuses for it. Conservatives seem ready to do that and my concern is pursuing impeachment might dissuade them.
If you're worried about republican congressmen committing acts of terrorism let me assuage your fears; less than half of them would probably do that.
Well, that had nothing to do with what I asked.
This has been productive.