American Politics III: New President, Same Old Country

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Antifa has poisoned our Water Supply! Burned our Crops! and delivered a plague unto our Houses!

Not antifa, buttttt...

The hacker who breached the system at the city of Oldsmar’s water treatment plant on Friday using a remote access program shared by plant workers ... a supervisor saw the chemical being tampered with — as a mouse controlled by the intruder moved across the screen changing settings —

With that kind of security, it wouldn't need to be a hacker. Most likely a password-guesser with a legal copy of their screen mirroring software. Or Ye Olde Disgruntled Employee, which would make it even more the treatment plant's fault (not changing passwords).

Robert M. Lee, CEO of Dragos Security, and a specialist in industrial control system vulnerabilities, said ...

And AP news helpfully gives Florida WaterMan a tip about how to upgrade their security. That should spare them any "first link on Google" trouble making a no-bid contract.

I believe over-dosing with Fluoride is more dangerous than with Lye. Luckily the apprentice hacker didn't know that.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/538 ... nomination

Garland's hearing for Ag will be February 22 and 23.

[The Black Forrest]

How did he betray Trump? Calling him a bad bad man? Words are cheap. A politicians words are even cheaper.

He voted against the first impeachment. He voted against this impeachment and he voted against the Constitutionality of it.

He accepted Biden won the election. He congratulated him, and said that conspiracy theories are a cancer in the Republican party.

From what I've seen from reactions in certain parts of the internet, a large number of Trump's greatest fans consider McConnell to be a traitor.

Oh I suspect everybody who doesn’t praise trump all the time is considered a traitor.

The voting record is what matters. I forget the Republican who was bad mouthing trump. Everybody was “wow” Then somebody looked and found his voting was 86.6% for trump.

[Corrian]

Yang leading in a mayoral poll

[Corrian]

Exactly this. I don't think the people making the claims that the trial is unconstitutional have really thought the ramifications of that through fully. If true then Biden could, on his last day in office, do literally anything and get away with it.

January 19th, 2025: “President Biden has declared that the Republican Party and its successors to be terrorists”

I mean, the way they're behaving? May as well at this point. They're catering to domestic terrorists because they're their "base".

[Istoreya]

Dude who was arguing that you can't impeach Trump because he isn't President finished his speech with a poem and a side of fake tears.

Perhaps they were not fake tears, perhaps they were real tears. I bet the Dude's tears were real tears. GMS.

Lol no they were fake. He paused every moment to give a little sob and then went to being fine. Actual crying is continuous, you're at least still going to be visibly upset if powering through a speech instead of going from to stone faced in a manners of seconds. Dude was fake crying.

[Eahland]

I think perhaps impeachment should not exist against any person, since it is clearly a biased, partisan political process.

You actually got a point there. It's pretty clear that impeachment is completely worthless, as demonstrated by the criminal ex-President who's about to get off scot-free after literally publicly attempting to overthrow the U.S. government and install himself as dictator, because the biased partisan politicians in his party (some of whom he almost got lynched) don't have the moral courage to admit that he did what we all saw him do.

So, here's my proposal: We get rid of impeachment. But in exchange, we also get rid of "executive privilege". It has no actual Constitutional basis, and it's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law. We get rid of the Presidential pardon power, or make it require a supermajority affirmation from the House, and make explicitly clear that it cannot be used to pardon oneself or co-conspirators in one's crimes. We create a permanent special prosecutor's office, over under the judicial branch where it's free of Presidential interference, and make it their sole job to watchdog the President and get him convicted in an actual court of law by actual impartial jurors for any crimes he might commit in office. And then we expand Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to make removal and barring from office automatic upon conviction for... maybe any felony, maybe just a subset including corruption and other abuse-of-office-type offenses, with the same supermajority vote of Congress required for curing.

[Wolkenburg]

The problem is that congress is too subservient to the President. The separation of powers has been undermined by party politics.

It would probably be easier to introduce a Multi-Party system, (by changing the voting system) than to get rid of impeachment, which is pretty important. Also, doesn't every government have some sort of executive immunity?

[New haven america]

Exactly this. I don't think the people making the claims that the trial is unconstitutional have really thought the ramifications of that through fully. If true then Biden could, on his last day in office, do literally anything and get away with it.

January 19th, 2025: “President Biden has declared that the Republican Party and its successors to be terrorists”

It is.

[New haven america]

They literally can. Like, did you even watch the opening from Raskin? Precedent and the law is on their side.

How do you impeach a president that isn't president anymore? Let me look into this.

He still has presidential privileges and the ability to run for any office in the nation.

Impeached individuals do not get those perks and are barred from being allowed to hold public office.

Also, they do it like they're doing right now.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They literally can. Like, did you even watch the opening from Raskin? Precedent and the law is on their side.

How do you impeach a president that isn't president anymore? Let me look into this.

Impeachment would be wholly toothless as a mechanism if you could escape its consequences if you resigned before they convicted you. Fortunately conviction by impeachment can also prohibit the charged party from ever enjoying any public office in the States again.

[Karlopetrus]

This impeachment thing seems to be a good tactic, provided you don't care about anything but winning. If you've got the power in the Congress, and the President is from the other party, just impeach on day one and keep on impeaching, including if he does not win a second term. That way you can prevent him from running again for any office.

Not sure how that works for Congress. Can the majority start impeaching everyone in the other party and get them thrown out? Seems like a possible way to one-party rule.

Would be ironic if some Americans who complain about refugees from Mexico end up seeking asylum in Mexico.

By the way, I know Mexicans are Americans too. Maybe I should just say "US people" to make it clear?

Long live all of America!

[Cannot think of a name]

This impeachment thing seems to be a good tactic, provided you don't care about anything but winning. If you've got the power in the Congress, and the President is from the other party, just impeach on day one and keep on impeaching, including if he does not win a second term. That way you can prevent him from running again for any office.

Not sure how that works for Congress. Can the majority start impeaching everyone in the other party and get them thrown out? Seems like a possible way to one-party rule.

Would be ironic if some Americans who complain about refugees from Mexico end up seeking asylum in Mexico.

By the way, I know Mexicans are Americans too. Maybe I should just say "US people" to make it clear?

Long live all of America!

You more or less made a glancing blow on it, but man am I tired of hearing "If we hold Trump responsible for this clear violation, it's just going to open the flood gates for the opposing party to just impeach anyone they don't like..."

Which is dumb. If a Democratic president stokes up a mob to invade the capitol building then, yeah...this is a good fucking precedent to set that they should be held accountable. If you're dented enough to think that's what happened last summer, make your case. Go for it.

After Clinton's impeachment it didn't suddenly mean we impeached anyone we didn't like. After that we had eight years of Bush and then eight years of Obama. Hate hard ons on the opposition for both of those presidents and one of them locked us into an unwinnable war and destabilization that continues to cause problems. And yet, impeachment was reserved for someone using the power of his office to get a foreign power to announce an investigation into a political rival and literally incited a mob to attack the seat of government.

Compare that to impeachment over a lie in a civil suit about a problematic blowjob.

The idea that it's the Democrats cheapening the impeachment process is just fucking ridiculous and the vague 'threats' that impeachment is the new norm after a complete trainwreck of a president who had no understanding much less respect for the office...please.

It sets a way more dangerous precedent to not take action against him.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

This impeachment thing seems to be a good tactic, provided you don't care about anything but winning. If you've got the power in the Congress, and the President is from the other party, just impeach on day one and keep on impeaching, including if he does not win a second term. That way you can prevent him from running again for any office.

Not sure how that works for Congress. Can the majority start impeaching everyone in the other party and get them thrown out? Seems like a possible way to one-party rule.

...

Firstly, everything CTOAN said.

There have been two modern examples of a completed impeachment process.

Bill Clinton: impeachment and trial actually made him more popular.
Donald Trump: impeachment and trial probably made him less popular.

The standard of wrongdoing, for which it is worthwhile for the House to send an impeachment, is not as you said "on day one" ei for nothing at all. That would it seems, damage the impeaching party quite badly. The standard is somewhere between what Bill did (lie under oath, before a civil court, as a private citizen) and what Trump did (with-hold Congressional aid to Ukraine, to try to extract a personal favor from their President). Below that line, it's not worth doing without conviction, and above the line it is worth doing, even without conviction.

I'm sure you're aware how tenuous it is to assert a pattern from just two examples. If you like, include Nixon: forced to retire by the very threat of impeachment. Nixon's wrongdoing only fits the pattern if it's considered worse. That's a difficult balance between a common crime (burglary) and an arcane one (holding some cash while asking for a personal favor) but I think multiple lies under oath, destroying evidence, and abuse of power consistently over time, does actually make Nixon's wrongdoing worse.

But now we move on the to the latest impeachment. Was holding a rally within walking distance of the Capitol, on the day the Electoral College numbers were being counted there (a count already massively politicized by Trump's disputations about the election), inflaming the crowd, telling them to "go to the Capitol", then watching the destruction and intimidation on TV without doing his duty as President to protect the Congress-people ... was that worse than Watergate?

In my opinion it was, and if he's not actually convicted at least the stink of Trump will finally reach those who somehow saw him for 4 years as anything but a burning dumpster fire. If he is convicted all the better. I hope he's not barred from office, because I'd like to see him publicly flogged at least in one more primary. Oh, and criminal prosecution. Let's have some of that too.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

How do you impeach a president that isn't president anymore? Let me look into this.

Impeachment would be wholly toothless as a mechanism if you could escape its consequences if you resigned before they convicted you. Fortunately conviction by impeachment can also prohibit the charged party from ever enjoying any public office in the States again.

By a simple majority vote I believe. Meaning it would be entirely up to Democrats.

I used to wonder why Nixon gave in when he heard the House was ready to impeach him. Impeachment itself is no big deal, so why wouldn't he call their bluff? Just recently it suddenly makes sense: he couldn't stop the Senate trial by resigning, if he waiting until after the impeachment.

[Shrillland]

Yesterday, Virginia State Sen. Amanda Chase sued the state GOP over their plans to hold aocnvention instead of a primary

[The Archregimancy]

I very much doubt that I'm the only person to have pointed this out, but bear with me...

The primary argument of the President's defence team - and of many Republicans - is that it's unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former federal office holder.

But the reason that the trial is taking place after the former president has left office is that then-majority leader McConnell refused to call the Senate back into session in time to begin the trial while Trump was still president.

So the Republicans who voted that the trial was unconstitutional did so even though it was the Republican former majority leader who personally delayed the trial until after Trump's term concluded.


Have I missed anything obvious?

[Spirit of Hope]

I very much doubt that I'm the only person to have pointed this out, but bear with me...

The primary argument of the President's defence team - and of many Republicans - is that it's unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former federal office holder.

But the reason that the trial is taking place after the former president has left office is that then-majority leader McConnell refused to call the Senate back into session in time to begin the trial while Trump was still president.

So the Republicans who voted that the trial was unconstitutional did so even though it was the Republican former majority leader who personally delayed the trial until after Trump's term concluded.


Have I missed anything obvious?

No you haven't. They are all doing the math and probably worried that they could be in electoral trouble if they get seen as voting against Trump, but also could get in elector trouble if they vote to just say Trump was not guilty.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

When Bill Clinton wasn't removed from office, it paved the way for this shit, and if Trump isn't removed from office it'll pave the way for something much worse. But I'm sure the GOP senators won't do the right thing seeing as they stopped being a party with actual principles or morals years ago.

[Karlopetrus]

This impeachment thing seems to be a good tactic, provided you don't care about anything but winning. If you've got the power in the Congress, and the President is from the other party, just impeach on day one and keep on impeaching, including if he does not win a second term. That way you can prevent him from running again for any office.

Not sure how that works for Congress. Can the majority start impeaching everyone in the other party and get them thrown out? Seems like a possible way to one-party rule.

...

Firstly, everything CTOAN said.

There have been two modern examples of a completed impeachment process.

Bill Clinton: impeachment and trial actually made him more popular.
Donald Trump: impeachment and trial probably made him less popular.

The standard of wrongdoing, for which it is worthwhile for the House to send an impeachment, is not as you said "on day one" ei for nothing at all. That would it seems, damage the impeaching party quite badly. The standard is somewhere between what Bill did (lie under oath, before a civil court, as a private citizen) and what Trump did (with-hold Congressional aid to Ukraine, to try to extract a personal favor from their President). Below that line, it's not worth doing without conviction, and above the line it is worth doing, even without conviction.

I'm sure you're aware how tenuous it is to assert a pattern from just two examples. If you like, include Nixon: forced to retire by the very threat of impeachment. Nixon's wrongdoing only fits the pattern if it's considered worse. That's a difficult balance between a common crime (burglary) and an arcane one (holding some cash while asking for a personal favor) but I think multiple lies under oath, destroying evidence, and abuse of power consistently over time, does actually make Nixon's wrongdoing worse.

But now we move on the to the latest impeachment. Was holding a rally within walking distance of the Capitol, on the day the Electoral College numbers were being counted there (a count already massively politicized by Trump's disputations about the election), inflaming the crowd, telling them to "go to the Capitol", then watching the destruction and intimidation on TV without doing his duty as President to protect the Congress-people ... was that worse than Watergate?

In my opinion it was, and if he's not actually convicted at least the stink of Trump will finally reach those who somehow saw him for 4 years as anything but a burning dumpster fire. If he is convicted all the better. I hope he's not barred from office, because I'd like to see him publicly flogged at least in one more primary. Oh, and criminal prosecution. Let's have some of that too.

I think you guys make some good points and actually at this stage I really don't care about anything they are doing in Washington DC. Just on the basis of who tells the most lies, right now I trust some of the Republicans and none of the Democrats to be honest at least some of the time. Also I think on balance the Democrats are the ones proposing the most crazy stuff right now.

But it makes sense for people to focus on their own lives, because now that the election is over we have zero control for the next two years. I don't want these politicians in my head for the next two years, so I won't tune in.

I'm tired of all the lies and hypocrisy from both sides. I don't think it's black and white, good vs evil, and I've voted for both parties over the years. Yesterday I watched a bit of the trial but then switched off. I can't get interested any more. Whatever happens, Trump and all the politicians from both parties will be just fine, especially the very wealthy ones. So will all the multimillionaires on the cable channels. Meanwhile most US people will just continue to struggle along to get their share of the scraps while the billionaires eat up more and more of the wealth.

Basically, all I want to hear from the people in charge is how much money are you going to send me and when will it arrive. Maybe that sounds cynical but it's just common sense. I'm waiting for my $600 tax rebate and then after that the $1400.

Anyway, as long as we have national elections every two years, and the votes are counted more or less accurately most of the time, then hopefully the House will change hands frequently so no party can gain total control. I don't trust either party to control everything. The basis of our system is separation of powers, because the Founding Fathers knew that politicians are often power-hungry swine and can't be trusted.

[Thermodolia]

When Bill Clinton wasn't removed from office, it paved the way for this shit, and if Trump isn't removed from office it'll pave the way for something much worse. But I'm sure the GOP senators won't do the right thing seeing as they stopped being a party with actual principles or morals years ago.

Nah this starts with Johnson being the first one to be impeached. If he was convicted, he almost was, we’d have better precedent on what to do.

[Valrifell]

When Bill Clinton wasn't removed from office, it paved the way for this shit, and if Trump isn't removed from office it'll pave the way for something much worse. But I'm sure the GOP senators won't do the right thing seeing as they stopped being a party with actual principles or morals years ago.

Nah this starts with Johnson being the first one to be impeached. If he was convicted, he almost was, we’d have better precedent on what to do.

Okay, but the Johnson impeachment was blatantly partisan and kinda stupid since it's impetus was Johnson's violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which was later declared to be unconstitutional. So that would be a bad precedent.

[San Lumen]

This impeachment thing seems to be a good tactic, provided you don't care about anything but winning. If you've got the power in the Congress, and the President is from the other party, just impeach on day one and keep on impeaching, including if he does not win a second term. That way you can prevent him from running again for any office.

Not sure how that works for Congress. Can the majority start impeaching everyone in the other party and get them thrown out? Seems like a possible way to one-party rule.

Would be ironic if some Americans who complain about refugees from Mexico end up seeking asylum in Mexico.

By the way, I know Mexicans are Americans too. Maybe I should just say "US people" to make it clear?

Long live all of America!

Impeachment is only for the president. A member of congress can be removed via an expulsion vote which requires a two thirds majority.

[Valrifell]

This impeachment thing seems to be a good tactic, provided you don't care about anything but winning. If you've got the power in the Congress, and the President is from the other party, just impeach on day one and keep on impeaching, including if he does not win a second term. That way you can prevent him from running again for any office.

Not sure how that works for Congress. Can the majority start impeaching everyone in the other party and get them thrown out? Seems like a possible way to one-party rule.

Would be ironic if some Americans who complain about refugees from Mexico end up seeking asylum in Mexico.

By the way, I know Mexicans are Americans too. Maybe I should just say "US people" to make it clear?

Long live all of America!

Impeachment is only for the president. A member of congress can be removed via an expulsion vote which requires a two thirds majority.

Impeachment is for any civil officer of the United States. Presidents, SCOTUS justices, cabinet members, etc. are all eligible to be impeached and have been impeached in the past. Congresspeople still exempt tho.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

This thread is starting to feel like a fever dream. I read the last several posts on this page and it's amazing they're all in the same thread.

Also there's the fact this is basically a continuation of the MAGA thread. I mean yeah it's "American Politics" but half of it is about Trump and his refusal to not go away mad, just go away.