Republicans routed as Democrats gain powerful new leverage over Trump for remainder of his presidency
Democrats have regained control of the US Senate, routing Republicans nationwide with historic victories that will give them powerful new leverage over Donald Trump for the remainder of his presidency.
Democrats will soon have the ability to hold up not just Trump’s legislative agenda, but also any appointments he makes to his cabinet or the federal judiciary – including the supreme court, where conservatives have a 6-3 majority.
Politics is an insane game to play. Here’s why impeaching is probably a bad idea at this point: It’s gonna take longer than two years and even if it is expedited and successful, if he’s removed, what do we gain? President JD Vance? Trump becomes a martyr, and Vance rides that into his own presidential bid in 2028.
You are morally and legally right that he needs to be impeached and removed, but will that further our goals at this point? Or will it be an unncessary distraction and a constant talking point about his victimhood for the right wing propaganda machine?
We’ve got a lame duck president now, best just to hobble him as best as they can, run out the clock, and focus on things that will make a more significant difference to the average person. Better to try to make some lasting change in the form of legislation.
Yep. Better just let treasonous Nazi pedophiles off the hook. Dang ol’ rules and technicalities just get in the way of justice. Democracy is great!
I didn’t say let them off the hook, I spoke only of impeachment and only of Trump. There are plenty of legal avenues to pursue outside of impeachment. Like maybe sentencing a felon after they’re convicted.
Only problem is that doesn’t happen.
Even the milquetoast example you gave is so weak.
If treason, pedophilia, warcrimes, and crimes against humanity are all allowed, our country is bullshit and not a democracy at all
A democracy can change those rules & technicalities, it just takes time & popular will.
As argued by the same person who articulated the paradox of tolerance (widely distorted on social media), an overlooked strength of liberal democracy is the institutional framework (driven by competitive choices of the people open to rational debate) to institute reform without violence. To check abuses of power by the state, the people need to sustain such institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments. They argued that strict limits on the power of the state limit bad or incompetent rulers from doing too much damage (eg, damage that outright ends a democratic, open society). Those limits on government with Democrats in legislative power are also why MAGA control of the legislature and executive hasn’t yet prevented elections and we don’t have to fight frequent revolutions to take back control.
Democracy can reform itself nonviolently, presidents can be prosecuted when they leave office, and you’re not suggesting a serious alternative, just grief lacking nuance.
Uh, no. That discounts our current situation and leaves out everything about the destruction of western alliances, the TRILLIONS of dollars stolen since Reagan, and corporate money in politics. A handful of low level billionaires and corporations bought the government and now they are all worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Without getting any of that back, no nation can even attempt to stand against that kind of stolen wealth. We have witnessed their money purchase legal immunity from murder, pedophilia, and treason.
See? No serious alternative.
What part of what you wrote contradicts anything written about democracy? The destruction & abuses you list could be far worse in governments with unchecked power.
Democracy isn’t a magic salve that instantly cures everything it touches. Liberal democratic institutions permit reforms through a nonviolent, deliberative process to address everything you stated. To check abuses of power that could end democratic, open society, they also limit government capacity to unilaterally impose swift, sweeping changes. The institution trades sweeping state power that’s riskier to abuse for more limited, checked, deliberative state power likelier to sustain the democratic system. You don’t get democratic reforms without that slow, power-constrained work to protect the system.
All that money the obscenely wealthy dumped into the elections didn’t get the results they paid for. Lack of action according to your timetable isn’t legal immunity.
While your criticism gripes about the problems we can observe, no one is discounting them. We are criticizing your failures to consider all the problems we can’t observe (because the system of limited government avoided them) and the strength of nonviolent, popular reform.
Your criticism looks like just griping that doesn’t seriously weigh the tradeoffs, which is fine to commiserate, but not a rational basis to weigh alternative systems of government.
Naw better to set a precedent of holding people accountable but the dems have never really done that