Skip Navigation
146 留言

  • Hey guys, there is a lot of troll baiting in this thread. You've been doing a great job of not falling for it, so I'm not going to lock it. Newbies to this thread, check the times of when it was made and if it brings up the distant past a lot, those are good clues. Leave one comment at most to save everyone's sanity.

  • Which the Democrats should absolutely fucking do regardless of whether The Republicans will vote to convict, which of course they won’t, but the point is, we can’t just sit back and do nothing. We have to at least show that we’re willing to take the steps that are necessary to dissent.

  • I see two outcomes:

    • Congress introduces articles
    • Impeached, but fails ratification in senate

    or

    • Congress introduces articles
    • Some terrible tragedy befalls us or Israel
    • Articles fail and congress backs the war full-throated

    There is no version of this that ends in removal, and even impeachment wouldn't be anything more than performative outrage.

    The majority of sitting representatives have been waiting for an acceptable excuse to bomb Iran for decades. The only objection any of them have is doing so without manufacturing consent from voters first, but we've already seen how this plays out with Afghanistan. They'll drum up dubious evidence of WMD's and launch their entry, and then spend 20 years trying to 'get out' while securing Iran's material resources on the way.

    The only difference this time is that Iran has almost 5x the population and 100x the GDP of Afghanistan in 2001, plus an actual organized military base with proper advanced weapons manufacturing. There's a reason we've waited this long to actually do this, and it isn't because we were busy doing other things. It's because this isn't a war we can win without pulling everyone else into it (or at the very least without isolating them from global trading partners).

    It's not a morbid joke to call this a WWIII softlaunch.

  • Lol, no it isn't. Ever since Cold War times, the law has been that the president can not only launch missiles, but even deploy troops on the ground, without congressional approval. There's a limit on how long the troops can be deployed, iirc, but once you've started a ground invasion it's a bit late.

    Obviously it's unconstitutional, but there's no legal precedent that would say so. If you think this is the first time this has happened, you really need to learn more about history. The US never formally declared war on Vietnam, for example.

  • Not sure who still isn't getting this.

    There is a literal American traitor in the Oval Office. One who has flagrantly violated the law, and specifically the Constitution, numerous times.

    Impeachment is meaningless, as we've witnessed multiple times in American history. Impeachment is an acceptable process if the violation is minimal and not repeated. It's a slap on the wrist. A warning.

    We are WAY beyond a symbolic slap on the wrist with no real repercussions. Impeachment is not a valid tool to use in a situation like this. At minimum, we are at the point where there needs to be massive protests like we just saw, repeatedly, until he is removed from office. If that fails, then there needs to be a general strike until he's removed. If that fails, then he needs to be removed from office by force.

    If we can't manage these things, we will continue seeing the degradation of our freedoms, the collapse of our economy, the destruction of our founding document, signaling the end of our democracy, and the hole we'll end up finding ourselves in will be one we won't see this country come out of for the remainder of our lives.

    It is time to remove this traitor and his treasonous enablers from their positions of power.

  • So is everything else he's done. Not seeing it happen any time soon.

  • Didn't they dangle an "impeachment" so many times the last time it literally stopped meaning anything? I see thru this game and I ain't buying it.

146 留言