Does anyone here believe that not impeaching is a good idea? If so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Steve said:
Actually, both the House and the Senate are required to confirm a new Vice President.  See 25th Amendment, Section 2:
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

After the Merrick Garland debacle, is there any doubt that Mitch McConnell would have never held a vote to confirm a VP if Obama had ever needed to replace Biden?

No doubt whatsoever.  Not even for a second.  Just pointing out that it's not that simple to replace the VP and that McConnell doesn't hold all of the cards on that front.

Ok, so there is a scenario where we end up with President Pelosi, but it would involve the Senate voting to remove Trump, then Pence.  Or impeaching Pence first, blocking a replacement and impeaching Trump.

This is all wild fantasy of course.  Even if the Senate voted to remove Trump there's no way they'd get rid of both and allow Pelosi to take over as Chief Executive.

And that would be a sucky way to get our first female president.

ml1 said:
After the Merrick Garland debacle, is there any doubt that Mitch McConnell would have never held a vote to confirm a VP if Obama had ever needed to replace Biden?

 If the entire Supreme Court and Joe Biden had keeled over dead he wouldn't have held a hearing.

mrincredible said:
Ok, so there is a scenario where we end up with President Pelosi, but it would involve the Senate voting to remove Trump, then Pence.  Or impeaching Pence first, blocking a replacement and impeaching Trump.
This is all wild fantasy of course.  Even if the Senate voted to remove Trump there's no way they'd get rid of both and allow Pelosi to take over as Chief Executive.
And that would be a sucky way to get our first female president.

 maybe someone would show Pence an episode of RuPaul's Drag Race and he'd keel over with a stroke.

ml1 said:
 maybe someone would show Pence an episode of RuPaul's Drag Race and he'd keel over with a stroke.

Send that to John Oliver.

mrincredible said:
Send that to John Oliver.

 it will be 43% funnier when he says it.

Steve said:
Actually, both the House and the Senate are required to confirm a new Vice President.  See 25th Amendment, Section 2:
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

 Thank you.

You're welcome.

74 Dems, 1 Republican and counting.

GL2 said:
Again: akin to repealing ACA 50+ times. We aren't the GOP.

 That’s reeeeeeeeealy stupid. 

BG9 said:

I don't remember the copyright criminal violation on videos say it requires it be for commercial or financial gain. It says unauthorized distribution, reproduction or exhibition. Big media wants, congress assents.
Do we see this criminal violation warning in books?

Finally got around to refreshing my own memory. This is what the boilerplate warning says: “Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes or video discs. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.”

No, we don’t see this warning in books, but given the growing problem of counterfeits sold on Amazon, it might start appearing. I don’t believe that anything is preventing publishers from printing it.

I don't think Pelosi has any designs on the job. Pence is another reason not to impeach...unless you enjoy the gov't in Handmaid's Tale.

GL2 said:
I don't think Pelosi has any designs on the job. Pence is another reason not to impeach...unless you enjoy the gov't in Handmaid's Tale.

 But we know Trump won't be removed so its just to paint him with a historical scarlet letter.  And if Trump were held accountable by the Senate, pretty far fetched, how could Pence claim he was oblivious to the comings and goings of Boris and Natasha during the campaign? Where could he claim to be during the assorted acts of obstruction? Bible camp?

DaveSchmidt said:

BG9 said:

I don't remember the copyright criminal violation on videos say it requires it be for commercial or financial gain. It says unauthorized distribution, reproduction or exhibition. Big media wants, congress assents.
Do we see this criminal violation warning in books?

Finally got around to refreshing my own memory. This is what the boilerplate warning says: “Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes or video discs. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.”
No, we don’t see this warning in books, but given the growing problem of counterfeits sold on Amazon, it might start appearing. I don’t believe that anything is preventing publishers from printing it.

You won't see it in books. The 250,000 fine and five years only applies to movies and audios. That penalty was an amendment added by congress, the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act of 1982. The book sellers forgot to donate to congress.

I'm sure Pelosi would get that fixed if book publishers make the appropriate political donations. A largess she can then pass to other members of congress needed for passage.

I know some here have faith that Pelosi and cohorts will fix things, working in making thing better for us, that she is guided for our interests. A childish belief. Similar to God will take care of us, Jesus will encompass in his loving arms, that some greater person or entity endeavors to protect us as our fathers and mother did when we were children. A faith.

Yes, Pelosi is better than Trump. But don't expect much and don't be surprised when all is said and done you may be disappointed. 

When Pelosi says we should not impeach, question why. Don't just say "I trust her." Placing ones trust in a politician is not smart.

GL2 said:
We get the government we (USA) deserve.

This is really a stupid statement, and trite. Some do, such as the Trump supporters. I don't.

When the Nazi's took over did the German Jews get the government they deserved?

BG9 said:

GL2 said:
I'm sure a GOP House would've impeached. Probably several times. Like ACA.
If the point is to make a point, then impeach.
If the point is to get rid of Trump, be more tactical.
I'm smart enough to know I'm not as savvy as the Speaker, regardless of how frustrated and appalled I am.

I previously posted a link to excellent reasons why we should impeach. Have you read it? Can you refute the arguments the writer made? Or will you continue to answer with "I trust the speaker?"
Again, here's the link:
The real reason Nancy Pelosi is ducking impeachment

Why the trust in the speaker? An enabler to the powerful and the rich. Our laws giving preferment to the elite shows it.
Why? Because occasionally crumbs, like kibble to dogs, are thrown the masses, to us. With large numbers of the public and media enablers then thanking the patron for their latest "progressive" crumb?

I see you haven't refuted the arguments in the article. As I expected.

Still with "I trust her?"

Morganna said:

GL2 said:
I don't think Pelosi has any designs on the job. Pence is another reason not to impeach...unless you enjoy the gov't in Handmaid's Tale.

 But we know Trump won't be removed so its just to paint him with a historical scarlet letter.  And if Trump were held accountable by the Senate, pretty far fetched, how could Pence claim he was oblivious to the comings and goings of Boris and Natasha during the campaign? Where could he claim to be during the assorted acts of obstruction? Bible camp?

 My thinking is that here's a guy who's been saying, for 3 years, that they're out to get me and overturn the '16 election. What better motivation for the base base than an impeachment, however ineffective. 

I think history will paint him with a five-gallon Benjamin Moore scarlet letter in any case. Everyone on Planet Earth thinks he's a fool at best and a criminal at worst, except for 35% of the electorate. Our 1%, Xi, Kim, and Putin regard him as a useful idiot. 

Again, I agree with Comey: impeachment's too easy an out for us. We elected him; we need to defeat him soundly.

GL2 said:
 My thinking is that here's a guy who's been saying, for 3 years, that they're out to get me and overturn the '16 election. What better motivation for the base base than an impeachment, however ineffective. 
I think history will paint him with a five-gallon Benjamin Moore scarlet letter in any case. Everyone on Planet Earth thinks he's a fool at best and a criminal at worst, except for 35% of the electorate. Our 1%, Xi, Kim, and Putin regard him as a useful idiot. 
Again, I agree with Comey: impeachment's too easy an out for us. We elected him; we need to defeat him soundly.

 given the makeup of the Senate it would need to be both. 

I've got to tell you, your arguments on this topic are not terribly compelling. 

Perhaps MSNBC, or CNN, will do a special, televising highlights of the Watergate hearings. I think it might persuade some on the fence.

But, voting him out would be cause for celebration so, I will be here on MOL on election night, unless SOMA holds a party at the Woodland.

Its going to be as suspenseful as a Hitchcock film.

Voter turnout will be a big thing in 2020. It's anyone's guess what an impeachment would do if you ask me.

Whether or not an impeachment ends with Trump removed from office, an impeachment proceeding could uncover more unsavory information about him and his administration. There could be blatantly criminal activity which Republican Senators could chose to disregard. So on the one hand it could cause a backlash against some Senators depending on how much they have to overlook to prevent a conviction. 

On the other hand it could threaten the new Democratic majority in the house. Democrats have a single chamber of one branch of government right now. It's scary to think of gambling with that one chip.

If the choice is between impeachment without removal and voting him out in 2020, I choose both because it is not an either/or choice.

ml1 said:

mrincredible said:
Okay I watched the John Oliver clip after I typed my last post.  He makes some convincing arguments.
I still think some investigations should continue, but I am more convinced that impeachment should happen.
ml1, you just need to be funnier and type with a British accent.

science has proven that a British accent makes any comment 43% funnier.

Are you saying I would be a mediocre comedian if I were American?

BG9 said:

GL2 said:
We get the government we (USA) deserve.

This is really a stupid statement, and trite. Some do, such as the Trump supporters. I don't.
When the Nazi's took over did the German Jews get the government they deserved?

The totality of the german population did yes

Wow, I'm takin' a lickin' here from m/1 and B9. Maybe it's the letter/number combo.

We do get the government we deserve if we tolerate it or if we agree with it.

Look at world views of who we are as Americans - fat, dumb, lazy, and happy. Consumed with money, materialism, and gaudiness. I believe I just described Trump in spades. He's the logical extension of who we are. 

Who's suffering most from Trump? Mostly red state people who are more nationalist, less healthy, educated, and affluent. I ran out of sympathy for them a long time ago.

Let me know if your life has been materially affected by Trump's policies, apart from rising IRA/stocks/etc.

We got Trump also because some despised the most qualified stateswoman (or man, for that matter) in recent memory because she was Hillary Clinton. 

I've got to tell you, your arguments on this topic are not terribly compelling. 

 ...as you experience them. I'm really compelled.

If giving Trump another paranoid talking point is the way to go, we might wanna get ready for another 4 years. 

The purity of the far left thinking is part of what got us here. Remember Nader, Bernie, Jill. Now there's purity. 

GL2 said:
 ...as you experience them. I'm really compelled.

 You're just repeating unsupported Democratic talking points. If you had a compelling, evidence based argument that the right and moral course of action is for the House not to hold impeachment hearings, I'd listen and consider it. 

But taking the path of least resistance is not the morally right thing to do. 

It’s the right thing to do if there’s a larger moral point/goal you hope to achieve, even in the face of criticism as Pelosi’s trying to achieve. There’s a point at which purity is self-defeating.  

Easiest thing to do is say he should be impeached. Hell, I’d agree to life w/o parole if it could be achieved, just to see his real hair.

I’d be a Bernie Bro ( maybe not, given their tactics w/HRC) if I thought there was any chance of a socialist turn in our government. But yelling “Free this! Free that!” doesn’t make college or health insurance free. It is, however, the righteous thing to believe and espouse.

I like Warren ( yeah, I know she’s pro impeachment) b/c she both says she’s a capitalist and “has a plan for... .” 

Ya need a plan to get stuff done. Otherwise, yer just “holier than thou” as they say.

GL2 said:
It’s the right thing to do if there’s a larger moral point/goal you hope to achieve, even in the face of criticism as Pelosi’s trying to achieve. There’s a point at which purity is self-defeating.  
Easiest thing to do is say he should be impeached. Hell, I’d agree to life w/o parole if it could be achieved, just to see his real hair.
I’d be a Bernie Bro ( maybe not, given their tactics w/HRC) if I thought there was any chance of a socialist turn in our government. But yelling “Free this! Free that!” doesn’t make college or health insurance free. It is, however, the righteous thing to believe and espouse.
I like Warren ( yeah, I know she’s pro impeachment) b/c she both says she’s a capitalist and “has a plan for... .” 
Ya need a plan to get stuff done. Otherwise, yer just “holier than thou” as they say.

if you're honest, you would admit that you're a 100% pure partisan.  And if Pelosi had said she was pursuing impeachment hearings, you'd be cheering.  And you'd be making all the same arguments I am.

And I'm not being a "purist" or "holier than thou."  There is actually a strong case that standing up for principles and doing the right thing leads to electoral success.  There is an opportunity cost to doing nothing, which is the risk of demoralizing the Democratic base.  There is an accurate portrayal of centrist Democrats as spineless, and for good reason.  And voters don't reward spinelessness.

On its face, the whole idea that Trump would benefit from impeachment hearings is farcical.  His base is already fired up, and Trump is already playing the victim of "angry Democrats" and the fake news.  Impeachment won't make him any more of a victim than he already is portraying himself as.  And if the Democrats do nothing, he gets the added bonus of taunting them as spineless cowards (and for once he won't be lying).

It's frustrating that our only electoral choices in this country are between reactionary nut jobs and spineless corporatist ciphers.