To impeach, or not to impeach

[pbrower2a]

(11-06-2019, 12:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 10:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-04-2019, 08:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Republicans seem 90% behind Trump these days, but without him fault-lines appear on your side two. But let's take your division and take a look. Right now, moderate Democrats and independents leaning Democratic are leaning more blue. You see that in suburbs who are turning away from Trump and the Republican extremism. There is a fault-line, though, within Democrats between gradualists and whole-hog progressives. The latter are not really extremists, except by comparison to you red-state and red-county guys, who compared to the rest of the developed world are way off on the extreme right; provincial and parochial rednecks and hillbillies at heart. 

But it looks like your "America" red group has about 40% of the vote, with blue moderates about 25% and blue progressives about 25%, with 10% at the most up for grabs. That's just a rough estimate, and these categories are fluid. But a good president, like Obama was, will unite both Democratic factions for the most part and swing the majority of independents along, while Trump will have to settle for about 45% in that case. Rumphead could still win though, because he only needs 46% for an electoral college win if there's a third party candidate that's strong, if voters are suppressed, if big dark money talks, and if Republican cheating and hacking is successful.

Well, I was more of a Rubio supporter than a Trump supporter myself during the primary elections but that didn't stop me from accepting his loss and supporting Trump in the national election. Like I said, there isn't a natural fault line that exists among Republican supporters or it's base these days. Hey, you got some rather weak minded and some uppiity to a fault Republican leaning folks who couldn't handle seeing a colored jerk who was most likely trying to pick a fight with Trump supporters in front of the national camera's getting their ass kicked by hardcore Trump supporters or someone rough around the edges like Trump being their president so to speak.  

Unfortunately, the moderates and independents seem to  have no choice but to go along with those that they're most reliant upon these days. You should pat yourself on the back because they're about the only group of American  people who are largely reliant upon and therefore must go along with blue voters/supporters and their progressive wing these days. I assume that they understand that they won't be reelected for accomplishing little to nothing about the issues that they were elected to address and work with the Republicans to fix. Yes, there still seems to be a bit of a rift at the top between Trump and the remnants of the old beltway Republicans/Rhino's.

I know Republicans are saying that the Democrats are wasting time on impeachment and should be "working with the Republicans" to solve national issues instead. The problem is, Democrats usually can't work with Republicans to solve real issues, because Republican policy is to continue letting those issues fester, and not do anything about them.

The only way Democrats, whether moderate or liberal, will be able to accomplish anything is with a Democratic president and senate. But our constitution makes that very difficult. Hicks and provincials rule our government, because of the constitution crafted to encourage southern states to join the union. And these days, our national political division is stark between the hicks and the city slickers.

National security has never been seen as a waste of time in House or Senate purview. Republicans have usually been successful in using the  debate on national security against Democrats as 'soft on Communism' or 'soft on terrorism'. Today the issue is who is 'soft on corruption at the expense of national security.

This should be easy. National security can fare well when the President simply chooses to do what is right. The President that as a candidate was accused of 'palling' with terrorists signed off on orders to execute a well-planned killing of Osama bin Ladin in full knowledge of the diplomatic consequences. So the President gets the reputation of having a mailed fist under a velvet glove, if only when appropriate. I can think of far worse. The announcement in no way mocks the dead for whimpering or "dying like a dog". An aside: dogs do not put on suicide vests and detonate them.

Congress apportioned funds to Ukraine, and if the President is to sequester those funds, then he had better have compelling cause for so doing (futility, human rights).