Get Edible.

It's funny but there's a truth in there, to wit:

You're obviously advocating against Big Money in politics, a position that (at least) 80% of us Weigantians likely support.

You are also advocating for One Demand, which I've not seen any support for here.

Respectfully** you out to try a more "edible" rather than caustic approach if you want to maximise your results. "Attract more flies with honey blah blah blah." Because caustic ain't done dink for your advocacy, amirite?

**Sincerely respectfully! Dude we're on the same team here. We disagree on One Demand as a viable solution.

Stop it -- you're killing me!

Deathkiller Harris (cut out the annoying for no good reason "Deathocrats/Republikillers" malarkey and I'll be happy to stop calling you "Deathkiller Harris," K?)

...wrote:

But seriously, Biden is 100% pure Deathocratic Party establishment. You are delusional to think anything else.

True, that. But he's still "Anybody but Trump" and leading a Party that is continually shifting Leftward. Joe's always sniffed the political winds and kept himself right in the middle, so he's shifting Leftward as well.

Don't forget, Joe had the best seat in the house as VP when the Repugs obstructed or otherwise impaired Obama for 8 years. Don't think he needs any persuading this time around.

NOW you're on the right track!

get edible.

JL

I'm truly not surprised that you at least were a Bernie Bro. Every politician in our system has deficiencies, yes, but he's the best Presidential candidate in my 40 year voting history. Elizabeth Warren is #2, followed by Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold. While I became extremely disappointed with Obama, I cannot find a reason to get down on Bernie. You don't like him because he's working with the Dems rather than against them? Or is this more of your arbitrary "Anyone who accepts more than $200 is corrupt" stuff?

BTW who did you vote for in 2020?

FYI I get my news from the following sources, ranked roughly in order:

POLITICO
ChrisWeigant
Wahington Post
New York Times
The Atlantic
The Guardian
Fox News
OANN
Newsmax
The Economist

Elizabeth Miller wrote:

No, it's a try to refrain from hitting your head against a brick wall too many times.

So, let Trump slide for Seditious Conspiracy? For six deaths, pending further LEO suicides for having to defend America from Trump's mob?

Why? Just because the chickens*t Repugs aren't likely to Convict? Who cares? I want every last GOP Senator on record for either supporting or opposing our Constitutional Republic. And for the Seditionists among them to pay, and pay and pay.

Accountability has lost all meaning in a devolutionary media and political culture.

Devolutionary is defined as "The process whereby regions within a state demand and gain political strength and growing autonomy at the expense of the central government."

Now more than ever before in our history we must hold Trump accountable whether or not the Repugs get on board. Otherwise every outgoing President will know that can try the same stunt, free of subsequent repercussions so long as there are 34 loyal Party members in the Senate.

(thinking)

'Course...that could extend the Biden Administration for as long as he lives. Hmmmm.

And there you have it! By my math if only 25 -- not 30 -- Repugs boycott/abstain and it'd end up 50 (2/3rds of 75 total votes) to 25 (1/3rd of 75.)

I was too lazy to do the actual math myself, so I thank you for giving a more accurate total needed for the Democrats to have enough votes by themselves to still obtain the 2/3 of the Senate needed to convict during the trial! I just knew if 2/3 of the 50 Republicans did not show up, then Democrats would have more than enough votes to convict. Color me LAZY!

I know that the likelihood of this occurring is slim to none, but I still hold out faith that the GOP Senate has a few members not willing for their legacy’s to forever be stained by and connected to Trump’s legacy!

No. The Democratic base didn't start voting in the primaries until South Carolina. That's what stopped Bernie.

They should go first from now on, if you ask me ...

There's little doubt that in both 2016 and 2020 the Establishment Dems put their collective thumbs on the scale for Hillary and thence Joe (oh, it was just a coincidence that right when Bernie seemed unstoppable most of the Dem candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden?)

There is little doubt that Democratic voters knew Bernie wouldn't beat Trump and Black voters set the pace for that. That is why Biden beat them all. Bernie can't win a Democratic primary race, let alone a general.

It's also why Trump is a one-term-only president, silenced for the time being in Mar-a-Lago. Well, for that reason and the fact that Trump has always been his own worst enemy.

The "establishment" had very little to do with it. Unless you feel the need to short-change the voters. Besides, Biden is a whole other entity, separate and apart from the Democratic establishment. Seriously.

In fact, many former Bernie supporters are now disillusioned with Bernie.

That's news to this Bernie Bro. Why do you think that's so (link?) or do you mean to say that a lot of us Bernie Bros are disillusioned with the Democratic Party?

Like...moi.

Elizabeth Miller wrote:

Many of your fellow Bernie supports believe that Hillary stole the primary from him in 2016, apparently, and so they are disullusion with both parties. I've heard the same from the other side of the fence.

Hillary "stole" the primary from Bernie is a tad strident for my taste. There's little doubt that in both 2016 and 2020 the Establishment Dems put their collective thumbs on the scale for Hillary and thence Joe (oh, it was just a coincidence that right when Bernie seemed unstoppable most of the Dem candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden?)

IMO the Repugs really got effective at undoing the New Deal under Reagan in 1981. The Dems have largely gone along with this -- pretending to be politically impotent in the face of Reaganism® and helping Repugs focus our attention on social issues/identity politics. Obama promised "Hope and change" and disappointed, bigly. Hillary ran on "more of the same" and got beat by "What have you to lose" Trump.

So, yeah, there's disillusionment in both Parties. So what? Both Parties earned that disillusionment.

I'm down for the rest of your excellent comment! Except for the background check thing. The trouble with such a requirement is that if it's done by our government our government can effectively bar political dissent. For example do you think Joe Biden would have "passed" a background check pre-2020 under a Trump Administration? I thought not.

LWYH wrote:

...That oath requires them to base their vote on the evidence and arguments presented... not on whether the trial can even occur. Here is a better suggestion... tell them if they do not think that Trump can be tried for impeachment after he is out of office, then they should protest by not participating in the trial, whatsoever! They do not violate their oath, they protest in solidarity to Trump, and the Senate will easily have 2/3 votes needed to convict if 30 Republicans refuse to take part in this “sham trial”! Win, win, win!

And there you have it! By my math if only 25 -- not 30 -- Repugs boycott/abstain and it'd end up 50 (2/3rds of 75 total votes) to 25 (1/3rd of 75.)

The more Repug Senators do this the more protection they'll afford themselves. Truly a case of "safety in numbers." If a few GOPers vote in support of Trump's sedition well, fine. The Party needs to purge some of the extremists to fully break the Trumpian fever. It'll be a rough and turbulent ride for a while but better the Repugs deservedly suffer through it and land the plane safely. The alternative is to more "smoothly steer the plane"...right into the side of a mountain.

No, it's a try to refrain from hitting your head against a brick wall too many times.

Accountability has lost all meaning in a devolutionary media and political culture.

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, that's my sense too, based on politics watching for a long time: a two party system needs two parties to function.

But what I am asking, following Chris's similar speculations, is what happens when there is no real distinction between an entire party and its former lunative fringe? The "viable Right Wing" that every balanced system needs - a functioning Conservative party representing established wealth, capital, and social order - is no longer giving the "rightist crazies" a vehicle for venting; the viable Right Wing IS the rightist crazies.

And the problem of upheaval cuts both ways. If a rightist minority showing signs of insanity continues to claim a seat at the table so that it can foul the table with crap when not overturning it completely, then the majority of the 'overall constituency' is not having its interests represented, despite winning democratic election after democratic election. As you say, if that gets bad enough it invites upheaval by a frustrated majority of the country.

The Ownership class is a pretty vague term, as it describes the elites who head and fund both parties. They no longer wear top hats and spats and comical white mustaches. I'm not sure the term represents the group we should all be worrying most about in terms of emotional comfort in the face of upheaval.

Elizabeth Miller asked:

How many impeachements and acquittals do we really need to move on to how Americans can actually stop the spread of SARS-COV-2 and all of its US variants?

Again, this is a "don't walk and chew gum at the same time" sentiment that underestimates politician's ability to multitask.

If it's any consolation, this is the last time Trump can be Impeached. Demand foreign meddling in an election? Although they clearly didn't want to the Dems had no choice but to Impeach. Seditious Conspiracy against We the People, with loss of life? Again, he Dems had no choice but to Impeach. Some stuff, like "Special Assistant to the Presidential Penis," you can shine. But Trump has to be held accountable for his transgressions, or no future President will be constrained in any way.

John M from Ct. asked:

Is that possible - just steamroller the Republicans, because they're no longer a reality-based group? "No one hears your screams, Mitch, Don, and Fox News." And would that be a good thing for the country going forward?

I read somewhere (I wish I could post the link, but that was hundreds of articles ago for me) that every representative government has to have a viable "Right Wing" in order for the rightist crazies to have a way to vent (express) their political beliefs. Sort of a societal "pressure relief valve."

While it's hard to cheer for Right Wingnuts in any way/shape/or form I tend to agree. Any political system that doesn't represent the interests of enough of the overall constituency is inherently less stable than is ideal, and if it's bad enough it invites upheaval. And upheaval is not good for the Ownership class.

In response to "Democrats are considering various ways to elevate M.T.G. to more national prominence as the poster child of today's Republican Party"

Elizabeth Miller wrote:

They don't consider that this will backfire? I think Democrats have far more important things to spend their time on.

How can this "backfire?" The Repugs allowed this nut job to run under their banner and have now served up the perfect poster child for the State of the GOP. To not milk this for all it's worth would be sheer political malpractice. This is in "no brainier" territory.

Saying that the Dems "have far more important things to spend their time on" is a version of "one shouldn't walk & chew gum at the same time.

There are some hairline fractures and I still hope these presage a real fracture with enough weight on the traditionalists side for a split. Not that I particularly like the traditionalists, you understand, or want them in power.

But how long before there is enough weight, or the hairline fracture is deep enough, or the trumpistas isolated enough, to throw self-interest to the traditionalist side?

Dems can and will hang this albatross around every last Republican neck, e.g. the "face of the Republican Party" blah blah blah. She will singlehandedly raise millions for us Lefties.

6- So Trump's base will be pissed. Not good, but IMO not fatal (at least politically. Heh.)

But realistically speaking where is that Trump base going to go? To the Godless baby killer Marxist Democratic Party?

7- The Trumpism fever will break. Trump getting booted off Facebook and Twitter is a MAJOR first step, but Trump is going to be in legal and criminal jeopardy for the rest of his days. Trump in custody or under a gag order will largely remove him from further relevance.

1- Consider that something like half of the Republican Party are still old-school Conservatives. Whether closeted or publicly acknowledged Never Trumpers they hate him.

2- Trump cost the GOP the House, Senate and the Whitehouse. Those two Georgia Senate runoffs would have gone McConnell's way with a minimum cooperation on Trump's part. Mitch has to be deeply pissed.

3- The 45 Repug Senators vote against the Constitutionality of Impeachment 2.0 is discouraging on the face of it, right? But I think this otherwise meaningless vote is serving to provide them with political cover for the time being.

4- I still see a way for the Repugs to have their cake and eat it with less (rather than more) collateral damage. If even half the GOP boycotts the vote Trump will be convicted 50-25, and there's your two-thirds requirement. The more who boycott the vote the safer each Repug will be. Let the Hawley and Cruz etc follow their bliss. The Party doesn't want them around anyways come the next Presidential Primaries, especially Cruz.

Granted, this is a longshot, maybe a 5-10% chance. But it would solve so many problems for the GOP leadership that it has to be at least possible.

5- America's changing demographics make it obvious that Trumpism will kill the GOP. They have every reason to Dump Trump.

"Impeaching a president who has left office is impossible and unconstitutional," they told themselves, "therefore I will be voting on that basis -- that the trial itself should not be happening, therefore I cannot vote to convict for any reason whatsoever."

Then they best not take the oath that they are required to take prior to the Senate trial beginning or they will be openly violating that oath! That oath requires them to base their vote on the evidence and arguments presented... not on whether the trial can even occur. Here is a better suggestion... tell them if they do not think that Trump can be tried for impeachment after he is out of office, then they should protest by not participating in the trial, whatsoever! They do not violate their oath, they protest in solidarity to Trump, and the Senate will easily have 2/3 votes needed to convict if 30 Republicans refuse to take part in this “sham trial”! Win, win, win!

How does the Senate look in a year after Trump is indicted, tried in federal court, and found guilty by a jury on all the charges that the Senate acquitted Trump on? It is going to make it painfully clear that the belief that Impeachment means anything to the American people or that they view it as the way a President should be disciplined when they violate the law is laughable!

It will be a clear indication that we must have laws authorizing the DOJ to indict a seated President when the evidence warrants criminal charges be filed as the crimes the President’s being charged with indicate that they pose a threat to public safety! A President being arrested automatically triggers the 25th Amendment’s transferral of power to the VP the same way that the president having a medical emergency and going under anesthesia would trigger it.

The only difference is that the President does not get to decide when they get to be sworn back in...no, they cannot resume their office until AFTER their trial is over and only if they are found “Not Guilty”! That is one way to guarantee a speedy trial takes place!!! It would also provide plenty of incentive to future Presidents to avoid knowingly breaking our laws while in office!

This also seems like a good time to remind folks that we need a law requiring all federally elected officials to pass a background check like those scrubbing the White House toilets must pass to be allowed hold any federal office! This is how we avoid the Trump shitshow part 2!

They don't consider that this will backfire? I think Democrats have far more important things to spend their time on.

Heh. Yes, that would certainly be a lot of fun, even if we did run out of popcorn. :-)

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. And, hopefully, if Republicans fail to get on board with Biden's COVID-19 relief package, then the American people will see this Republican party for what it is and vote them out in 2022.

... Call it the final capitulation to Trumpism.

Oh, you were talking about Trumpism and the dreaded i-word.

How many impeachements and acquittals do we really need to move on to how Americans can actually stop the spread of SARS-COV-2 and all of its US variants? Yes, I wrote 'US' variants and I meant 'US' variants. Undoubtedly, there are more US variants of concern than variants of concern of any other origin. Which isn't a good excuse not to be doing targetted genomic surveillance, by the way.

Do the Democrats decide they have no choice but to govern as if the opposition does not exist, or at least does not merit being listened to or consulted? Do the Dems can the filibuster and pass their long list of electoral, fiscal, public health, economic, infrastructure, judicial, health care, environmental, reproductive health and tax reforms via a working 51-50 majority in the Senate, and in time for the results to impress enough voters in 2022 that a majority can be sustained in Congress for the following two years?

Is that possible - just steamroller the Republicans, because they're no longer a reality-based group? "No one hears your screams, Mitch, Don, and Fox News." And would that be a good thing for the country going forward?