politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Conviction and removal in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority. With a full Senate of 100 members, this means 67 votes.
The dems don't have 67, not even close.
This article is complete bullshit
Even the Republicans hate what is happening in Iran. Bring in some sailors from the Lincoln to really hammer the point for those conservatives who don't care about foreigner deaths.
It's worth pursuing regardless if only to point at the complicit GOP.
I think there's going to be a surprising amount of Republicans who will come out as anti-Trump but were too afraid to do so while MAGA was in power. There are most definitely traditional conservatives who hate him.
I'm not gonna get my hopes up for too much, we're not gonna fix this in two years. But you never know.
One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This
I think it will happen at some point. Anyone not attached to the island could turn on him.
Those people are called Democrats my man
Haha, yes!
Not just the ones too afraid to do it, but also some straight up opportunists.
What matters is the base and the GOP is a cult. Might pick up some retiring end-of-career votes though, people who don't have to worry about primaries.
The article says that Massie may bring impeachment articles as soon as next week. Given the drubbing that Republicans just took, and Vance's statements that it is about the war, it is entirely possible that they force him out expeditiously, just so that Senate Republicans can have a say in his replacement.
If he gets impeached after the new Congress is seated, then Democrats have a much larger say in who the replacement is. (Or, even not seat a replacement at all....)
It depends how far the Republicans are willing to throw Trump, Hegseth, and this whole Iran war debacle under the bus after their humiliating defeat last night.
Hegseth is so incompetent though some Republicans may want to impeach him for not being a good enough war monger
You don't think some R Senators who just saw their counterpart get trounced last night will be thinking about their own reelection when casting a vote?
No. I've lived in Kentucky, Alabama and Florida. Their senate candidates shrugged off the blue wave.
Alabama and Florida in particular are just fucking stupid.
None of those states flipped a Senate seat yesterday. Both the Carolinas, Kansas, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, and Texas all flipped a seat, with 5-20 point victories. Nevada didn't have a Senator on the ballot but the governor's office flipped. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that some of the incumbents from those states will shift some of their votes in the wake of yesterday's results.
There were no slim margins yesterday. For the most part nothing was neck and neck, and that's after all their redistricting and ratfuckery. People are pissed.
And I'm telling you that is a delusion.
You really need to live in the south for a decade or so to realize just how nuts they are.
I'm from Texas and have lived here for 30+ years.
Texas is not Alabama. And they just proved it with a vote.
Meanwhile Alabama just proved they are not Texas by voting pure red.
Yes, continue citing a state that did not flip any statewide seats as a rebuttal to the possible future actions of statewide office holders in other states where other statewide offices were flipped. perhaps you'd also like to convince me that my friend in Arizona won't like switching from English breakfast tea to Irish breakfast tea because you only have coffee in Louisiana.
I cite it because I lived there for decades and saw it retreat farther into the republican camp.
Just as you cite Texas as it rejects the republicans.
Not everyplace is the same
My dude that is my fucking point. Ohio and Kansas are not Alabama! The elections in those states booted at least one statewide Republican last night, which did not happen in Alabama. So perhaps you could recognize that it's not delusional to think that the surviving statewide Republicans in Ohio and Kansas, neither of which are Alabama, might respond differently to the staunch and safe Republicans in Alabama, perhaps even to the point of voting less staunchly Republican in the next two years so as to bring back some of the formerly Republican voters who broke Democratic last night.
I'm not American so I'm not super well versed in American politics... but I didn't realize until reading your comment that there isnt really a chance at seeing sweeping changes as a result of this election.
Correct. Best case scenario, we can be obstructionists to anything Mango Mussolini wants to do. Congress could pass really great stuff and let Fuckface go on record as vetoing it. Though he'd just blame it on Biden. I HIGHLY doubt enough Republicans would defect to override one of his vetoes. It requires 2/3 of both houses. The Democrats have a simple majority but do not have a veto-proof majority.
Sweeping changes are incredibly difficult because the US Constitution intentionally made change slow. It was a purposeful attempt by the founders to prevent rapid policy changes and have some degree of stability.
When passing laws, 2/3 of EACH house of Congress is required to overcome a veto. This is why passing laws is difficult when one party does not own both houses with the presidency or a super majority in both houses without. This also says nothing about the judicial and their ability to check either of the other branches, in terms of what is "constitutional" per their interpretation.
Amendments to the US Constitution are even harder. 2/3 of each house of Congress or 2/3 of state legislatures must agree to a proposal and then 3/4 of the states must agree to the change for it to pass and the Constitution be amended.
What happened last night is one step on the road to permanent change, since historically red states have shifted (for now), and those states are required for long term policy to be put into place. It's an important step, but tempered expectations are crucial. There is still a lot of good/harm reduction that can be done as a result.
Except president it seems. Super unstable.
Are you able to clarify what you mean?
Presidents don't have the power to make laws according to the Constitution, only the authority to enforce them. The executive branch controls the DOJ and other executive departments and over time, the legislative branch has ceded power to the executive. A president changing those departments as they see fit is unfortunately without meaningful guardrails and where most of the damage has been done. Sweeping changes here are only possible with compliance from other bodies of government. This current version of the executive branch was not intended by the Constitution.
Unlawful executive orders (not laws) have mostly been deemed unconstitutional by the judicial, excluding when the supreme court becomes involved and chooses to make partisan decisions that disregard years of precedent. A compliant congressional majority has failed to curb overreach by the executive, especially regarding actions that would usually be considered acts of war. Compliant branches failing to provide checks and balances as intended allowed the damages to occur within areas governed not by laws but by traditions.
It's incredibly easy to tear down components of the executive branch when the other two branches offer no resistance. Many things that were "understood" as the norm should have been codified into law and were not. There is now resistance in place with the power to resist, since one party no longer controls all 3 branches. Whether they will or won't is a different story.
It's just an unnecessary amount of power and independence concentrated in one man. US president can enforce laws as he wishes or not enforce or enforce his own interpretation. No consequences unless a two third majority of Senate sees it as a political advantage to do so.
Agreed. It wasn't designed to be this way though and could only happen as it has with compliant politicians in other branches. Complete control across all 3 branches of government is not common and has only happened something like 3 times in the past 40 years.
They need 11-13 Republican senators to agree with them. That can be done for non-trump officials. It's also worth it to have that public trial even if it fails so long as it's not a straight party line vote.
I agree. Among the things the Rs have been good at are closing ranks and obstructing process. There's no way 11-13 of them decide to remove someone the R President still supports. While I do think there should be some level of congressional investigation, I hope the new Congress focuses on passing legislation that will benefit the people if passed, and hurt the popularity of Rs (and especially MAGA) if vetoed.
The evidence collected (and conclusions reached) as part of congressional investigation could be handed over to the DOJ (if it is ever independent from the executive person, again) or State AGs or both. But, even a 56/44 Senate is not going to pass a vote to remove.