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
Not investigating and prosecuting Trump and his criminal appointees is not acceptable. Only prosecuting Trump and his criminal employees and ignoring everyday crises like healthcare and cost of living and wage disparity is also not acceptable.
This is the problem with old-school Democrats like Harris. They don't understand that we expect them to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
They are adults, ostensibly smart, and there will be roughly 300 of them in both houses of Congress if the polls pan out. The only successful path is to organize themselves and get it all done. It's a false dichotomy to say you can only do one or the other.
Your job, Dems, is to repair the dam that has multiple huge leaks. If you seal one hole and the other is left open, the town below still floods. You fix them all or the dam breaks. Yes, it's unfair. No, there is no other option.
But think of all the missed fundraising opportunities if they have to spend time doing their jobs!!!
Oh, so you DO support what Harris said:
I wish people would read and reply to the article rather than the headline only.
"Investigate" is a necessary first step to gather evidence, even if it is obvious. But no, I did read the article and I do stand by what I said, because it's right there in the quote you used:
She is suggesting doing what every politic-playing traditional democrat or republican does when they want to appear to take action without taking action: Start an investigation. The next step? "Nothing."
I don't need to guess this. Because the quote, again, has Kamala expressly saying that investigation "shouldn't go in the direction of" impeachment. Where then? She says two paragraphs later: "...maintain accountability when it comes to cuts to healthcare and oversight on the Iran war." These are totally consistent with not pursuing impeachment, if it's holding a bunch of showy hearings where they drag Pete Hegseth to answer for the Iran war, and Russel Vought for his Project 2025 stuff.
Which, to be clear, should happen. But Kamala's quotes make clear, she thinks that is an excuse not to pursue impeachment. My point, which I already made above, is that it is a false dichotomy. They should do both.
That's how I read [past tense] the article.
What exactly do you think impeachment - which will not lead to removal - will accomplish? A third impeachment accomplishing something that the first two didn't manage to do?
I'm still grumbling because I disagree, but I'm glad you did read the article, sorry for the accusation.
Ah, so you're in the "we don't have enough votes so why try" camp?
Again, what exactly will impeachment accomplish that makes you think it's worth doing? What will a third one add?
I also don't go around trying to lift skyscrapers off their foundations because it's a fucking waste of energy better spent elsewhere.
Politics is inherently about convincing people to move to your position. Another reference point is the difference between "strategy" and "tactics."
Democrats are both extremely confident in the power of strategy and extremely inept in the concept of tactics. Strategy tells them that they should not take the first step until they have a path charted for the journey. Tactics tells them that they can take the best available first step and use new information gained from that step to plot the second step, and so on.
Your casual disregard for impeachment, likening it to "lifting skyscrapers off their foundation," reveals that you cannot imagine a tactical approach, which epitomizes the problem with traditional democratic thinking. You think because two impeachments failed, it's moronic to try a third without some incredible game-changing development.
Instead of that, I'd invite you to think about impeachment as a first step that we should take because it's morally required, and because not doing so makes impeachment dead letter under the Constitution. An impeachment hearing reminds the public what standards are, what standards they should be following, and is an opportunity to sway the public to themselves pressure their senators to convict.
Putin understands tactics, and it's why he now has control of Crimea (and arguably the United States). He has no master plan. But making the best available move to inch toward a target means often you get there, even if unexpectedly.
I'd recommend: Don't be resigned and defeatist, and certainly don't spread defeatism to others who may do what you have decided you can't.
Defeatism barks up the wrong tree here. A lot of your assumptions do, but I respect the reply even while I disagree with much of it, so while I'm not energized to respond to every single point, one of the things that Lemmy does make difficult is foundational context - who I am, who you are. What I believe that didn't get expressed in a particular comment.
I do believe impeachment is a waste of time. I do not think it will energize the voters. If anything, a third impeachment that also doesn't result in removal continues those who complain that democrats are doing nothing.
Ultimately, the most important thing we need is to support truly progressive candidates, and help those that are getting the message out better. And in places like NYC where a real difference can be shown - because our current federal government is set up to allow obstruction far more than action - Congress can't get shit done even with a majority, but it's worse because there are so many estqablishment Dems, who are better than Oops All Fascists! but not great.
Eh. I hope that makes a bit of sense, I'm not taking the time to flesh it all out well.
I can respect that you have thoughtful opinion. We strongly disagree, which is a bummer, but at least you obviously care. I do, too.
I still rail against so many who really do NOT have a plan and just want to gripe about "somebody needs to do something" which is useless - I mean the people complaining who may or may not even bother to vote in the general election, much less do anything else.
You've got my upvote there! But yeah, all good and thanks for an interesting discussion.