- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“Alito’s next opinion piece in the WSJ is about to be ‘I am a little king, actually. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say I’m not,’” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) quipped.
If the vote fails (as it likely would) then we can see which politicians are our enemies and need to be replaced. The failed vote could be used as a rallying cry to motivate voters and spark protests and generate momentum for reform. A vote would generate a news cycle.
Without a vote, nothing happens.
Which worked so well through TWO failed Trump impeachments…
Impeachment without removal is pointless. So step 1 HAS to be getting the majority back in the house AND getting a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.
Once you do that, I’d argue for a new Amendment. Ethics rules + age limits.
If you haven’t noticed, Trump isn’t President anymore.
The impeachments galvanized voters. Duh?
Impeachment had no impact on voters, if anything, quite the opposite, which is why we have a Republican run House of Representatives right now and the balance of power in the Senate hasn’t changed.
We need a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate to start making massive changes.
How can you say impeachment had no impact when Trump literally lost? The fact that the House was lost 2 years after that was because voters saw that Democrats are worthless do-nothing losers that refuse to do anything when they win.
If that’s true then I should just kill myself now because it will never happen for the rest of my miserable life
Because after impeaching him the House immediately flipped? Ya think? Impeachment was well recieved in the bubble, not so much outside the bubble.
After impeaching him Democrats took control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
It was 2 years after that that the House flipped, and even then Republicans still failed to take back the Senate and under-performed all expectations.
Trumps 2nd impeachment was January 13th, 2021.
The next election was 2022 and the House flipped. Literally flipped, 222 Democrats in the 117th Congress to 222 Republicans in the 118th.
I’m sure the parade of Democrat failures that happened over the next 20 fucking months had nothing to do with it!
Nope, just that one thing. No other possible reasons people would be less enthusiastic for Democrats.
The ones we would think need to be replaced are largely in republican controlled areas. So that would likely gain them support from their base.
There are millions of people who don’t vote because they believe it doesn’t matter. Reaching them would change everything.
While I agree on the point that dems should be trying to reach disaffected voters in red states and that these Republicans who would vote against ethics for tc justices should be replaced. I don’t see this doing that if they couldn’t already with how corrupt the republican party openly is now.
They don’t care because they see that Democrats aren’t doing anything that matters anyway. Why bother voting for the do-nothing party?
Dems in the last 3 years have done more than trump and Republicans in 4. If they can’t bother to see reality then that’s on them.
No one cares about one do-nothing party doing more than another do-nothing party.
And you know what? They also did some really bad shit too. Breaking the railroad strike was unforgivable to a lot of voters, me included, because it shows me Democrats are not actually on the side of organized labor. They’re all talk.
Democrats victim blaming the masses is another reason they don’t show up to vote. I voted. My state still went to hell with fascist culture war bullshit and the Democrats didn’t stop it.
What are democrats supposed to kidnap them and force them to vote? I could agree that dems need to be much better at messaging but they can’t force people to pay attention to what’s happening.
I already told you; if the vote fails (as it likely would) then it could be used as a rallying cry to motivate voters and spark protests and generate momentum for reform. People don’t care about voting because Democrats always lose. If AOC told her supporters to make McCarthy’s life a living hell and forced him to hold a vote, nonvoters would see Democrats are willing to play hardball and act!
Ok, how can they call a vote?
That’s harder, obviously. They need the Speaker to call for impeachment proceedings, which isn’t happening without drastic measures.
He also is only one man. He has an address. He has friends and family. He has business interests and donors and a whole host of private interests. He has investments and properties and associates.
Those are all legitimate targets. There are millions of people that would move on AOCs command. She could call on all her supporters to make McCarthy’s life a living hell. He’s just one man. He can be defeated by the masses.
I’m sorry what? Agreeing with her, voting for her, campaigning for her: none of that is anything like the coordinated, multi-pronged and likely months long harassment campaign you’re talking about.
Maybe they wouldn’t be willing to physically show up at a sit-in or something, but those people are still willing to participate in smaller ways and that still counts.
While I appreciate your forthrightness about the need to kill the speaker of the house, I don’t think that is going to go over well with the people I’d need it to go over well with
Nobody said that, and you know it. Stick to the topic. Your lack of logic and bad faith are showing.
deleted by creator
I don’t think “stochastic” means what you think it means.
Your deliberate attempt to misconstrue a clear call to nonviolent action into something that you can screech about or even claim as a threat is laughable. Honestly, if this is the best straw man the Right’s geniuses can come up with, it’s no wonder they’ve lost the new culture war.
deleted by creator
Friend, if you were simply disagreeing, we might have a conversation. You’re not. You’re deliberately twisting a call for non-violent protest into a conspiracy to murder the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That is not simple disagreement. That is disengenuously creating a strawman in a way meant to frighten the person opposing you into silence. It’s a typical tactic used by those who know they’ve lost the argument but whose egos won’t let them acknowledge it.
You have a good life, too.
Protests can be targeted?
deleted by creator
I said we should make his life a living hell! That doesn’t imply I want him dead.
Okay, so to clarify: I want protesters to surround his house so he can never sleep again. I want them to follow him wherever he goes. I want them to go after his friends and family and business associates and donors. Beyond directly targeting people, there’s also boycotts and strikes which could be used to target his investments. Disruptive and nonviolent direct action would also be part of it.
Mass mobilization on as many fronts as possible to hurt McCarthy in every way imaginable, but it needs to be a living hell or else he’ll just be replaced with another demon.
Woah hold up, I mean his life needs to become a living hell; not literally send him to hell.
Feels like that’s the point.
Exactly! AOC and other so-called Progressives are allowed to speak out against the dominant political line and act like they’re anti-establishment, but they don’t have to actually humiliate any other members of the Party by putting them to a vote.
Pitchforks?