Support among House Democrats for impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is skyrocketing, nearly doubling in the last week to 100 co-sponsors.
That’s an unprecedented level of support for an impeachment effort during President Trump’s second term, with lawmakers who have bristled at the topic in the past now warming to the idea.
Kelly is urging Republicans to get on board with her efforts — even as no GOP lawmaker has come close to expressing support for Noem’s impeachment.
“As Secretary Noem continues to lie, obstruct Congress, and violate people’s civil rights, the support for her impeachment only grows,” she said.
The fact that this is not a party line vote for democrats shows you how completely amoral the Democratic leadership is.
This has not been voted on to my knowledge. This article is just about the cosigners officially submitting the bill.
No excuse to be below 100%
Greed tho
Could be a strange form of nihilism where you are just looking to salt the earth after the ashes.
I now think Republicans welcome climate change to unlock shipping channels
The excuse that I’ve heard is that it’s the Democrats’ fault for making people throw away their vote.
None of this was necessary.
We tried to warn you that genocide was a losing issue.
You were so devoted to netanyahu that you didn’t care.
But she needed those millions in lobbyist bribes! Who cares if America falls to Trump when money was to be made.
Yes, thank goodness we saved Gaza by keeping those dems out of office.
Do you get that literally has nothing to do with what we are talking about here?
Strawman argument. People didnt abstain from voting for Harris because it would “save” Gaza. They did it because both candidates shared the common ideal of bombing Gaza to smithereens and they refused to support that.
It’s incredibly disgusting for people like you to now mock others for opposing genocide just because your preferred candidate thought that supporting slaughter was more important than defeating her opponent and it all blew up in her face.
Maybe you should hitch your wagon to better candidates if you don’t want to be disappointed. That’s on you not anyone else. Even now more than a year after the election was decided, you still think standing alongside genocide and Dick Cheney was the right call and can’t understand why you lost. You are the company you keep, buddy.
You make a good argument but I always get nervous when someone says “people like you”. It sounds kind of arrogant/superior. If that was your intention then so be it.
This person is using the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children as a tool to mock others all because they’re mad that a stranger didn’t win a contest. I don’t see what they’re doing as any different than what Republicans are doing now in comment sections across the internet over the murder of Renee Good.
This user and those Republicans share a lot more ideologically than either would care to admit, so I have no problem with my comment sounding arrogant/superior to their abhorrent behavior.
Yes, thank goodness we saved Gaza by keeping those dems out of office.
Harris lost because the voters felt alienated. You may not care. You may not think that matters. At the end of the day, it did.
The voters voted for childcare. They voted for family leave. They voted for rescheduled cannabis. They voted for a minimum wage increase. They gave the party enough seats to do what Biden campaigned on, and then watched the clearest display of utter disregard for the voice of the people we’ve seen in decades. The voters saw a party that knew what they wanted, knew how to help them, and chose not to.
The voters wanted justice for January 6. They got a justice department chaired by a republican with no concept of urgency. The voters saw a party that was uninterested in pursuing justice against insurrectionists.
The voters did not vote for the foreign policy they got from Biden. They did not vote for unconditional support for genocide. At this point, we were almost 3 years into a Biden presidency that wasn’t going to help them. The voters saw who the party was willing to help.
Then the voters saw the party sue as many opponents off the primary ballot as they could. They saw the party try to pretend that a primary where only one candidate was on the ballot in all 50 states was somehow a competitive honest primary. The voters saw who the party was willing to fight against, and it wasn’t Republicans.
When it became clear that Biden was not up to the task before him, they appointed Harris nominee without anything approaching input from the people. The voters saw a party leadership abusing an old man in order to cling to power they refused to wield, and a party willing to disregard the will of the people so thoroughly that they didn’t even bother asking anymore.
But even that wasn’t enough. When people started griping that they couldn’t afford groceries, the messaging from the party could not have been more tone deaf. Telling people whose lives are getting worse that things are improving is asking them to buy something contrary to what they are feeling, sometimes literally on a visceral level. Democratic voters are not as willing to deny the evidence of their senses as Republican voters are. They saw a party that expected them to buy bullshit instead of groceries.
And then Harris said she wasn’t going to differ from Biden in any significant way. Which dashed any hopes of anything improving.
And then Democrats adopted Republican border policy. Which wasn’t enough for Republicans, naturally, but it alienated even more people Democrats needed. Voters saw a party that was willing to abandon vulnerable people and get nothing out of it.
If Democrats had been actively trying to alienate every voter who was even remotely willing to vote for them, they couldn’t have done much worse.
Then the election happened and Democrats blamed the voters. Well, we’re back where we started on this. Only now the electorate doesn’t trust Democrats.
And it’s not like Democrats have been doing much to regain their trust. The party ousted David Hogg. Party leadership campaigned against their own nominee in New York City after more than a decade of “blue no matter who.” Centrists’ darling Newsom is going on a capitulation tour, letting Charlie Kirk know that he agrees with him about trans people, and letting Ben Shapiro know that he doesn’t think the genocide in Gaza happened. And this is what centrists expect their base to vote for. After a primary no one seriously believes will be honest.
Oh, those unreasonable spoiled voters. We give and give and give and they still stay home.
This is a perfect example of why they’re losing support. Less than half of them even support this despite there being zero repercussions from doing so. Remember when Republicans held 60+ separate votes to eliminate “Obamacare” throughout Obama’s second term despite them not having a majority to guarantee passage of the bill and it seeming completely fruitless? Look where they are ten years later and tell me which is the more effective approach.
Killing people is even more effective. Why aren’t they doing that either?
Probably spineless cowards!
Less than half of them even support this despite there being zero repercussions from doing so.
Well that’s just not true, unless they’re representing a solid blue area. You think Alabama, Arizona, Texas, or Washington Democrats aren’t going to get ‘repurcussions’ from their constituencies for impeaching the head of DHS? Why aren’t they socialist firebrands?
Well, the better question is why aren’t any socialist firebrands in office? (Yes, fine, Bernie. He’s from Texas, right?)
The repercussions for those democrats would be greater numbers of people voting for them in the future. Arizona and Texas have more population that are vulnerable to dhs attacks, so any house members against the impeachment are acting against their constituents. Sure the state government won’t like it, but it would at least be something they do for the people.
The repercussions for those democrats would be greater numbers of people voting for them in the future.
Oh how I wish that was so. We just lost the most important election of our lifetimes because that isn’t so. Maybe some of our louder non-voters want to weigh in on that.
I’m saying that if Democrats fight for the people, they will see better voting outcomes. What does that have to do with the last election? Democrats didn’t fight for us from 2020-2024, so they lost voters, which is complimentary to my point.
It was great that Biden’s policies helped slow down inflation, but that’s pretty much all they did. There were no consequences for treason, no big investigations, no major reforms of the political system, no safeguards for rights put into place. The last thing a major Democrat did in TX was when Obama had tacos in Austin over 10 years ago.
Look at the voting record and it echoes my point.
In 2004, Bush 4.5 million, Kerry 2.8 million
In 2008, McCain 4.5 million, Obama 3.5 million after Obama ran a campaign about a better future giving us something to vote for
In 2010, the ACA passed
In 2012, Romney 4.6 million, Obama 3.3 million McConnell succeeded in preventing a lot of Democrat proposals from being passed and the democrats weren’t able to fulfill a lot of things during the tike before this election
In 2016, Trump 4.7 million, Clinton 3.9 million Marriage Equality had recently passed and Democrats proposed the Equality Act and were very vocal about the potential consequences of an election loss
In 2020, Trump 5.9 million, Biden 5.3 million, Democrats made promises and said they would fight for rights. Many democrats aligned themselves with protests and even with some tonedeaf messaging, attempted to show a united front against the chaos
In 2022, women lost the right to bodily autonomy In 2023, Women’s Health Protection Act was introduced but went nowhere
In 2024, Trump 6.4 million, Harris 4.8 million after democrats revealed the United front was a ruse and failed to follow through on issues that won them the 2020 election even though the threat of chaos was even worse than we had seen in 2020.
I’m saying that if Democrats fight for the people, they will see better voting outcomes.
I’d prefer they fight for the people either way, but the problem is “fighting for the people” is pretty subjective. Did they or did they not is a subjective opinion about which we only know what is public.
Democrats didn’t fight for us from 2020-2024, so they lost voters, which is complimentary to my point.
I’d say that’s a valid opinion, though one I don’t particularly share. They got some Big Shit Done for the gridlock that is Congress, imo.
Look at the voting record and it echoes my point.
I see you’re referring to Texas specifically which is fine, I was just confused at first.
The main problem with saying these numbers validate my opinion is that there’s no way to prove it one way or the other, and so you may be right, I may be crazy but I don’t see the numbers making the point that Democrats (in Texas? For Texas? Of Texas?) did or did not “fight for the people”.
In 2008, McCain 4.5 million, Obama 3.5 million after Obama ran a campaign about a better future giving us something to vote for
First off, it’s Texas, but secondly Obama was a superstar candidate with -at the time- limited experience. And he came after eight long terra-terra-terra years of -at the time- The Worst President in History. His getting higher numbers than Kerry (again, in Texas, with the global financial markets hanging by a thread under Bush the Dubz) doesn’t have anything to do with ‘fighting fir the people’.
I could go on, but I’d have the same arguments about some of the other numbers and you get my point.
What we don’t have numbers for are the votes that candidates didn’t get after ‘fighting for the people’, which again is a subjective call that could mean a bunch of different things.
Based strictly on Primaries and the platforms different candidates have, the most ‘fight for the people’ candidates don’t win - sometimes they don’t win a lot. And yes we can talk about how they screwed Bernie but that’s ultimately a side issue; lots of “fight for the people” candidates have lost in the primaries - including non-screwed Bernie.
It’s (a) subjective and (b) not a sure thing by any stretch. US politics is gnarly, and Jesus Christ by any other name would lose Texas to Romney.
We just lost the most important election of our lifetimes because that isn’t so.
We lost that election because both the Republican and Democratic candidates thought pushing right wing ideology was the best tactic. Turns out that only works for one of the party’s base.
And all the people not voting against trump.
So your argument boils down to “Democrats shouldn’t oppose Trump & Co because it might hurt their chances at reelection?” What kind of nonsense is that?
There are no repercussions because they don’t have the numbers to actually get an impeachment without Republicans joining forces with them, which is unlikely to happen but even a potentially fruitless endeavor is better than sitting by doing absolutely nothing while the nation burns in front of our eyes.
Politics only happens with an election, so yeah that’s usually an omnipresent factor in pushing legislation. No, it’s not great.
And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?
If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.
Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.
Politics only happens with an election
This statement doesn’t make any sense.
And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?
Yes.
If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.
Well then it must follow that there’s no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right? Democrats should only go after the easy wins and instant gratification because nobody will remember any of this at any point in the future.
Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.
So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward? If they’re not doing this now or at any point in the past, why would they do it in the future? What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren’t enough?
Well then it must follow that there’s no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right?
Absolutely not. And that’s a weird jump to make.
So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward?
Yes to the former, nope to the latter. I’m saying the real world is significantly more complicated than rageposting on the intertubes. Like, sure we all wish all the nazis were dead, but getting there is gonna take more than tapping it out on a phone keyboard. And very possibly going on a killing spree by one or more of us is not the optimal way to move that particular project forward, you see? That’s just a hypothetical example, but you get my point there.
What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren’t enough?
Well, having the votes might be a good start. Professional political people do this thing called a “whip count” where the go around and ask everyone how their day is going, and oh those are great shoes and by-the-by would you vote for bill #12345? And if they don’t have enough votes to get the thing passed, sometimes they’ll redirect their efforts into other things. (Stupid republicans will still have the vote fifty or sixty times because they can’t figure out a better plan.)
So that’s a big one. Now if they just want to grandstand, maybe read a little Dr. Suess on C-SPAN, sure. “The People” would get the benefit of that speech, but little else.
And that’s if the Senate feels like doing a goddamned thing, which - unlikely, right? So just go out front, go on any show that’ll have you and talk about how he should be impeached. But that’s all that would happen.
Neom wasn’t voted in. And your comment has nothing to do with the topic anyways.
Noem was selected by who was voted in. You see that, right? Having to impeach her is damage control from letting trump win. That’s on topic AF.
Yes yes
This doesn’t matter. It wont get a vote in the house or the senate without republican support. Republicans still refuse to defy their cult leader, so nothing will change until they either realize they are going to prison, or that they will lose all of their money.
The only things politicians care about is money and control, they refuse to lose both.
It doesn’t even have full democrat support.
This is more kayfabe, this isn’t real. We have ONE party in power, with two public facing personas.
I wish people actually looked at the money and realized that republicans and democrats all have the SAME FUCKING DONORS.
If we want to beat this, we have to flush every incumbent out of office and start fresh. We need community and organization and grassroots like they did in New York but all over the goddamn nation.
Not true
Oh that’s a good point. Didn’t think of that.
As long as impeachment effort remains divided along party lines, this is not a story worth publishing.
Yeah, it is. The straggling Democrats need to be primaried. Noem makes up undeniable lies in front of Congress every time she testifies.
Dems growing a spine is a story worth telling.
Secretary Kristi Noem is skyrocketing, nearly doubling in the last week to 100 co-sponsors.
That’s still less than half the Dem caucus on a motion that should be a litmus test for Rules Based Intentional Order liberalism.
I’d say the most damning indictment of impeachment is that it’s not along party lines. 113 House Dems aren’t sponsoring a bill to remove the most corrupt bureaucrat to hold the DHS office.
Dems should be talking about DHS like Republicans talk about the IRS. Not whatever this is.
It is very disheartening that not a single R is supporting this. Or it would be if I had any heart left to dis.
It’s not even on party lines, more than half of Democrats see an innocent woman get shot in the face and still refuse to act.
Every democrat in congress could sign on as a co-sponsor and it still wouldn’t make it through a single vote. You understand that, right?
Oh well I guess they shouldn’t do anything and just let the fascists run concentration camps then.
Tell me what the difference is between “doing nothing” and “doing something guaranteed to be ineffectual”. There are actual things happening constantly that are slowing down the administration and making a difference. This isn’t one of them.
Yes. Let’s not waste any time or money this only creates people hating the dem party even more
It’s all symbolic, which is what DC Democrats specialize in. We have a one-party authoritarian state, and the Ruling Party will never allow it.
I can’t understand why people don’t see this. Democrats in the minority sure are fighters, but oh darn, they just don’t have the numbers, so vote harder next time! Democrats in the majority suddenly have to be super diplomatic, lest they ruffle feathers across the aisle and lose cooperation with the political party that rarely cooperates. Keep voting hard and they’ll get there, eventually!
wait a second this is starting to sound like a .ml community.
This is in fact true. If people voted for Democrats overwhelmingly and then primaried the DINOS like fetterman and the corporate shills like Newsom and Shumer we would see the change we want eventually. FDR did it. He did it with supermajorities in both houses of Congress and he also needed 4 terms to remake the supreme court.
It’s a generational project, and supremely unlikely to happen because a significant part of the electorate does not want it. But it could happen. If voters shifted 30 points to the left and stayed there for a generation it would happen.
100% agree, that’s my (not so) secret political fantasy - everyone working together to better their lives and those of others. Instead, we got whatever 2026 is turning into.
Send her ass to the hauge
It seems a little silly to me that they are talking about impeaching her, but not also Trump. Like who do they think she will be replaced with? My bet is someone worse. If Trump didn’t want what ICE is doing they wouldn’t be doing it.
That’s simply because impeaching trump is a lot harder. They are in fact talking about it too tho
Removing either is equally as hard, requiring a simple majority.
Both having the same vote requirements doesn’t mean they’re equally hard
Either requires republicans to break rank and suffer the same consequences from the party leadership.
No, a simple majority is needed in order for the House to impeach. A supermajority in the Senate is then needed to convict.
A simple majority in both to do anything that will have any effect on policy, eg not theater.
deleted by creator
Third time’s the charm!
It’s all performance.
If the Democrats didn’t want ICE and domestic chaos that will pave the way for more corporate involvement in all our lives, it wouldn’t have happened.
We have one party with two narrative faces. They all have the same donors, they all serve the same masters. The rest is just WWE theatrics.
“if Democrats didn’t want ICE and domestic chaos it wouldn’t have happened”
This is absolute bullshit. When democrats controlled the white house and Senate this didn’t happen. The parties are not the same and the constant refrain that they are is a malicious lie. The only beneficiaries of this kind of both sides FUD are the nazis.
There were more deportations under Dems, the difference between the parties is how they present themselves and what methods they go about plunging the nation into neo-liberalism. I implore you not to be naive about this very, very well-established system for manipulating the attitudes and feelings of a half billion people.
I am not saying don’t empower Democrats, the DNC is just a container, we vote out the previous contents of that container and put new contents in. It has worked before and we need to do it again.
Unless you actually, truly, in your heart believe that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and their contemporaries are looking out for you. If you do, I can’t help you, but I’m sure they will hear your support when you’re in the camps.
Did I say anything good about Chuck schumer or Jeffries?
I think I said Schumer was a corporate shill that needs to be primaried. They are both genocide enablers and should be run out of Congress.
They are both genocide enablers and should be run out of Congress
Exactly.
Now what about all the other dems who follow DNC leadership who were “just following orders?”
Have you watched major votes on policy? Dems are complicit either in leadership or as a whole, but it doesn’t matter because if you follow evil orders you are also evil.
I gave a path to success. What is your suggestion?
No you didn’t, at least not to me. I was the one giving prescriptive statements (Vote out all incumbent democrats, elect new people who represent our values and aren’t beholden to the same donors) you just pushed back on it like I was suggesting we elect more Republicans.
But they won’t even consider defunding ICE.
They literally will and are.
That’s good to hear. Last I had heard, leadership was against the idea.
The only reason Democrats are supporting this is because its failure is ensured.
Well ya, with a 100 out of 535 its nothing.
Yeah this is not an explosion, it’s a simmer.
Once again the controlled opposition plays lip service to what the people want. What’s the over/under on this effort dying and then going “welp, we tried! There’s nothing we can do”
I certainly understand, and even agree with that opinion, but there IS a strategic objective possible.
The MAGA Senate will likely let her off the hook, and they’ll have to run against that vote in November, when she will only be more reviled, and her poison will be dripping on anyone associated with her.
And there is always the remote possibility that enough MAGA Senators are tired of the nightmare, and decide to vote to convict her. If they do, and it looks likely to happen, the rest will all jump, too.
That’s exactly what happened with the Epstein Files vote. It was supposed to get covered up, but everyone ended up voting FOR it in this exact scenario - because they didn’t want to run against a No on Epstein. We have to make them fear a No on the Puppy Killer.
They will probably just replace her with Greg Bovino though…
That’s fine, it couldn’t be any worse, and if it does get worse, that hurts them far more. They think that they will eventually scare us into submission, but we aren’t 1930s Germans. Americans were raised on fables of revolution and overthrowing tyrants, and they are only going to get MORE radical in the face of government tyranny, not less.
Bring it on, MAGA, we’re collecting receipts, and keeping records. Nuremburg is coming.
And then impeach him. And if trump pisses them off badly enough, they can impeach him too.
Andrew Johnson was a lame duck after impeachment, because even though he kept his office, he was on notice from Congress.
The democrats are totally feckless
Hey I mean we could use a trebuchet, but I guess impeachment is… fine…
The issue is, I don’t think it’s her so much as Stephen Miller. Even so, there is no shortage of individuals willing to take her role.
Yes, do it. Congress desperately needs to reclaim some of its power. But don’t expect her to be the last.
If you sign up to be the mouthpiece you should expect to be one of the first people to get punched in the mouth.
don’t think it’s her so much as Stephen Miller.
Noem was an outspoken fascist from her days as governor. It’s how she got the job.
Might as well debate whether Himmler or Goering hated Jews more.
Fair. My point is ICE will continue as is whomever is charge of it, as long as Miller is there.
But a string of impeachments would prove Congress has some powers left.
Miller could be gone tomorrow and I guarantee there’s a line out the door of like-minded fascists eager to take his place. The entire Trump admin is crawling with these guys. State governments in places like Texas and Missouri and Florida and Utah are crawling with these guys. City governments are crawling with them.
Miller isn’t some kind of Svengali who has tricked the American bureaucracy into behaving this way. He’s as much a product of our fascist socio-economic system as Liz Cheney and Jim Justice and Rudy Giuliani.
But a string of impeachments would prove Congress has some powers left.
I think its fair to say that so long as Republicans control the majority, they’ll be subservient to the Trump admin. But Dems throwing wrenches in the gears by holding up business with impeachment votes would have a two-fold effect of gumming up the horrible business of Congress and spotlighting particularly vile members of the Trump Admin.
Everything you say is true, but he seems to be closest to Trump atm.
What would be nice is an impeachment of Mike Johnson. That would send the Repubs in Congress into infighting disarray.
Honestly, I think we’re completely screwed already. That there’s no gold left in Fort Knox. That they’re compiling a list of everyone who’s voted liberal. And that once this data center crap tanks the country the stock market will toilet. But yes, some final gestures would be nice.
What would be nice is an impeachment of Mike Johnson.
Mike Johnson holds the job precisely because he sucks at it. He’s a threat to nobody. He does what he’s told. He isn’t even good at taking bribes - estimated to be the poorest House Speaker in the last century. Republicans aren’t going to impeach him precisely because he’d be such a bitch to replace.
What’s more disturbing is a future House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, a man who is far more in touch with the K-Street lobbyists and J-Street warmongers. Just like in 2019, we’re going to see conservative Democrats rubber stamp the Trump neoconservative agenda. And that’s going to set the stage for a frightening 2028 election, when fascists start coming out of the woodwork in both major parties.
Jeffries is a limp dishrag of a politician. I’d still like to see Johnson out right now, because they’d have such difficulty replacing him.
The real work of the legislature has been outsourced to the private sector
Wait a moment. I’m not American so I don’t understand. In the house there are 213 democrats, so that means more than half of them is thinking that is perfectly fine and normal having someone like her? It doesn’t seem like “skyrocketing numbers” to me. I understand that an alternate headline is “majority of House Dems are against impeaching noem”
Thats exactly correct and anyone who tries to say otherwise is either being willfully ignorant or intentionally minimizing this fact. You might also be surprised to learn that many of these Dems voted against impeaching Trump for a third time last year. Their actions speak much louder than words.
They likely gave up because they realized that trying to impeach him is just adding fuel to his bases fire.
You gotta realize that Trump has a third of the country believing that he is a victim of political persecution. The “witch hunt” rhetoric was taken hook, line, and sinker. They sincerely and earnestly believe that Trump is a good man with a righteous vision, who is targeted by “the radical left”, which is “weaponizing” the DoJ or the impeachment process.
And unfortunately, that less than 1/3 of the country lives in the right place to make them worth more than half of the seats in the Senate, so impeachment was bound to go nowhere and ultimately hurt the democratic party going into the next elections.
And this plot predates even Trump’s first term. Part of the reason this guy is now Teflon is that he installed a lot of court seats. Partly due to Mitch holding back the nomination of Merrick Garland, but he was also holding back a shitload of lower court vacancies so that they could get filled by 45.
I agree that he should have been impeached, tried, and ultimately convicted. Honestly at this point, I feel like he should be hung for treason. But politics, sadly, can’t always align with justice.
They likely gave up because they realized that trying to impeach him is just adding fuel to his bases fire.
You gotta realize that Trump has a third of the country believing that he is a victim of political persecution. The “witch hunt” rhetoric was taken hook, line, and sinker. They sincerely and earnestly believe that Trump is a good man with a righteous vision, who is targeted by “the radical left”, which is “weaponizing” the DoJ or the impeachment process.
But if we apply this logic then Democrats should never oppose Trump or any other Republican, and where does that leave us? I find this quite ridiculous as not only does it excuse Democratic inaction but also mandates that they bend over backwards to support him in the future for fear of losing their job (a job that quite literally is to represent the people).
Merrick Garland lost his shot at SCOTUS because instead of fighting back when the law was fully on their side nearly a year before the 2016 election, they arrogantly thought that they were guaranteed to win and Clinton would then get the nomination. They again backed down in 2020 just a month before the election and allowed Republicans to ram a nomination through. They backed down in Texas and allowed the Republican legislature to gerrymander districts and pick up several seats. They backed down on the government shutdown and allowed Republicans to take away our healthcare. They backed down and allowed the passage of the BBB. They’re backing down and allowing the capture of a sovereign nation’s president. They’re backing down and allowing ICE to murder citizens in the streets.
These are all reasons why they’re losing elections. They’re supposed to be the opposition party yet they refuse to oppose anything and even vote alongside Republicans often enough. Refusing to acknowledge this is why Trump won in 2016. It’s why he nearly one again in 2020, and it’s why he won in 2024. With each passing day they look more and more like they’re all members of the same party because that’s the only logical explanation for what’s happening. Using the same tired excuses over and over and over only gets you so far before people see right through the BS.
But if we apply this logic then Democrats should never oppose Trump or any other Republican, and where does that leave us?
I respectfully disagree on this point, and this point only. They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
It was quite clear by that point what game the Republicans were playing…another impeachment would have played right into that hand. Having the cooperation of a not-insignificant portion of the media who only played up the victim rhetoric was also a big factor.
The legal system, which is supposed to be apolitical, was the best course of action. And continues to be the best course of action, because the majority of both houses continues to be Trump loyalists. Drown them in lawsuits, a million papercuts, etc.
It’s far from a perfect solution, though, due to the aforementioned blocking of lower-court appointments, Merrick Garland (who, like, bullshit, I agree, should’ve fought harder), and then RBG dying at a very inopportune time, leading to a vulgar show of hypocrisy on the right and another weak resistance on the left.
And, it plays into the continued “weaponizing the justice system” rhetoric. Like, dude…it’s not “weaponizing the justice system” if you’re continually doing unlawful and even unconstitutional things. But good luck explaining that to the 33% of the country who would struggle to get a D on a 6th grade Civics test.
I do agree that Democrat’s are really sucking as “The Resistance”. The biggest thing they need to work on is messaging and having a united front.
But honestly, what can they do, really? The American People have spoken, and this is what they asked for, by the democratically instilled laws of our country.
There is no way to win, inside the system, by continuing to play by the rules. But, as long as Republicans hold the trifecta and the fourth-estate, any attempt to break the rules will not be cast in their favor.
The only way, I think, starts with finding an effective antidote to their koolaid.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
And then again a few weeks ago in December…
I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.
An “opposition party” that won’t even make an effort to oppose.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
And then again a few weeks ago in December…
I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.
Lemmy firmly believes that every American is as far left as them, sees things the way the front page sees things, and that Democrats are the real problem. It’s naive and self-absorbed, but there it is.
Not exactly.
For context, a bill only needs one sponsor. Most bills have about 2 or 3 cosponsors. Signing a bill as a cosponsor is not the same as voting, which hasn’t happened yet.
The impeachment process is complicated and difficult (by design). Congress is split in two parts, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Anyone in the House can introduce a bill to impeach someone (bring them to trial). But in order for anything to happen, you need a majority vote to adopt that bill. It then gets sent to the Senate, where they have another majority vote to decide if there will be a trial. If and only if there’s a trial, you need a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate to convict. This has happened exactly 8 times in the history of the United States, and never for a sitting president.
If you don’t have at least a majority in both parts of Congress, it’s basically pointless. Introducing an impeachment bill becomes a symbolic gesture. All the voters hear is “Democrats tried to impeach, and failed. Again.” This demoralizes Democrat voters and energizes Republican voters.
So, yeah, a lot of Democrat politicians aren’t on board because they already know how this will play out.
I don’t know. I find it much more demoralizing when they’re not even willing to make an attempt.
Skyrocketing / exploding numbers doesn’t imply a majority.
A number can grow significantly and still be a less than another number.
I don’t understand. In the house there are 213 democrats, so that means more than half of them is thinking that is perfectly fine and normal having someone like her?
I AM an American and I don’t understand this either.
The sad reality is our democrat party is powered by the same donors and investors as the republican party. They’re all the same, the conflict is entirely Kayfabe, a type of vintage American-spawned brainrot from decades ago when people realized you could charm the population with absurd storylines.
If we had a proper opposition party, they would be capitalizing on this massive mandate against people like Noem and sweeping all of Trump’s henchmen out of office with huge public spectacles and their own World Wrestling Extreme Politics theater. Instead we get frowns, stern letters and finger-wagging at the masked death-squads and foreign-power kidnapping.
Wait a moment. I’m not American so I don’t understand.
House has to research and pass articles of impeachment
Senate has to hold a trial and convict
It doesn’t make it through both; nothing happens.
Senate by the numbers is 53:45:2 Republican:Democrat:Independent.
None of the republicans has so much as mentioned they’d be on board with it.
As seen in many troubling votes, some percentage of our Democrats in both the House and the Senate are probably not playing for the team they say they are.
So, let’s say the House decides to impeach to make a point, even though they know they have no chance of changing the outcome. There will be retribution. We have nazi slogans on podiums and Proud Boys policing the streets. On November 20th, the president called for the execution of democratic law makers five months after the democratic leader in Minnesota was executed in June in a politically motivated execution. I don’t love it, but I understand their apprehension; they’re not that brave.
So we wait until midterms (assuming the president doesn’t manage to start a war to avoid them), where there’s a good chance the senate will lose enough seats and any questionable democrats get displaced by at least centrists.
Then impeachments will happen and probably can succeed.
even if he starts a war, he can’t avoid the midterms. The president has no authority over elections, the states have that authority, overseen by congress. And if states don’t elect new congressmen and congresswomen and senators, then when the currently elected people have their terms end, then the states will not be able to just keep them in position, when their term ends they are out per the constitution, and won’t have a representative until a special election is performed.
Also… I distinctly remember something from my history classes about how Americans react to being taxed without representation… Or at least they did in Boston in the 1773.
We’re using the constitution as toilet paper at the moment. He’s not following laws now, why would he start?
If he says we’re not going to do it, and the scotus says he’s right and half of congress is fine with it, it’ll be a problem
I could also see a condition where the votes are “under the protection” of ICE and it comes out as a landslide victory.
I can see them try to place it “under the protection” but the states need to have a chain of custody for every vote, and whoever signed that custody chain is responsible for it. I dealt with this in the Army as an MP. And it would require the state to be complicit as well and I don’t think most states want to just hand over all their authority to the federal government and turn themselves into puppets. But we will see…
I’m less worried about a chain of custody as I am with them simply using ICE thugs to scare people away from the polling places.
Not everywhere in the country, but they’ll try to use them “for security” in blue, multicultural cities and that’ll fuck up the vote.
That’s my guess.
Hope is all I’ve got. Have a family to look after
Me too
deleted by creator
It will change nothing, but still should be done for our collective conscience and historic record that we didn’t want this
The only thing this will show is which Democrats will side with Noem and/or Trump.
I that is an important metric
