Message from @dizzy
Discord ID: 657048436360609792
The Senate will have fun with this before ultimately acquitting the trial. First article fails to provide direct evidence, second never got sent to courts.
The only thing I can think of that this impeachment would realistically accomplish is *maybe* generating some stigma around voting for an "impeached president" but even that's far too risky
Moderate dems that won the 2018 midterms in Red districts just signed their own resignation.
they can use it to gage public response to similar actions in the future
i guess
will we put up with abuse of power and legal systems like impeachment or not
I say yes though
not enough are angry enough for real change
The whole point was for Dems to generate negative partisanship towards Trump
this is like the sequel to the famous basket of deplorables comment
yeah that
like a big "hey working class America, fuck you"
hilariously they've only unified the republicans and alienated the independents
I am pretty sure when Clinton was impeached,the Democrats won the House back
Ironically, Trump’s now *leading* in battleground states where Biden had advantage.
It's gonna be a sea of red next year
but not as big or delicious as the sea of leftist tears
I'd just love to see a return of moderate control of the govt
And a little spring cleaning to existing laws to either update or trash them
That's all I ask
Which is hard af to do because moderate ideas are boring
most of the big issues now aren't something that has a moderate possion, it's either one side or the other.
examples: abortion, gun rights, voter ID.
it's because one side is shoving the overton window as far as they possibly can in one direction
but at the same time where is the middle on any of those?
I think moderate is fine for the low level nitty gritty workings of government, but at this point it's like are we going full communist or not
so 🤷♂️
that is a bit fair, but that isn't what anyone is talking about.
there is also the issue about how do you find a middle ground between "wants to increase funding for a program" and "wants to decrease funding for a program"?
leaveing it as is doesn't make anyone happy.
agreed tbh
a moderate basically tries to achieve compromise
Use the nickle plan it was first brought up by Brown but others have since suggested it. **All** departments create 5% in cuts. No favoritism. It's not ideal but it removes bias.
I would be totaly ok with cutting everything over time like that.
but remember these are people who call "reduction in increase" a cut.
Because the problem is *everyone* has a program of department they like. So it can only be politically viable if everyone has to make the same cuts.
"program A is going to grow %5, I only want it to grow %3."
"how could you cut such an important program!"
but as much as i am interested in dealing with the middle ground I want to know how someone can be moderate on a binary choice,
as plenty of issues are right now.
I think when we get to the point where being moderate is viable, we have much smaller things at stake
Ultimately you can't compromise between opposite fundamental values