Progressives Should Know That Democrats Have No Intention of Impeaching President Trump If They Win Back Congress

Democrats are certain that a “blue wave” election will sweep them into Congress this fall. After all, the Democratic base is extremely anxious to impeach President Trump and only a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate could accomplish that. But this is more wishful thinking on the part of progressive and liberal voters. In fact, top Democratic leaders including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been clear about the fact that they have no intention whatsoever to impeach the president. Don’t be surprised if progressives and liberals are less than enthusiastic when it’s time to vote for president in 2020.

This entry was posted on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at ANewDomain.net, editor-in-chief of SkewedNews.net, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

11 thoughts on “Progressives Should Know That Democrats Have No Intention of Impeaching President Trump If They Win Back Congress

  1. 1. Ted. Your site is improperly configured, at least according to Firefox, which says the connection is insecure.

    2. The Democrats. Sigh. Let’s say 2018 is a rout. The Dems get all 51 possible Senate seats. Ditto, they get a House majority. (If they do, I’d be shocked if it was even a 10-seat margin.) They can’t force impeachment. The numbers just won’t work.

    3. So the Dems “win” 2018. They won’t be able to get anything done. If HRC had won, we’d be having the same conversation. End result: the Dems are seen as ineffectual heading into 2020.

    4. What will Trump’s people in the smoke-filled room be doing? Here’s my guess. Trump will keep tweeting. Why? Everyone is mainlining retweeted nothingness. One Trump tweet, reiterated to infinity, drowns out most legitimate journalism still being done. Meanwhile, three or four stories will be played ad nauseam: DACA has to go (and blame the Democrats) and the wall has to go up; NAFTA has to be renegotiated; Illegal aliens are in this country murdering and raping everyone; North Korea will remove its nukes (contingent on food aid and so forth so that Kim Jong-Il can stay in power without a revolt). Many people hate Trump, but the points he’s raising either have a base in validity or are popular with lots of scared people. The borders? Yes, you do need secure borders. The immigration policies in Canada and Western Europe are absolutely not “Sure, just show up. You can come here.” You have to have a good argument or NEEDED job skills (and THEY say what’s needed) and show that you can earn your keep. Look at U.S. history. The U.S. never welcomed “everyone.” The U.S. welcomed (healthy) people who’d work in the factories of the rich for pennies. NAFTA? NAFTA was crappy, at least to all those people who saw their manufacturing jobs go away. The tiny fraction of illegal aliens who commit horrible crimes? Of course those outliers will be used to whip up the Republican base (and some of the NIMBY Democrats) into a terror frenzy. And North Korea? It’s about to fail. The people are starving, China’s not going to risk a global war over it. KJ-I was schooled in Switzerland. Do you think he’s so in love with Communism that he wants to risk a nuclear exchange and lose all the goodies he gets to have in abundance? He’s negotiating a severance package. And Trump’s people will okay it. Why? It cools down North Korea. China, Russia and the U.S.? They’re all run by capitalists who’ve figured out every way imaginable to steal you blind. They will never go to war as long as the dollars keep flowing. Trump gets the credit and four more years.

    • HELLOOOOooo Alex! Long time no read, your above averagely-sane comments have been missed.

      So, about the security thing – it’s no less “secure” than it’s ever been. Firefox is now calling anyone w/o HTTPS ‘insecure’ (Yeah, like Ted suffers from insecurity…)

      That means someone could theoretically read your posts while in transit. However, that does include your password so someone could theoretically sniff it, then impersonate you and make below-average sanity posts in your name.

      @Ted: it’s easy to fix, you flip the HTTPS switch on your server & everything should just work. (and if it doesn’t I’ll give you double your money back. 😉

      • eh-hem, “that may include your password” – I haven’t actually checked whether the script encrypts it over the wire even in the absence of HTTPS. You may be safe, but if you suddenly start spouting Russian propaganda we’ll be worried.

    • «North Korea will remove its nukes (contingent on food aid and so forth so that Kim Jong-Il can stay in power without a revolt).» Impressed with your knowledge of East Asia, Alex, but do return when you can distinguish between Kim Jong-il (김정일, 金正日) and the latter’s son, Kim Jong-un (김정은 , 金正恩)….

      Henri

      • D’oh! Thanks for the correction. I’d say that the Times regrets the error, but we all know the Times never regrets its errors, just being caught.

    • Won’t Mr Pence be «raptured» first ? If I understand the succession order aright, that leaves Paul Davis Ryan, who won’t be going anywhere….

      Henri

      • Would that it were so.

        I’m kinda thinkng that a Trump second term might not be all that bad. If there is a firm Democratic majority in congress, at least. There’s no one out there in the Democratic party who anyone cares about. Sanders is a kooky socialist who may not even see 2020. Liz Warren is smart, but that means she wouldn’t touch the job with a 10 foot pole. And Hillary…well, what more needs be said? Except there is a possibility that a Rockefeller Republican may look better.

        But Trump? He’s the most easily manipulated person on the planet and a strong congress may well be able to work through him a bit. As long as he gets to take credit, he’ll be happy.

  2. : Putting on my engineer hat :

    Neither friction nor entropy can actually *push* a reaction in a specific direction, rather they make it less likely it will go in the other direction. Perhaps that’s a subtle distinction but it’s an apt analogy for US politics. It’s less about what people want than what they don’t want.

    Okay, we don’t want Donnie Dumpf. That might not be a step in a positive direction, but it makes it less likely that we’ll step [further] into a negative direction.

  3. Progressive Democrats didn’t show up to vote. …

    «Progressive Democrats» ? Now you’re indulging in your oxymora again, Ted….

    Henri

Leave a Reply