The daily dose of distressing news from this administration is taking a toll on my health and I am sure many other Americans.
Why aren’t our leaders speaking out more forcefully against these outrages? McConnell did give a speech pushing back, but it barely registered and wasn’t reported nearly enough. Yes, we made a grave mistake in electing the wrong person as president—but that doesn’t mean the country is obligated to sit silently for the next three years while he lurches from one dangerous blunder to the next.
If impeachment and conviction aren’t on the table, then the least our leaders—Republicans and Democrats alike—must do is stand together and speak with one clear, unmistakable voice in opposition. Failing to do so isn’t just political cowardice; it carries real consequences. Our credibility with Europe, already strained, will continue to erode if the world sees that American leadership is unwilling or unable to check reckless behavior.
> Our credibility with Europe, already strained, will continue to erode if the world sees that American leadership is unwilling or unable to check reckless behavior.
As a European without political ties, I already consider the US a failed democratic state. It has a bully running the country, and no one seems to have the guts, ability, or interests, to fix that. The US constitution gives the president _way_ too much power for a position that can, essentially, be bought.
I wonder how many JDs the donor class can throw at the US democracy once trump is removed. You might have stopped the most raging idiot but not the idiocy behind it.
It's not three more years. The midterms are this year. If the public don't like the status quo the Democrats will gain majorities and things should change.
It really is up to the voters to start fixing this. If they want to.
> The midterms are this year. If the public don't like the status quo the Democrats will gain majorities and things should change.
Only the House is fully elected every two years, only 1/3 of the Senate is, and the swing states in Class II (the set up in 2026) are already held by Dems.
Further, switching control of one or both Houses of Congress doesn't give the power to pass laws without also controlling the White House; it does give the power to block laws, but that may not do much to constrain an executive that is already flagrantly violating the law even with a partisan trifecta. And, while impeachment requires a simple a majority in the House, conviction and removal on impeachment charges takes 2/3 of the Senate, so even winning a majority wouldn't put that in reach.
Unfortunately, dem leadership seems prepared to repeat the failures of the Biden administration. Dems returning to power and then just continuing largely on the status quo is not an acceptable outcome of the 2026 and 2028 elections.
And with a willing supreme court insisting that numerous congressional restrictions on the president's power are actually unconstitutional, I'm not so certain that winning congress in 2026 will actually do much to limit Trump's criminal actions.
They have already done that as many times to Trump as have been done to all other Presidents in US history combined; without conviction and removal, which requires a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate, impeachment has proven to be an ineffective constraint on Trump.
> If the Democrats take the House they can impeach him.
So? They've literally done that twice before, and what did it accomplish? They fired that bullet and missed, trying to jam it back in the gun to take another shot isn't going to work.
The republicans want this. McConnell did everything in his power to make damn sure Donald Trump never saw justice.
This is the leadership. Congress abdicated their jobs and de facto doesn’t exist, the Supreme Court now solely exists to make sure that Trump is not constrained by law, and the executive branch is doing exactly what they said they were going to do during election season.
We’re not getting out of this unscathed. It’s too late. November 6, 2024 we were too late.
This is the only statement that matters. We knew exactly who Trump is and exactly what he would do if voted in again. The "opposition" did nothing during Trump's first term, and now they are completely powerless do do anything.
America voted for this, we failed miserably to prevent this from happening for the past 30 years, and we will pay the price for this for generations.
I think it's going to have to get very very much worse before it gets better. Too many people have no idea what's happening, and too many of the people who do know what's happening (including quite a few in Democratic leadership) seem to think it'll all just snap back into place in 2026 and 2028. I'm afraid they won't wake up to it until we see a 1930's style depression in which Americans are literally going hungry. Really does feel like we're doing the 20th century all over again.
> Yes, we made a grave mistake in electing the wrong person as president—but that doesn’t mean the country is obligated to sit silently for the next three years while he lurches from one dangerous blunder to the next.
Correction: the only viable opponent party ran the wrong person and chose the wrong strategy to oppose him. Their candidate(s) weren't the "right person" to be president. And despite a year of Trump, that opponent party is still unpopular.
It's a testament to how broken the system is. They'll all acting stupidly, and no one is the good guys.
> If impeachment and conviction aren’t on the table, then the least our leaders—Republicans and Democrats alike—must do is stand together and speak with one clear, unmistakable voice in opposition.
Wake up, you're dreaming.
What needs to happen is the Democrats need to listen to their own rhetoric and actually take the threat seriously, instead of seeing an opportunity to win a narrow partisan victory for their extremists. They need to reconfigure into a truly majoritarian party, which will make the progressives unhappy, so it won't happen.
> Our credibility with Europe, already strained, will continue to erode if the world sees that American leadership is unwilling or unable to check reckless behavior.
Honestly, few care about our "credibility with Europe." And they've got too many of their own problems to be considered in such a superior position.
> Democrats need to listen to their own rhetoric and actually take the threat seriously, instead of seeing an opportunity to win a narrow partisan victory for their extremists.
I'm wondering what you call "their extremists". Seen from Europe all Republican candidates are extremists, and Democrats are centrists at best.
The deep blue ones who demand everyone check all their boxes.
> Seen from Europe all Republican candidates are extremists, and Democrats are centrists at best.
That seems like a warmed-over 90s perspective that's long past its sell-by. Aren't there "far right" parties in power or nearly in power in much of Europe, and at least one European country that's totally dominated by one?
> That seems like a warmed-over 90s perspective that's long past its sell-by. Aren't there "far right" parties in power or nearly in power in much of Europe, and at least one European country that's totally dominated by one?
Not even close. European politics is by design coalition politics there is no voting blue or red, you are voting for a party and if party has certain amount of votes it will get into parliament (except UK).
The thing is that you would need absurd amount of votes to get more than half of seats in parliament and govern as a single party. So what is normal in USA (one party rule) is exceptionally rare in Europe.
So even if you "win" elections, you need to establish coalitions with less extreme parties to actually achieve majority in government and to be able to modify laws. This will average out your program and will cut down extreme edges on both sides.
Dems elected majoritarian focused centrists in 2020. Harris did things like promise to have a republican in her cabinet and campaigned with Liz Cheney. Durbin intervened in judicial oversight to avoid making a big thing out of Clarence Thomas' bribes. Schumer refused to endorse Mamdani. The dems supported a bill to expand ICE.
And the big one: the Biden administration slow rolled prosecuting Trump for trying to install himself as president despite losing the election.
The majoritarians winning in 2026 and 2028 just repeats the failures of 2020. What we need is a serious response to fascism.
Bullshit. There were no democrat extremists. Insteat, democrats run as centrist and anodyne position as possible. And you still lie about it as it they run some kind of extreme position.
Trump won, because people like you will call his opposition extreme no matter what it does. And people like you will just try to push Trumps opposition into adopting his ideology, step by step.
Yep, that dipshit doesnt even grasp his own arguments implications.
When Kamala Harris left you no choice but to vote for Trump (bEcAu5e Sh3 1s eVEn wORs3!!1) then the problem is on the republicans side to bring up better candidates. When your political opponent makes mistakes, dont try to correct it, yet, all he talks about is what the dems should do.
> then the problem is on the republicans side to bring up better candidates.
Look: the Republicans are terrible, but Democrats have this bad habit of using that as an excuse to cover up their own shortcomings. They blame MAGA, blame Trump for not being better, instead of looking in the mirror and becoming a party that people like enough that it can win.
Any party that can't win handily against Trump, especially after all the scary warnings, is unfathomably incompetent and dysfunctional. IMHO a key part of that is that the party is beholden to ideologues on the far edge of the mainstream who keep it on a losing course.
For instance: we wouldn't be in this mess if "farm state Democrat" was a category that was still allowed to exist. I watched one of the last of those fall, and it appeared she was hemmed in by ideological out-of-state donors who prevented her from adapting to local conditions.
But what if these "local conditions" are the actual problem?
The left has generally two sides, the intelletual and emphatic side and the identity politics side about gender, etc. The right has only identity politics, decorated with fabricated bullshit to have a clear enemy/outgroup.
The left has actual constructive suggestions for improvement while the right fear mongers about in/out groups.
The democrats in total are certainly not perfect, esp. the old guard, that mostly fails to oppose trump proportionally to his megalomania. But there are (young) democrats that are _clearly_ better candidates and the internal frictions (sanders, mamdani) to unsuccessfully suppress them by the donor class clearly shows you which party is less corrupt.
Intellectual leftists have the problem that realitys complexity works against them while right wingers can just summon the next boogeyman. Republican voters are _literaly_ programmed on their enemy stereotypes! "Extreme left", "marxist/socialist/communist", down to, "critical race theory", "war on christmas", etc. All these cheap negative labels get thrown around to terminate critical thought and vote as the tribe does. That is the actual problem to fix and it is on the right!
Today, dipshits still run around arguing, that "this is what i voted for", while poverty, healthcare, etc. are still the most pressing issues. As long as democracies somewhat reflect the populus, democracies cannot fail by definition. When the dipshits dont get their heads cleared and educate themsels, eg. about actual migrant crime rates and their economic contribution, _they will fall for the next populist with the simpler 'answers'._
> But what if these "local conditions" are the actual problem?
They are not. I thought we were defending democracy? "Adapting to local conditions" means representing your constituents, not kowtowing to some far off group and lecturing your constituents that they really should want want you're offering.
One of the Democrats' problems is, ironically, a lack of diversity.
> Republican voters are _literaly_ programmed on their enemy stereotypes!
That kind of othering thinking is a pretty serious problem. If you think in such an unempathetic way, you're going to delude yourself. Your side isn't all kindness and light, and their side isn't all hateful automatons. You are all people, for fucks sake. How the fuck different are you really? Actually not much.
Oh, I am talking about democracies and lecturing. You are right, i have to be very careful with my othering/stereotypes but given the current state of afairs, i think im in a strong position to do so. Trump would have never gotten my vote.
My take about democracies not failing meant, only the people in it can fail. There is certainly some civic due diligence for electoral decisions. My tribalism discerns between people who at least try to come to an educated decision and dipshits. Ask yourself, why putin might start to love _our_ democracies again.
You could easily be better represented by some outsider convincingly lecturing you on important topics you didnt know you should care about, if you just cared to listen and think.
> They blame MAGA, blame Trump for not being better, instead of looking in the mirror and becoming a party that people like enough that it can win.
Democrats should blame MAGA and Trump more. No amount of rational policy messaging will help against MAGA and Trump when you let them set the framing. All of this is caused by MAGA and Trump. Not by democrats. By republicans and especially conservatives.
It is ridiculous abuser logic to blame your immoral choices on opposition for not opposing you better. Right wing people, including farm people, should have own moral agency. They are not toddlers and yes they should be blamed.
> especially after all the scary warnings, is unfathomably incompetent and dysfunctional
None of that was scary to republicans and conservatives. They found the warning appealing.
> we wouldn't be in this mess if "farm state Democrat" was a category that was still allowed to exist. I watched one of the last of those fall, and it appeared she was hemmed in by ideological out-of-state donors who prevented her from adapting to local conditions.
Oh please. Yes we would, in fact we would be in the bigger mess. We would had two fascist parties instead of one.
The local conditions are: must hate and badmount cities at every occasion, must be attracted to violence, must have wish to mistreat liberals and everyone to the left of Trump. Because if farms voted by their economic interests, they would not voted for Trump. They voted for them because they share the values.
> Democrats should blame MAGA and Trump more. No amount of rational policy messaging will help against MAGA and Trump when you let them set the framing. All of this is caused by MAGA and Trump. Not by democrats. By republicans and especially conservatives.
Sorry, they've done that so much that people have become deaf to it.
> It is ridiculous abuser logic to blame your immoral choices on opposition for not opposing you better. Right wing people, including farm people, should have own moral agency. They are not toddlers and yes they should be blamed.
Thinking like yours is a big reason the Democrats lose. "Me, change to become more effective? Of course not! Here's some moralistic gesticulating to justify myself."
You basically want to lean all in on negative campaigning. But bashing the other side doesn't cause people to support you. However, it's a really seductive option when you're unpopular and refuse to change. It's not a strategy, it's a cope.
> Oh please. Yes we would, in fact we would be in the bigger mess. We would had two fascist parties instead of one.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Despite your intentions, you're probably helping MAGA more than you hurt it.
> Sorry, they've done [critizing trump] so much that people have become deaf to it.
You switched again! From "dems do too little" to "they actually do too much"! And the best part: by talking about the quantity and theater around it, you dont have to face the content. Even when the message doesnt get amplified by billionares and distributed to their usefull idiots, that critizism about trump might still be very relevant and valid! NO MATTER HOW MUCH REP. THINK 'UFF, HEARD THIS BEFORE'!
> Thinking like yours is a big reason the Democrats lose
> You basically want to lean all in on negative campaigning
Dude, Trump is the one who ran with deportation! Precisely because he has no better constructive vision! I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU IN ANOTHER ANSWER, THAT THIS IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BT. THE PARTIES. Conservatives only have their identity politics and thus is constructing and enemy (migrants, antifa, liberals) THEIR ONLY SHTICK!
And because FoxNews and social media has grilled your brain so well, no matter what we "other" people say in response, in your head, it will be wrong. This entire subthread is just another case of insanity.
You cant imagine how frustrating this is. Conservatives need to grow an f'ing spine and oppose trump too, but reading your ad-hoc, brain-off replies ...
> You switched again! From "dems do too little" to "they actually do too much"!
Sorry to deny you your gotcha, but I haven't: they've done too much of some things, and far too little of the right things. It's not a one-dimensional axis of "doing."
> And because FoxNews and social media has grilled your brain so well [emphasis mine]
Weren't you the user I was talking to about othering? You're doing it again, and injecting your stereotypes without any kind of basis.
Just so you know: pretty much the only news media I consume is the New York Times.
> no matter what we "other" people say in response, in your head, it will be wrong. This entire subthread is just another case of insanity.
You're projecting. I'm well aware what you're saying, but I don't think you're being rational or realistic. You appear to be angry in-general and reaching for ideas that primarily indulge that anger and its biases.
> You cant imagine how frustrating this is. Conservatives need to grow an f'ing spine and oppose trump too, but reading your ad-hoc, brain-off replies ...
Speaking of brain-off replies... I think you need to step back and calm down. It appears you're thinking in a very black and white way, and jumping to the conclusion that someone who doesn't agree with you on strategy or tactics is a member of your "opposing team."
And I probably sound like a broken record, but thinking like yours is a big reason the Democrats lose. It's kinda Trumps superpower: he scrambles Democrats' brains, clouding their judgement, preventing effective responses (in addition on their pre-existing biases in that direction).
Ah yes, McConnell, that staunch critic of despotism in general and of Trump in particular, who had nothing to do with the chain of events that led us here, and who definitely never sells out his country, morality, and the greater good whenever expedient to his own benefit and that of his party.
Why aren’t our leaders speaking out more forcefully against these outrages? McConnell did give a speech pushing back, but it barely registered and wasn’t reported nearly enough. Yes, we made a grave mistake in electing the wrong person as president—but that doesn’t mean the country is obligated to sit silently for the next three years while he lurches from one dangerous blunder to the next.
If impeachment and conviction aren’t on the table, then the least our leaders—Republicans and Democrats alike—must do is stand together and speak with one clear, unmistakable voice in opposition. Failing to do so isn’t just political cowardice; it carries real consequences. Our credibility with Europe, already strained, will continue to erode if the world sees that American leadership is unwilling or unable to check reckless behavior.