International Relations

To impeach or not to impeach?

2019-05-31 09:58 #0 by: Max

Anyone who open mindedly reads or reviews the Mueller Report is likeky to conclude that their are strong grounds for impeaching President Trump. Whether it makes sense for Democrats to initiate proceedings is now the crucial question. Given the supine state of the Republican Party, it's probable that short or some very damning evidence being unearthed (not impossible if they ever get hold of his tax returns), the requisite super majority in the Senate is unlikely to be obtained and Nancy Polosi is worried that a failed effort will play into Trump's hands and provide him with a victim narrative that will hand him victory in 2020. Others are comming round to the view that impeachment proceedings are necessary to force the required testimony and evidence to hold the President tp account or that the Democrats habe a moral duty to at least initiate proceedings. So whonis right?

2019-05-31 10:23 #1 by: Evelina

Im not sure what the right thing to do is. But I sure hope the 2020 election will turn things around for the country. 😅😭

2019-06-01 12:08 #2 by: Niklas

This is about strategy. There have been impeachments of US presidents twice before. None of them were convicted. Therefore the Democrats likely view the possibility of convicting Trump as slim. An impeachment without a conviction is almost certain to strengthen Trump. Instead Democrats put their efforts on winning the next election.

So, wrong or right depends on what you think is right. If getting Trump out of the White house as fast as possible is the overarching goal, beating him in the next election probably is a better bet than trying to impeach him.

2019-06-03 18:09 #3 by: jordan

From an outsiders view, it seems like Trump has done enough damage on his own to hinder his bid for re-election. I assume that this is part of their thought process with regard to pressing any charges against him now. Maybe they see it as an unnecessary risk to take at this point?

2019-06-04 08:13 #4 by: Niklas

#3: The problem is that half the population doesn’t agree that he’s done damage. They are behind him no matter what he does.

2019-06-04 23:26 #5 by: jordan

#3 Doesn't the American electoral system mean that a different outcome is likely next election? I'm sure a few heads have turned, hopefully in some of the swing states that Trump was not expecting to win.

2019-06-05 07:48 #6 by: Niklas

#5: No, the system makes it more likely that there is a status quo, statistically speaking. An American president is allowed to stay for two terms (eight years). Trump is on his first term. Sitting presidents usually have an edge over other nominees. People know what they have but not what they will get if they pick someone else.

2019-06-05 21:27 #7 by: jordan

#6 How so? The same thing can happen in the UK (the two term thing), but I wouldn't say they have any particular advantage unless they call an election early, which is rare nowadays.

2019-06-06 07:47 #8 by: Niklas

#7: Including Obama, 16 of 26 presidents running for a second term have been re-elected. To me that suggests sitting presidents have an edge when they get into the presidential race again.

» For U.S. Presidents, Odds for a Second Term Are Surprisingly Long


There is anohter comment in this discussion. It is, however, only visible for logged in members. To read the comment, log in or register to become a member.