▲ 227 ▼ Trump Is in Open Revolt Against the Constitution (www.nytimes.com) submitted 2 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world 49 comments fedilink hide all child comments archived copy of the article
[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago (2 children) If they somehow managed to gain 2/3 majority in both congressional branches, then absolutely impeach him. Hell, they still may be able to if they gain a simple majority. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 child) For an impeachment to result in removal from office, you only need 1/3 of the House, but 2/3 of the Senate. Because only about 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in any given year, it's pretty much impossible for Democrats to get there in one election. So, even if Democrats take control of the Senate, they would need 15 or so Republicans to go along with it for it to stick. That is extremely unlikely. Overriding a Presidential veto takes 2/3 of both houses. But I think that is much more likely to happen if Democrats take control of both houses, because they can start negotiating with Republicans and put enough things for them to vote for in bills to reach that threshold. Members will have an easier time voting against the President in individual bills than they would on impeachment. I think he would actually be more pissed off if multiple vetoes get overridden than he would if they successfully impeach him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (1 child) If they flipped all 20 current Republican held seats this year, and keep all of the currently Democratic held seats, they could actually hit 69 Democrat Senators, but that's highly unlikely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) they could actually hit 69 Democrat Senators Not likely, but it would be.... .... Nice! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago Nice. Yes. The nicest part is that they would need 4 sacrificial lambs to keep maintaining the status quo, on every single vote, since 66 is Filibuster proof. permalink fedilink source parent [–] adarza@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago what is likely to happen. the opposing (to the white house) party, i.e. the democrats this go-around, gains control over congress. between needing cloture votes for everything in the senate, constant veto threats and the inability to override them, and a lunatic in the white house hell bent on total destruction and swiping everything he can possibly get his or his buddies' hands on.. congress literally cannot do anything to 'fix' anything, due to lack of votes within their own chambers. the corrupt administration continues being corrupt, perhaps even leveling-up their corruption stats even more. congressional democrats start investigations and hearings, but without bipartisan support--nothing could ever come from those. congressional republicants would blame 'nothing being done' by the unproductive session on the majority democrats. come 2028, it's a toss-up again for who and what wins.. it would be a toss-up, anyway, if the elections would be fair.. but they are already not going to be. so we're fucked. we're already raw and bleeding, but they're coming back for more. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 child) For an impeachment to result in removal from office, you only need 1/3 of the House, but 2/3 of the Senate. Because only about 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in any given year, it's pretty much impossible for Democrats to get there in one election. So, even if Democrats take control of the Senate, they would need 15 or so Republicans to go along with it for it to stick. That is extremely unlikely. Overriding a Presidential veto takes 2/3 of both houses. But I think that is much more likely to happen if Democrats take control of both houses, because they can start negotiating with Republicans and put enough things for them to vote for in bills to reach that threshold. Members will have an easier time voting against the President in individual bills than they would on impeachment. I think he would actually be more pissed off if multiple vetoes get overridden than he would if they successfully impeach him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (1 child) If they flipped all 20 current Republican held seats this year, and keep all of the currently Democratic held seats, they could actually hit 69 Democrat Senators, but that's highly unlikely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) they could actually hit 69 Democrat Senators Not likely, but it would be.... .... Nice! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago Nice. Yes. The nicest part is that they would need 4 sacrificial lambs to keep maintaining the status quo, on every single vote, since 66 is Filibuster proof. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (1 child) If they flipped all 20 current Republican held seats this year, and keep all of the currently Democratic held seats, they could actually hit 69 Democrat Senators, but that's highly unlikely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) they could actually hit 69 Democrat Senators Not likely, but it would be.... .... Nice! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago Nice. Yes. The nicest part is that they would need 4 sacrificial lambs to keep maintaining the status quo, on every single vote, since 66 is Filibuster proof. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) they could actually hit 69 Democrat Senators Not likely, but it would be.... .... Nice! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago Nice. Yes. The nicest part is that they would need 4 sacrificial lambs to keep maintaining the status quo, on every single vote, since 66 is Filibuster proof. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago Nice. Yes. The nicest part is that they would need 4 sacrificial lambs to keep maintaining the status quo, on every single vote, since 66 is Filibuster proof. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago what is likely to happen. the opposing (to the white house) party, i.e. the democrats this go-around, gains control over congress. between needing cloture votes for everything in the senate, constant veto threats and the inability to override them, and a lunatic in the white house hell bent on total destruction and swiping everything he can possibly get his or his buddies' hands on.. congress literally cannot do anything to 'fix' anything, due to lack of votes within their own chambers. the corrupt administration continues being corrupt, perhaps even leveling-up their corruption stats even more. congressional democrats start investigations and hearings, but without bipartisan support--nothing could ever come from those. congressional republicants would blame 'nothing being done' by the unproductive session on the majority democrats. come 2028, it's a toss-up again for who and what wins.. it would be a toss-up, anyway, if the elections would be fair.. but they are already not going to be. so we're fucked. we're already raw and bleeding, but they're coming back for more. permalink fedilink source parent