Just because Senate Republicans won’t convict didn’t mean the progressives and Democrats shouldn’t still impeachment and make a solid effort to hold Republicans accountable in manner that idiot America can understand.

They didn’t fail to convict him twice, they refused to convict him twice. And that is an important distinction to make.

He needs to be tried for treason- and punished accordingly. And then his remains need to be punished for raping children and launched into the fucking sun.

And every single mother-fucker that worked hard to circle wagons around his cowardly pathetic gelatinous ass need to go down with that ship.

put safeguards in place to keep this from happening again.

What safeguards will work against decades of oligarch-controlled media putting out fascist propaganda? What safeguards can Democrats put in with a mere majority when it takes a supermajority to make real changes?

Most importantly, and I hate to say it: What would Democrats do even if they had a su permajority when establishment Democrats are content to suck at the teat of the oligarchs?

While it’s worth the effort to elect Democrats, even establishment ones, because on economic issues they won’t help us much, on the issue of human rights in particular, there is a huge difference between the fascists and the establishment Democrats (and if that does’nt sound right, go read up on Christian nationalism and pay more fucking attention).

But even the bluest of blue waves is not going to help much on most fronts. But it will help on some fronts.

problem is impeachment is toothless it seems

i thought the houses could pass laws on their own but apparently that’s a supermajority as well so we’re fucked for 2 years

maybe the states can defederate and make a difference

Previous attempts did not have a majority of Democrats in either the house or the Senate, so it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. The Republicans will do anything to protect their own, even if it’s a felonious child molester rapist traitor— which it was and it is.

If the Democrats take back the house, which is pretty much certain at this point, and manage to also take a majority of the Senate, which is a distinct possibility, then they could actually both impeach and remove him from office.

Thusly, the conditions are much different now, or will be soon, allowing for actual meaningful change.

Then the question becomes: with President JD Vance with a vice president Mike Johnson actually be worse than Trump? Because that is a very real possibility. It might be better to severely censure President Trump and strip him of all power rather than to impeach and remove him from office. At least he’s a known quantity that can be contained with a Congress that actually uses its power. President JD Vance could turn out to be far worse than Trump because he’s not insane. And he’s actually far more evil than Trump.

I think the issue the last times was that Democrats took Omar’s advice too closely – “If you come at the King, you’d best not miss”, so they tried to focus their efforts on particular things they thought they could build a compelling story about: the Ukraine/Russia stuff in the first impeachment, and Jan 6 in the second. They didn’t fathom how Republicans would just ignore it all.

I used to be in the camp that if given a House majority, Democrats shouldn’t go there again. But I’ve changed my mind. They should definitely go there but this time put it all in. Every single thing that we all shook our heads and said “They wouldn’t have let anyone else getaway with it”. Send over 150 counts individually cited, with receipts.

If nothing else, if Republicans are in charge and summarily dismiss it, all the crazy shit they let him get away with will be on the record. And, if somehow Democrats gain control of the Senate, too, I’m sure Chuck (or whoever else is running things) will have no problem forcing a vote on each charge individually. Call it "Infrastructure Month " in the Senate…

If they can actually get an impeachment through it’d be one of the most significant moments in American political history.

Per your article:

The latest attempt, by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), garnered 147 votes to advance the measure, all from Democrats, in a vote earlier this month.

Eighteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting to table the articles, including some of the most conservative Democrats in the caucus like Representatives Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez — who have also twice broken with their caucus to help buoy Republican priorities in recent weeks. Another 46 Democrats voted “present,” including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York).

It was intentionally designed to be super difficult to impeach a sitting president, as the founders wanted to maintain political stability and discourage witch hunting by the majority party in Congress.

The problem is, it serves to maintain political inefficiencies. It creates lame-duck governments that accomplish nothing. The “stability” is just maintaining the status quo, and we’re stuck with incompetent or corrupt presidents for their entire term, as well as an inefficient, useless Congress. A lot of damage can be done in four years.

Personally, I think it needs to be a lot easier, like how other countries can oust a PM at any time for incompetence and/or corruption.

If establishment Dems gain a majority this midterm, we’re stuck with another lame-duck government for two more years, as it’s not a veto-proof majority that can impeach or make constitutional amendments.

That’s why I think the DSA are a good thing. Their platform includes abolishing the Senate. That would be a tremendous advance in making government more efficient at getting things done.

I mean they already voted for impeachment twice

Cell? Try the guillotine.