General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: After 43 Years, Activists Admit Theft At FBI Office That Exposed Domestic Spying - NBCNews [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)I like to vote for a) Democrats, and b) Candidates who can WIN.
I don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I think that, after the 2008 election, if you remember, we got ourselves a new President.
You do understand what "impeachment" is, don't you? It's not frog marching, it's not jailing, it's not even fining--it's getting the person out of office. And even if you could get the razor-thin House to decide on charges, you seriously think you're going to get a super-majority of the Senate to try/convict? I have a bridge for sale, with four newly opened lanes in Fort Lee, NJ, if you believe that. Since the election accomplished getting the GOP out of the executive branch, "impeachment" was--quite sensibly-- off the table. You don't beat a dead horse, particularly when you spend taxpayer money to so do. It was pointless at that moment in time.
My "solution" is "elect more Dems." You might not like that, but that's how it's done. You do know that all appropriations begin in the House, nu? The GOP controls the American purse strings--they can hold up the budget, they can fail to fund social programs, they control the AGENDA to determine how spending happens. Or doesn't. You could have a hundred "D" Senators, but without control of the House (and I mean "control"--not a hair-thin majority, either) your agenda is b-l-o-c-k-e-d.
If you seriously think it would have made no difference (Goodbye, Equality! ACA? Fuggedaboutit!!!! Lily Ledbetter Act? Dream on! Hello Syria! Helllooooo, Iran! Welcome Back, Iraq! War Without End, Amen!) had Nutjob McCain/Palin won in 08, or rMoney/Lyin-Ryan in 12, then you can just have that doggone bridge for free. And there's no shame in taking the contributions of even "imperfect" independents, if they're willing to throw money at Dem PACS, to elect "more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office." It's why we're here, after all.