If Nukes are "on the table", why can't Impeachment be on the table?

[patrice]

It seems to me that if this country could possibly pay the ultimate moral price, not to mention the physical consequences of doing so, why don't we have the ultimate recourse to affect the conditions in which that might happen? That's a little lopsided isn't it?

[yurbud]

1. makes sense to me

[Selatius]

2. Because impeachment is something power fears.

Power is taken away. It is not given away. Impeaching a sitting president, if anything, sets a precedent for those who hold power and those who wish to hold power in the future. It represents losing a bit of power back to the people. If the goal is to consolidate power, this must not be tolerated.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

3. Quite a good argument..

But the impeachment of Clinton puts more than a few holes in that theory.

If things are truly as you say then the Repubs would never have impeached Clinton.

[Selatius]

6. It is from the point of exercising power.

I would argue the base of power in this country lies not in Washington but inside Wall Street. Clinton was a moderate, always triangulating and forcing Republicans to calibrate and recalibrate their plans as a consequence. The Republicans got some things done with Clinton, such as NAFTA that crushed workers and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that allowed even bigger corporate news outlets, but they were denied an opportunity to make more money through a new Cold War, which would become the War on Terror. Bush was a godsend for those desperately trying to justify hundreds of billions spent on war each year.

The only other power out there that rivals that is the people, but they are only partially awake at this point and are still largely slumbering.

[patrice]

4. I understand what you're saying, but . . .

that's NOT real power. Oh, if they only knew, how much greater the whole is than the sum of its parts, they'd swear off their addiction to oppression.

[redqueen]

5. Cause there's no profit in impeachment?

:shrug: