I disagree that there is no value in talking about the 25 amendment. Of course it can’t happen (until and unless it does, just like every other crazy fucking thing that has already happened), but getting the public comfortable with idea that Trump SHOULD be removed is valuable. Democrats affirming that idea is valuable. Fake it till you make it, just like they do. One thing that led to us being in this mess is a lack of imagination. No one could IMAGINE that the unserious idiot could be elected over the incredibly smart, qualified woman in 2016. And here we are (x2).
The problem is that the complicit media is not broadcasting how this govt. is gaslighting the public. The biggest threat to our national security is the corrupt cabal in the White House. So keep talking about the 25th amendment that won’t meet fruition-it still spotlights a feckless Republican Party.
Pfeiffer once again with the coldest and blackest of bottom lines. Im so tired of the Democrats peddling fantastical scenarios I don’t know what to do with myself. We’ve seen what’s persuasive to voters, in New York, in Texas, in New Jersey etc. Talk about your new, practical ideas to make government work for people. Everything else is unhelpful.
Repeating 25A and/or Impeachment because Trump is insane puts it in the media's Overton window, hopefully to the point where we get "Biden is old" levels of coverage.
Yes neither are possible right now but impeachment and removal is a real possibility after the midterms. Repeating removal right now will set that up.
We're now 3 generations from the last world war. Our voters no longer know what war crimes are or think its a meaningful distinction. Similarly many voters are so used to Trump that his actions seems normal. So i think it helps to remind voters we must draw a line. we have a duty to consider what is unacceptable.
This is spot-on. The 25th amendment talk is like the impeachment talk - it's letting the voters off the hook. The American people voted him in (yeah, i know it was no one reading this who cast a ballot for him) we shall have to collectively resolve this through our selection of Congress.
How does the process of committing war crimes work? How is a leader officially branded war criminal? And if that leader is visiting a European nation can he be arrested on that soil? I know I’m probably just reaching for hope. Putin can’t set foot in the European Union, Canada, Brazil,Japan and Australia.
War crimes matter and should be a drumbeat against this admin along with Epstein pedo crimes.
Trump is a bullshitter. His Radicalized Republican Party knows this. They live to see the opposition squirm. When he pulls this shit they laugh. Is he a F&ck stick, yes. Voting for progressive thinkers … that’s how we get after these MFs. Not the 25th. Again, they laugh at anyone who says it. Put the time and energy and money into people and places who can effect change in this miserable rotten administration…vote them out as fast as possible.
I totally agree, it's not going to happen. He's impeachable and seems untouchable. Something will happen. He's going to implode and just take all the money and live in his derranged mind until some Republicans will stand up to him. I'm optimistic that it will happen; you can't give up on hope.
I was watching a documentary once called Air Force One (with Harrison Ford) and it didn’t mention the rest of the particulars beyond the VP and majority of the cabinet regarding the 25th
And the way I see it either discussion, the 25th amendment or simply the unconstitutional behavior of the GOP to allow this to continue, speaks to the incompetence of the Republicans in power….while I agree the later discussion is more on target, they both seem to get to the same conclusion?
Question, you state following the cabinet’s declaration of invoking the 25th amendment “A two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to keep the Acting President in place.” Is this correct? Is it a 2/3 majority to KEEP him in place or TO REMOVE HIM? Keeping him in place would not be the goal so why would it matter if we get 2/3 majority or not? Perhaps I am reading this wrong but thought worth the question. Thank you
Do you think a more achievable first step would be to find 9 House Republicans to give a vote of no confidence for Mike Johnson to remove him as Speaker? I think 9 majority members is needed based on the rules for this Congress. This may be the perfect time for the House to elect a Speaker who isn’t a member of the House…
Good, solid points Dan.... I have to agree that Congress needs to be held responsible for abdicating their responsibilities. At this point, they seem as crazy to me as Trump does, since they are no longer risking simply 'our country'. They are risking their financial solvency if the petrodollar falls, and they are risking themselves and their families if Trump gets us into a nuclear war. Russia is allied with Iran, after all.
Like many Dem columns this one doesnt mention that Hamas/Gaza, Houthis and Iran itself have also committed war crimes and in fact believe Israel and the US should not exist. The complaint that this is a meaningless war sounds one-sided and disconnected in light of the facts. You think one sided critiques unite the base when really it undermines Dem credibility with swing voters. Instead we should focus on the real benefits and tradeoffs of this war.
Absolutely agree, and well said! This is a crucial misguided approach by so many Democrats, especially those anti Israel Dems (sadly of which there are many) and the ridiculousness of "Democratic Socialism" that the vast majority of Americans do not want. Dems have republicans at their weakest in years but will not be able to capitalize on it, and that is a tragedy.
The threat of 'socialism' has come up in the past, especially toward the end of the 1920's when workers were treated brutally and we were in the midst of a 'gilded age'. It's no surprise that it has come up again -- it's actually pretty logical, when you consider how criminally predatory modern capitalism has become. The New Deal was enacted to save capitalism from itself. Now we're back in another 'gilded age'. I'm sorry, but 'Democratic Socialism' is what you get when capitalism starts to morph into feudalism.
OK, all good points, but name me 1 election where socialists have won. The New Deal was enacted to help people in terrible times, that the government could provide meaningful assistance to help folks get through awful times, a necessary series of programs, many of which remain today (eg, Social Security), but it was not done to save capitalism. FDR was not a socialist.
Hi Steve, thanks for your thoughts. I could be wrong, but I have read from historians that one of the reasons for the New Deal was to 'save capitalism' because of unrest and violence due to the extreme income inequality. Apparently people were starting to consider communism. Also, the word 'socialism' is now being used to describe virtually any program that helps people. FDR was not a socialist, but neither is Bernie Sanders even though he calls himself one. I'm no expert on socialism, but I think it means state control of the means of production. I need to read more on what 'Democratic Socialism' is, but I'm not sure it's the same thing as traditional socialism. I will say that Europe has more aspects of socialism than the US and seems to work a lot better for people. I agree that we should not move extremely the other way just because capitalism has become so extreme.
I disagree that there is no value in talking about the 25 amendment. Of course it can’t happen (until and unless it does, just like every other crazy fucking thing that has already happened), but getting the public comfortable with idea that Trump SHOULD be removed is valuable. Democrats affirming that idea is valuable. Fake it till you make it, just like they do. One thing that led to us being in this mess is a lack of imagination. No one could IMAGINE that the unserious idiot could be elected over the incredibly smart, qualified woman in 2016. And here we are (x2).
The problem is that the complicit media is not broadcasting how this govt. is gaslighting the public. The biggest threat to our national security is the corrupt cabal in the White House. So keep talking about the 25th amendment that won’t meet fruition-it still spotlights a feckless Republican Party.
Pfeiffer once again with the coldest and blackest of bottom lines. Im so tired of the Democrats peddling fantastical scenarios I don’t know what to do with myself. We’ve seen what’s persuasive to voters, in New York, in Texas, in New Jersey etc. Talk about your new, practical ideas to make government work for people. Everything else is unhelpful.
Hard disagree.
Repeating 25A and/or Impeachment because Trump is insane puts it in the media's Overton window, hopefully to the point where we get "Biden is old" levels of coverage.
Yes neither are possible right now but impeachment and removal is a real possibility after the midterms. Repeating removal right now will set that up.
We're now 3 generations from the last world war. Our voters no longer know what war crimes are or think its a meaningful distinction. Similarly many voters are so used to Trump that his actions seems normal. So i think it helps to remind voters we must draw a line. we have a duty to consider what is unacceptable.
Thank you, Dan, for the straight talk, clarifying how the 25th amendment actually works, and giving us a path forward!
This is spot-on. The 25th amendment talk is like the impeachment talk - it's letting the voters off the hook. The American people voted him in (yeah, i know it was no one reading this who cast a ballot for him) we shall have to collectively resolve this through our selection of Congress.
How does the process of committing war crimes work? How is a leader officially branded war criminal? And if that leader is visiting a European nation can he be arrested on that soil? I know I’m probably just reaching for hope. Putin can’t set foot in the European Union, Canada, Brazil,Japan and Australia.
War crimes matter and should be a drumbeat against this admin along with Epstein pedo crimes.
Trump is a bullshitter. His Radicalized Republican Party knows this. They live to see the opposition squirm. When he pulls this shit they laugh. Is he a F&ck stick, yes. Voting for progressive thinkers … that’s how we get after these MFs. Not the 25th. Again, they laugh at anyone who says it. Put the time and energy and money into people and places who can effect change in this miserable rotten administration…vote them out as fast as possible.
Spot on, Dan. People need to own their stuff, work hard, organize and vote this miscreants outta office.
I totally agree, it's not going to happen. He's impeachable and seems untouchable. Something will happen. He's going to implode and just take all the money and live in his derranged mind until some Republicans will stand up to him. I'm optimistic that it will happen; you can't give up on hope.
I was watching a documentary once called Air Force One (with Harrison Ford) and it didn’t mention the rest of the particulars beyond the VP and majority of the cabinet regarding the 25th
Besides that, the movie is air tight
And the way I see it either discussion, the 25th amendment or simply the unconstitutional behavior of the GOP to allow this to continue, speaks to the incompetence of the Republicans in power….while I agree the later discussion is more on target, they both seem to get to the same conclusion?
Question, you state following the cabinet’s declaration of invoking the 25th amendment “A two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to keep the Acting President in place.” Is this correct? Is it a 2/3 majority to KEEP him in place or TO REMOVE HIM? Keeping him in place would not be the goal so why would it matter if we get 2/3 majority or not? Perhaps I am reading this wrong but thought worth the question. Thank you
Do you think a more achievable first step would be to find 9 House Republicans to give a vote of no confidence for Mike Johnson to remove him as Speaker? I think 9 majority members is needed based on the rules for this Congress. This may be the perfect time for the House to elect a Speaker who isn’t a member of the House…
Good, solid points Dan.... I have to agree that Congress needs to be held responsible for abdicating their responsibilities. At this point, they seem as crazy to me as Trump does, since they are no longer risking simply 'our country'. They are risking their financial solvency if the petrodollar falls, and they are risking themselves and their families if Trump gets us into a nuclear war. Russia is allied with Iran, after all.
Like many Dem columns this one doesnt mention that Hamas/Gaza, Houthis and Iran itself have also committed war crimes and in fact believe Israel and the US should not exist. The complaint that this is a meaningless war sounds one-sided and disconnected in light of the facts. You think one sided critiques unite the base when really it undermines Dem credibility with swing voters. Instead we should focus on the real benefits and tradeoffs of this war.
Absolutely agree, and well said! This is a crucial misguided approach by so many Democrats, especially those anti Israel Dems (sadly of which there are many) and the ridiculousness of "Democratic Socialism" that the vast majority of Americans do not want. Dems have republicans at their weakest in years but will not be able to capitalize on it, and that is a tragedy.
The threat of 'socialism' has come up in the past, especially toward the end of the 1920's when workers were treated brutally and we were in the midst of a 'gilded age'. It's no surprise that it has come up again -- it's actually pretty logical, when you consider how criminally predatory modern capitalism has become. The New Deal was enacted to save capitalism from itself. Now we're back in another 'gilded age'. I'm sorry, but 'Democratic Socialism' is what you get when capitalism starts to morph into feudalism.
OK, all good points, but name me 1 election where socialists have won. The New Deal was enacted to help people in terrible times, that the government could provide meaningful assistance to help folks get through awful times, a necessary series of programs, many of which remain today (eg, Social Security), but it was not done to save capitalism. FDR was not a socialist.
Hi Steve, thanks for your thoughts. I could be wrong, but I have read from historians that one of the reasons for the New Deal was to 'save capitalism' because of unrest and violence due to the extreme income inequality. Apparently people were starting to consider communism. Also, the word 'socialism' is now being used to describe virtually any program that helps people. FDR was not a socialist, but neither is Bernie Sanders even though he calls himself one. I'm no expert on socialism, but I think it means state control of the means of production. I need to read more on what 'Democratic Socialism' is, but I'm not sure it's the same thing as traditional socialism. I will say that Europe has more aspects of socialism than the US and seems to work a lot better for people. I agree that we should not move extremely the other way just because capitalism has become so extreme.