For those with balls massively tiny enough to still identify as Democrats (not the ones who play them on tv but their viewers), the question as to whether to impeach the president or not rests on being shit-scared (or not) that it'll boost his election chances. Naturally there are still people who'll parrot professional pundits they heard to back up their opinions as to the procedure of impeachment, its not-so-much "the law" aspect but nonetheless necessary remedy for problems that presidents present when they endanger good governance and the safety of their citizens. The former of those two stances is in my opinion, whether or not it represents the tinier of the two teeny testicle contingents, at least a fear based on experience. Notoriously corrupt presidents do tend to get reelected. Maybe that's part of the job description.
I say impeach the fucker, but what do I know? My experience says it probably will benefit him come November next year but my experience says a lot of shit that amounts to nothing but supposition unsupported by adequate evidence to be supposing in any way upon which one should rely. You can't really rely on things out of your hands. Politics is definitely in that category, with its intermediate steps of control over any organized effort to change the most pernicious continuities of the status quo. The latter of the above named cojones-light constituencies should be aware by now that the results of "procedure" followed by their feckless factions in the well of Congress are an Escheresque stairwell, being anyone's guess where it leads. Maybe that's why they're so keen to guess.
For me (this much you can predict), the irritating thing about impeachment is that it hasn't been used more often. I can think of decent grounds to've impeached every one who wears the White House on his resumé, and if it's true that the previous few Democratic administrations were unable to achieve their goals because Republicans ground procedure to a halt, then what fucking difference does it make if you impeach every one of their party's occupants?
So here we have Puh-lesey (small d), whose tenure as leader of the moderate bearing brigade began as a means to check the criminal in the W. White House, which she made sure did not happen. As a consequence they've brought her back to ensure the same — at least that should be one plausible theory — and for quite a while she did not disappoint. Now that she's suddenly on board with "investigations" into the possibility of impeachable-ness, one deigning to be interested in such matters should want a reliable truthful answer to the question "What has changed?"
There are a lot of plausible answers, the least plausible of which, independent of its truth, is that Don Prez has done something more provably impeachable. As always, "pressure of politics" is the most plausible part of it. That is, the butttweeter who cannot quit finally forced her hand.
But we'd be ignoring a plausible elephant if we didn't consider that this time it's personal given that the alleged prospective party front runner to ascendancy to the holy unimpeachable office was at the center of the attack upon the American brand of democracy. And if the whistleblower who would bolster Biden were to go to prison, the "centrists" who've shown selective interest at best and anyway've done nothing to protect people who expose the nastiness in their midst will act as if the end of America is finally at hand. Not that everybody isn't shouting that already. I don't think it's plausible that it'd come to that, but in brethrence to the humans of the amateur expertise of testicular misfortune, I too hafta say you gotta impeach him. Right?
I don't buy the premise of national security as it is presented, but do you really think that the jackass of The Apprentice has damaged the security of the US more than his predecessor's predecessor? Can you predict the precedent that impeaching now would set as it concerns the threshold and/or quality of offense it takes to "spur Congress into action"?
Either way, the precedent or lack thereof are net negative. The shit they get away with would be emboldened by their tossing him out, and not tossing him out is like an Ollie Ollie in come free kick in the already deflated balls.
I say impeach the fucker, but what do I know? My experience says it probably will benefit him come November next year but my experience says a lot of shit that amounts to nothing but supposition unsupported by adequate evidence to be supposing in any way upon which one should rely. You can't really rely on things out of your hands. Politics is definitely in that category, with its intermediate steps of control over any organized effort to change the most pernicious continuities of the status quo. The latter of the above named cojones-light constituencies should be aware by now that the results of "procedure" followed by their feckless factions in the well of Congress are an Escheresque stairwell, being anyone's guess where it leads. Maybe that's why they're so keen to guess.
For me (this much you can predict), the irritating thing about impeachment is that it hasn't been used more often. I can think of decent grounds to've impeached every one who wears the White House on his resumé, and if it's true that the previous few Democratic administrations were unable to achieve their goals because Republicans ground procedure to a halt, then what fucking difference does it make if you impeach every one of their party's occupants?
So here we have Puh-lesey (small d), whose tenure as leader of the moderate bearing brigade began as a means to check the criminal in the W. White House, which she made sure did not happen. As a consequence they've brought her back to ensure the same — at least that should be one plausible theory — and for quite a while she did not disappoint. Now that she's suddenly on board with "investigations" into the possibility of impeachable-ness, one deigning to be interested in such matters should want a reliable truthful answer to the question "What has changed?"
There are a lot of plausible answers, the least plausible of which, independent of its truth, is that Don Prez has done something more provably impeachable. As always, "pressure of politics" is the most plausible part of it. That is, the butttweeter who cannot quit finally forced her hand.
But we'd be ignoring a plausible elephant if we didn't consider that this time it's personal given that the alleged prospective party front runner to ascendancy to the holy unimpeachable office was at the center of the attack upon the American brand of democracy. And if the whistleblower who would bolster Biden were to go to prison, the "centrists" who've shown selective interest at best and anyway've done nothing to protect people who expose the nastiness in their midst will act as if the end of America is finally at hand. Not that everybody isn't shouting that already. I don't think it's plausible that it'd come to that, but in brethrence to the humans of the amateur expertise of testicular misfortune, I too hafta say you gotta impeach him. Right?
I don't buy the premise of national security as it is presented, but do you really think that the jackass of The Apprentice has damaged the security of the US more than his predecessor's predecessor? Can you predict the precedent that impeaching now would set as it concerns the threshold and/or quality of offense it takes to "spur Congress into action"?
Either way, the precedent or lack thereof are net negative. The shit they get away with would be emboldened by their tossing him out, and not tossing him out is like an Ollie Ollie in come free kick in the already deflated balls.
