As for impeachment, remember, "IOKIYAR" is not just a witty abbreviation you see on DU and elsewhere

[DFW]

It is also a sacred creed by which the Republican Party lives, and every last one of them believes it as devoutly as they believe anything else.

So even if Trump come through with his promise, and actually DOES shoot someone on live TV on prime time, they will NOT impeach him willingly, because IOKIYAR. Really! If they do impeach under pressure from their constituents, the Republican majority in the Senate will NOT remove a sitting Republican president (blackmail from Putin or a massive public outcry might succeed where emails to McTurtle will not). Trump might resign, saying "my work here is done," but that is about the only way he's leaving of his own free will. It's not that he is unaware of the truth, but as long as he doesn't feel like believing it, then the people adore him and so he'll bow to their "will" and stay.

They may want to sentence Hillary to 15 to life for littering, but no matter what Trump does, including fondling their wives during religious services, IOKIYAR ("Honey, you just shouldn't have come ON to him like you did...&quot . As long as that is true (and it will remain true for a LONG time), there won't be any impeachments in the near future without something far more drastic than all that has come out so far.

[Tatiana]

1. The only thing that will change their minds is a threat to their own power.

They won't go down with the sinking ship. This really is Nixonian, in a sense.

The Republicans are selfish and craven. If they think it will help save their own seat, they will vote for impeachment. Even in their gerrymandered districts, Republicans in the House are feeling pressure as characterized by the shouts of "DO YOUR JOB!"

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Alas, my dear DFW, I believe that you're correct.

It's a damned shame too.

[leftstreet]

3. IOKIYAR has lowered everyone's expectations

for us and even the Democrats in power

sadly

[mainstreetonce]

4. What about the possibility

They would have Pence and a VP of their choice. They would be much easier to control than
Trump.
I could see the R's wanting to rid themselves of Trump and all his problems.

[DFW]

6. I'm sure they'd LOVE to be rid of Trump and his antics

What they do NOT want is the precedent of Republicans removing a Republican president. That could give a corrupt (but sane) future Republican president reason to pause before acceding to illegal (but justifiable) demands from some big money donor.

The last thing they want to do is give their party pause, and make them think that being too corrupt or incompetent might cross a line even Republicans don't want crossed. There IS no limit to their toleration of corruption or incompetence. They're fine with all that. What they can't abide is a combination of instability and unpredictability.

What should happen if such a president should, God forbid, acquire a CONSCIENCE?? Dick Cheney made sure it would never happen to GW Bush, but Trump tells anyone and everyone to fuck off if he gets it into his head that he is correct. What if, on one of those "broken clock is right twice a day" moments, Trump should decide to save the environment from some impending pollution disaster that might be caused by one of his business friends? There is no Dick Cheney around now, and even Bannon can be shoved aside if Trump decides he wants to overrule Bannon on this one issue, just to see how it feels?

You don't think we'll form a temporary alliance with him if it means saving polar ice or stopping drilling off the Virginia coast? We'd look over our shoulder every second, but we'd gladly work with him if he was sincere. The Republicans, on the other hand, would probably plot his assassination, as impeachment is a cumbersome process, and bullets are cheap.

[solara]

5. IOKITAR - is that the same as

IACIYAD ?

(It's a crime if your'e a Democrat)


[img][/img]

[pansypoo53219]

7. need to tar the teevee gnewz w/ MONEYED MEDIA.

collusion is real.

[gratuitous]

8. You're probably right

But that doesn't mean we let up. There's blood in the water, and we know that President Trump doesn't handle losing very well. I have heard reports, anecdotal to be sure, that there are any number of local offices for elected officials that have been positively besieged with people eager to have their voices heard. Unless your elected official is a total Gohmert, direct citizen contact has an effect, and sustained contact from a whole lot of citizens has a cumulative effect. Elected officials who ignore their constituents often become former elected officials.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

9. what does it mean?

[LeftInTX]

11. It's OK If You Are Republican

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

12. Aha!

Thanks!

[LeftInTX]

10. Can they just ex-communicate him?

Then, he won't be a Republican

[DFW]

14. That would only be a transparent gesture

He is a loudmouthed, insecure, egocentric boor who thinks the only measures of a person's true worth are measured in terms of wealth, influence and power.

In other words, he remains a Republican, no matter what they do to him.

[First Speaker]

13. Sooner or later, either the GOP, in its present form, will have to go...

...or liberal democracy will. This is a helluva place to be, a helluva way to feel. But sooner or later, liberal democracy's Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor moment will come around. Maybe very soon. I wish I could say that we'll win again, as we did then, but I'm not so sure this is the case. Robert Heinlein, in *Revolt in 2100*, postulated a century of theocratic totalitarianism in the US, followed by revolution. Maybe this is our fate...

[DFW]

15. Having lived in and gone to school in Spain, I am reminded of the summer of 1936

At a rally just before the start of the insurrection, some fascist officer got up and ended his speech with an enthusiastic "¡Viva la muerte!" which was somehow supposed to glorify the cause of war.

Basque author Miguel de Unamuno, aged and near death, spoke next. He trashed the military guy and his "¡Viva la muerte!" attitude, and having nothing to lose, spoke his mind:

"Ustedes vencerán, porque poseen la fuerza bruta, pero no convencerán."

The wordplay vencerán/convencerán works far better in Spanish, since the word "Convince" is made by adding a prefix onto the word for "Conquer," but what Unamuno said was this:

"You people will conquer, because you possess brute force, but you will not convince."

The fascists reigned under Franco until 1975, but the modernizing world around Spain didn't leave it unaffected. By the time the 1970s came, the cocky fascist General Franco knew his era had passed, and he told his successor, King Juan Carlos, "you will be able to do things I never could have done." As opposed to his view as a conquering fascist in 1939, he meant it in a positive way in 1975. Unfortunately, Spain passed through a very dark era to get there. I don't want the USA to pass through that kind of a dark era. We may not emerge from it in time to remain a viable country.