Censure Trump and be done with it? (1 Viewer)

I ended this thread in a question mark because I’m not sure about my thoughts on this and wanted some feedback. Based on the arguments below I’m leaning in this direction, but I haven’t fully committed to it. Here are my arguments: 

Against impeachment: 

1. It’s going to fail. 45 out of 50 Republican senators already voted to dismiss it. So that means that at least 12 of these same senators would then have to change their minds and vote to convict? That’s never going to happen. So Trump is going to be acquitted, again, and he and his supporters are going to take a victory lap, again. He might hold a rally to celebrate. He might end up, among Republicans, more popular than ever. Who wants to see that? I certainly don’t. 

2. Doesn’t matter, the argument goes. Put the man on trial in the Senate and let the chips fall where they may. If these senators vote to acquit him, put them on record. This was my reasoning a year ago. Except that this time the Republicans have a legitimate out: namely that impeachment of a guy already out of office is unconstitutional. They will cling to this position without having to offer any opinion about Trump’s actions. Are they right? I have no clue, But it’s a legitimate argument. Furthermore I think it’s one that’s easy to understand by the public and they’re at least somewhat sympathetic to it. Even my daughter, who detests Trump, asked me the other day, “But can they impeach him if he’s already out?” I answered, “They say they can” which sounded pretty lame to me.

3. The desired punishment for impeachment is that Trump will be restricted from running for office again. I’m uncomfortable with this. I regard Donald Trump as by far the worst President we’ve ever had. But there are millions of Americans who disagree with me. There are apparently millions of Americans who, after the last four years, even after the events of January 6, would choose to vote for him again! Do we have the right to stop them if that is their desire? This seems undemocratic to me and I don’t like it much for the same reasons I’ve never liked term limits. 
 

For Censure 

1. it will pass. 

2. If you’re looking to put Republicans on the spot (and I am; not for partisan reasons but because they need to confront the extremism in their midst before it completely corrupts their party IMO) then this vote would do it in a way that impeachment never would because they don’t have the unconstitutional out. 

3. I think many Republicans will vote to censure and while that will anger the Republican base it will also diminish Trump’s power and influence. I always go back to the Joe McCarthy analogy: he was censured after the Army-McCarthy hearing and was never the same. 

4. There is some talk that once impeachment fails THEN you censure him. And this is better than nothing. But an acquittal would weaken a censure vote, perhaps prevent it. Far less Republicans would be inclined to vote for it, and the public would be weary and probably indifferent by then. A censure now world be far more powerful. 

Anyhow, that’s where my head is at presently. Thoughts? 

Censure vote is already weakened...its more of a waste of time IMO than an impeachment that you know will fail.  The public is already pretty indifferent....so many have already forgotten about how about it was on January 6th or come up with other ways to explain it away and excuse Trump for any responsibility at all.

Id rather the trial happen...the evidence be clearly presented in public...a vote be held...then move on.

The impeachment is going to fail again, tons of time and money will be wasted again. Trump again will dominate the news cycle for months and possibly gaining more favor from people who think he was wronged.  I just want him to go away and not to hear about Trump anymore.

I would do the reverse.  Vote for censure, then after that succeeds, hold the impeachment trial.

Censure is an extremely weak response to inciting an insurrection. 

Dems should have worked a backroom deal that involved exchanging censure for 10 GOP votes on an expedited, beefier stimulus deal that they are otherwise going to get.

Stoneworker said:

Dems should have worked a backroom deal that involved exchanging censure for 10 GOP votes on an expedited, beefier stimulus deal that they are otherwise going to get.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you’re serious or not but no they shouldn’t have. This issue should not be subject to political gain. 

timschochet said:

Not sure if you’re serious or not but no they shouldn’t have. This issue should not be subject to political gain. 

Click to expand...

You don’t have to respond, but EVERYTHING these people do is for political gain 

And you know this

timschochet said:

Not sure if you’re serious or not but no they shouldn’t have. This issue should not be subject to political gain. 

Click to expand...

Whether or not it should be, that’s a serious consideration here.  The Dems are trying break apart Trump Republicans from other Republicans.  I think that’s one purpose of the impeachment trial.

Cowboysfan8 said:

You don’t have to respond, but EVERYTHING these people do is for political gain 

And you know this

Click to expand...

Not to the level of a trade for a stimulus deal. I think you know that’s a step too far for them (well for most of them anyhow). 

fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Whether or not it should be, that’s a serious consideration here.  The Dems are trying break apart Trump Republicans from other Republicans.  I think that’s one purpose of the impeachment trial.

Click to expand...

Sure. I just meant that you don’t trade a stimulus package for a censure. 

As to your point, as I wrote earlier, dividing apart Trump Republicans is a worthwhile goal IMO. But wouldn’t censure have a better shot of achieving that? 

timschochet said:

Sure. I just meant that you don’t trade a stimulus package for a censure. 

As to your point, as I wrote earlier, dividing apart Trump Republicans is a worthwhile goal IMO. But wouldn’t censure have a better shot of achieving that? 

Click to expand...

Dividing apart Republicans is a "worthwhile goal"...yet this issue should not be subject to political gain.

You are a walking contradiction.

dgreen said:

Censure is an extremely weak response to inciting and insurrection. 

Click to expand...

It is just a slap on the wrist. Seriously, there have been hundreds of censures of elected officials, but who remembers them? 

Stoneworker said:

Dividing apart Republicans is a "worthwhile goal"...yet this issue should not be subject to political gain.

You are a walking contradiction.

Click to expand...

Not specific worthwhile gain like a stimulus deal. 
And I stated why it’s a worthwhile goal to me earlier, and it’s not for partisan purposes. I desire a non-extreme Republican Party that espouses traditional conservative principles. It’s vital and healthy for our political system to have such a party which I would support with my vote on plenty of occasions, as I have in the past. The current state of the GOP, IMO, is decidedly unhealthy for our system.  

timschochet said:

As to your point, as I wrote earlier, dividing apart Trump Republicans is a worthwhile goal IMO. But wouldn’t censure have a better shot of achieving that? 

Click to expand...

I don’t think so.  Censure is pretty meaningless.  I don’t think most people would care either way how their Senator votes on it.

fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I don’t think so.  Censure is pretty meaningless.  I don’t think most people would care either way how their Senator votes on it.

Click to expand...

Only one President has ever been censured. I think it’s a bigger deal than you do. 
But even if you’re right- he’s going to be acquitted. So what’s the point of that? Isn’t censure, no matter how weak you think it is, better than nothing? 

i dont care about the game of it all and i really don't care about the success of the Democratic Party because it simply isnt a proper antidote to what i dont like about America today (greed, inequity &, most of all, corruption). i have therefore not spent much thought how to make the case for care & competence in governance, but i simply cant imagine that a major political party cannot do the right thing, hold evildoers to account and not make it all sound at least as good as the casuistry & xenophobia that The Game is all wrapped up in. no political party deserves a place at the table til they can

dgreen said:

Censure is an extremely weak response to inciting an insurrection. 

Click to expand...

This is where I come down.  Sometimes you just have to do the right thing, and if the opposition party decides to dig in their heels and block you, so be it.  Make them be the bad guys -- don't preemptively become the bad guy yourself.

Censure means nothing and is truly a waste of time. 

Impeachment may fail, but if so only because there will be people who ignore their oath they just took. It isn't a waste of time even if unsuccessful. It is an opportunity to educate people on what occurred Jan 6. Having things well laid out will cause at least some shift in public opinion. 

Also, impeachment already happened. It is the constitutional duty of the Senate to hold a trial. 

Drunken Cowboy said:

It is an opportunity to educate people on what occurred Jan 6. Having things well laid out will cause at least some shift in public opinion. 

Click to expand...

Thank you. This is the best argument I’ve read for impeachment and it’s a good rebuttal to what I put forth in the OP. Still leaning towards censure (at the moment) but I do find your position very compelling. 

IvanKaramazov said:

This is where I come down.  Sometimes you just have to do the right thing, and if the opposition party decides to dig in their heels and block you, so be it.  Make them be the bad guys -- don't preemptively become the bad guy yourself.

Click to expand...

He should have been censured a long time ago just for all the lies. Once he encouraged his followers to take action to fight against something that was based on his lies and those people followed through with what turned out to be a deadly attempt to illegally overthrow a democratic election, an official “you shouldn’t have done that” falls way short of a reasonable response. 
 

Making up for lost time.  

timschochet said:

I ended this thread in a question mark

Click to expand...

spoilers like this should be put in the thread title.  

timschochet said:

Sure. I just meant that you don’t trade a stimulus package for a censure. 

As to your point, as I wrote earlier, dividing apart Trump Republicans is a worthwhile goal IMO. But wouldn’t censure have a better shot of achieving that? 

Click to expand...

I’d trade a stimulus package for a bipartisan censure. But I guess that ship has probably sailed. 

Drunken Cowboy said:

Censure means nothing and is truly a waste of time. 

Impeachment may fail, but if so only because there will be people who ignore their oath they just took. It isn't a waste of time even if unsuccessful. It is an opportunity to educate people on what occurred Jan 6. Having things well laid out will cause at least some shift in public opinion. 

Also, impeachment already happened. It is the constitutional duty of the Senate to hold a trial. 

Click to expand...

I think you overestimate the ability to educate the public, or perhaps the willingness of the public to be educated. People still think the first impeachment was about allegations of Russian collusion and the Mueller report. 

It’s a sad day when political power holds sway over actually protecting the style of government that gives them that power.

timschochet said:

Only one President has ever been censured. I think it’s a bigger deal than you do. 
But even if you’re right- he’s going to be acquitted. So what’s the point of that? Isn’t censure, no matter how weak you think it is, better than nothing? 

Click to expand...

I want Republicans to have to vote on impeachment.

So you don’t think Trump lying and pushing conspiracy theories for 2 months about the very foundation of democracy, organizing a rally in DC to whip them into a frenzy and then releasing them on the Capitol knowing full well what would happen is disqualifying from running for president again?   Because millions of people would vote for him?

bigbottom said:

I think you overestimate the ability to educate the public, or perhaps the willingness of the public to be educated. People still think the first impeachment was about allegations of Russian collusion and the Mueller report. 

Click to expand...

You are not going to get everyone, but even a small change would be good. The first impeachment didn't have a real trial. 

zoonation said:

So you don’t think Trump lying and pushing conspiracy theories for 2 months about the very foundation of democracy, organizing a rally in DC to whip them into a frenzy and then releasing them on the Capitol knowing full well what would happen is disqualifying from running for president again?   Because millions of people would vote for him?

Click to expand...

I think it’s absolutely disqualifying, and also plenty of other things Trump has done are disqualifying. But should I have the right to force my opinion on other people? That’s the part I’m having trouble with. 

This is simple - No.

AAABatteries said:

This is simple - No.

Click to expand...

I do not think impeachment out of office is constitutional. That's a total guess. It seems to rise to the position of mootness and standing. This was my first thought upon hearing that they would impeach him once out of office. I could be totally wrong. Restricting him from running again also sounds really, really constitutionally thorny. Something about both just sound really hinky, and not something the Founders would have structurally intended, if you go for that sort of stuff.

I'd rather we figure out a way to keep this incompetent, anti-democratic man from running but I don't think we can do that constitutionally without becoming anti-democratic ourselves. Which may prove to be a fatal flaw over the next four years as the pandemic worsens with no end in sight and Joe Biden as the president.

I'm stunned over the amount of support he has. I never thought America would turn so anti-democratic while embracing the politics of personal struggle (whatever one thinks of the ludicrousness of it, it's still what they're doing) over country and constitution.

rockaction said:

 as the pandemic worsens with no end in sight 

Click to expand...

Not to change the subject but are you really this pessimistic? Why? 

timschochet said:

Not to change the subject but are you really this pessimistic? Why? 

Click to expand...

I'm absolutely no expert so probably best not to open that can of worms. I know they're having trouble rolling out the vaccine in CA and that Johnson and Johnson is getting news with its 72% effective rate. I can only imagine who gets that and how happy they'll be.

Just off-the-cuff, really. I think people saw the word 'vaccine' and thought it would be a matter of months now before life got back to normal. It won't be, in my estimation. It'll be another full year or so. That has political ramifications, of course, and they're not good for the party in charge. (I wish them well, because then life can get back to normal, which is all I want. New president, new day, less virus.)

eta* "no end in sight" was a poor choice of words. "Uncertain future" would be better.

rockaction said:

I'm absolutely no expert so probably best not to open that can of worms. I know they're having trouble rolling out the vaccine in CA and that Johnson and Johnson is getting news with its 72% effective rate. I can only imagine who gets that and how happy they'll be.

Just off-the-cuff, really. I think people saw the word 'vaccine' and thought it would be a matter of months now before life got back to normal. It won't be, in my estimation. It'll be another full year or so. That has political ramifications, of course, and they're not good for the party in charge. (I wish them well, because then life can get back to normal, which is all I want. New president, new day, less virus.)

Click to expand...

I think that’s what we all want. The vaccine distribution is going about how I anticipated: frustratingly slow at first with a lot of incompetent delays, but speedily later on. I think normal comes by next fall. We’ll see. 

rockaction said:

I do not think impeachment out of office is constitutional. That's a total guess. It seems to rise to the position of mootness and standing. This was my first thought upon hearing that they would impeach him once out of office. I could be totally wrong. Restricting him from running again also sounds really, really constitutionally thorny. Something about both just sound really hinky, and not something the Founders would have structurally intended, if you go for that sort of stuff.

I'd rather we figure out a way to keep this incompetent, anti-democratic man from running but I don't think we can do that constitutionally without becoming anti-democratic ourselves. Which may prove to be a fatal flaw over the next four years as the pandemic worsens with no end in sight and Joe Biden as the president.

I'm stunned over the amount of support he has. I never thought America would turn so anti-democratic while embracing the politics of personal struggle (whatever one thinks of the ludicrousness of it, it's still what they're doing) over country and constitution.

Click to expand...

He's already been impeached. I know you know that but its still important to use the word the right way.

Yankee23Fan said:

He's already been impeached. I know you know that but its still important to use the word the right way.

Click to expand...

Very true. I think a little lax thought led to that, actually. Impeachment articles in the House then Senate trial then decision. 

It also is likely true that it is constitutional, upon a finding of guilt, to prevent that person from holding office again, per sources.

timschochet said:

For Censure 

1. it will pass. 

2. If you’re looking to put Republicans on the spot (and I am; not for partisan reasons but because they need to confront the extremism in their midst before it completely corrupts their party IMO) then this vote would do it in a way that impeachment never would because they don’t have the unconstitutional out. 

3. I think many Republicans will vote to censure and while that will anger the Republican base it will also diminish Trump’s power and influence. I always go back to the Joe McCarthy analogy: he was censured after the Army-McCarthy hearing and was never the same. 

4. There is some talk that once impeachment fails THEN you censure him. And this is better than nothing. But an acquittal would weaken a censure vote, perhaps prevent it. Far less Republicans would be inclined to vote for it, and the public would be weary and probably indifferent by then. A censure now world be far more powerful. 

Anyhow, that’s where my head is at presently. Thoughts? 

Click to expand...

None of those are reasons for censure. 

timschochet said:

... Put the man on trial in the Senate and let the chips fall where they may.....

Anyhow, that’s where my head is at presently. Thoughts? 

Click to expand...

If Trump is put on trial post POTUS, then it means all former POTUS still alive are free game.

That means every last single dirty thing that the DOJ, FBI, SEC and IRS have ignored for years and years is not going to be pushed aside any longer. If the DNC wants to bracket Trump, there is close to no way that Bill Clinton survives this without going to prison. W. Bush will also get dragged through the coals. The bigger problem is Barack Obama. If you put him on trial for that gunrunning idiocy that was Operation Fast And Furious, you'll see out of control rioting in every major city in the country without end. It will be seen and promoted as an open attack against Black America. You think Cullors and BLM wouldn't salivate to have that kind of media narrative running for years to pork barrel influence, immediate daily entry to the current news cycle and massive profit?

What did Omar Little say? If you come at the King, you best not miss.

If the DNC hard rolls Trump and fails again, it will galvanize Trump's base and push many moderates/undecideds to his side after his media team runs every last DNC related scandal that wasn't prosecuted through the rails. He just needs to start with the DNC/Debbie Wasserman Schultz/Bernie Sanders/WikiLeaks cluster #### where the DNC primaries were rigged via open money laundering and tax fraud and the public will retch in disgust.

A trial could take YEARS. Do you want years of Trump invading the daily media cycle to crash and burn everyone in his way? He no longer has any incentive to hold onto any dirt he's been holding onto for decades in big business, nor anything he learned while in the White House. It will be the political version of Jose Canseco screaming steroids in baseball. Some people might hate Trump, but just because people hate him doesn't mean everything he's going to say can't be proven and can't end up being devastating to the entire DNC.

More than anything, Trump WANTS THIS FIGHT. He's a narcissist, this is his narcissist supply. Trying to prosecute him is giving him exactly what he wants.

This is hilarious beyond belief. The DNC has been calling Trump a criminal for the last four years. So if they don't try to prosecute him, even if it's not constitutional, they look weak and toothless. If they do, they are calling in an airstrike on themselves. They backed themselves into a corner.

It takes complete arrogance and utter tone deaf ignorance of the total fallout for the DNC to think they can go on the hunt and not end up the prey themselves. Putting on an orange vest and being veiled in moral superiority won't stop a cornered animal from savagely tearing you apart root to stem.

GordonGekko said:

If Trump is put on trial post POTUS, then it means all former POTUS still alive are free game.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that. Trump was impeached while he was still president, not after he was out of office. 

If by censure you mean jail I'm in.

Jail that is in the easier said than done. As critics and pundits say he would not spend a second in jail.

timschochet said:

Only one President has ever been censured. I think it’s a bigger deal than you do. 
But even if you’re right- he’s going to be acquitted. So what’s the point of that? Isn’t censure, no matter how weak you think it is, better than nothing? 

Click to expand...

Never could stand ol' whatshisname.

timschochet said:

I think it’s absolutely disqualifying, and also plenty of other things Trump has done are disqualifying. But should I have the right to force my opinion on other people? That’s the part I’m having trouble with. 

Click to expand...

Who people would or would not vote for is irrelevant.  And you can’t force your opinion “on” anyone anyway.  

This is already dead in the senate.  The only purchase this has is to say that one stood up for the foundational principles of democracy.  Win or lose.  Has to be done.

Politics is the new American religion.  So it won’t be.  You shall worship no other gods.  

rct said:

No, it doesn't mean that. Trump was impeached while he was still president, not after he was out of office. 

Click to expand...

It should also be mentioned that no Congress is going to waste the time to actually attempt what GG apparently is saying they might do. Not to mention that it’s not an impeachment at this stage anyway, since they’re not in office.

I wasn't for the impeachment in the first place.  However, what's done is done.  If I were Schumer I'd try to get to a vote as soon as possible by limiting arguments and witnesses.  Let's not make this any more of a spectacle than it has to be.  Everyone knows what happened. 

We need to stop talking about Trump and move on.

Juxtatarot said:

I wasn't for the impeachment in the first place.  However, what's done is done.  If I were Schumer I'd try to get to a vote as soon as possible by limiting arguments and witnesses.  Let's not make this any more of a spectacle than it has to be.  Everyone knows what happened. 

We need to stop talking about Trump and move on.

Click to expand...

I was for it and still am but agree with the rest.  There could be video of Trump telling protesters to storm the capitol and they wouldn’t vote against him.  Let them own it with a vote and they’ll continue to see results like Georgia.

AAABatteries said:

I was for it and still am but agree with the rest.  There could be video of Trump telling protesters to storm the capitol and they wouldn’t vote against him.  Let them own it with a vote and they’ll continue to see results like Georgia.

Click to expand...

That’s what’s puzzling to me. A party has all but sworn fealty to one man, who was easily the most divisive figure in a century and a half, and instead of realizing their error, they’re doubling and tripling down all for the sake of that man who lost both popular votes he ran in by millions of votes, saw the House flip at the midterms, and actually got me to vote Democrat for president for the first time in my life.

Juxtatarot said:

I wasn't for the impeachment in the first place.  However, what's done is done.  If I were Schumer I'd try to get to a vote as soon as possible by limiting arguments and witnesses.  Let's not make this any more of a spectacle than it has to be.  Everyone knows what happened. 

We need to stop talking about Trump and move on.

Click to expand...

Exactly the opposite with almost all of this. Everyone doesn't know what happened. Most people are severely mis or underinformed about what is even publicly known. Even an accurate recounting of the timeline of events on Jan 6 would be very informative to the public. 

More importantly, there is still a ton that is not publicly known about Jan 6 events. Every new thing that comes out is more and more damning. The handling of The National Guard needs a lot of sunshine on it. There is still tons of video that hasn't been released. People need to understand just how violent this was. It is still being described a a peaceful event by many people.