An idea to get Trump to resign without institutional crisis

They are not all Trump supporters. There are people who wanted violence in Portland. There were people who wanted violence in June 2020 riots all over the country. It goes on and on.

It’s not logical to believe all of the sudden, because it was the the Capitol assaulted and not Senate Offices, all the people who participated in, encouraged, and failed to denounce violence the last few years all the sudden oppose violence.

All the violence by both sides has a common purpose. Everyone who’s chosen sides is unable to admit it.

 

If Pence resigned, it would make Pelosi the President; the Right would never forgive that. Pence is trying to preserve his political aspirations for the future. No way in hell he resigns the Presidency of the United States, even for a day.

For that matter, you transfer your debilitating Nox ludibriophobia to VP Pence, a.k.a, Fly-head. He can handle the idea of being the butt of a late night host's jokes, or he wouldn't be at his level in politics.

Still, I have, till now, not seen any upside, overall, for Pence's granting of this pardon, so was in agreement w/ your opinion. But the only constant is change, & I intend on discussing this further w/ the thread's host, Centerfield, if you care to listen in, as a Pence on the wall.

 

We need more true repubs to realize that and to react.

Impeaching Trump is now getting urgent: the FBI has now discovered a conspiracy ( a real one for a change!) against all 50 state capitols. Trump cannot be counted on to take all necessary measures to protect them. On the contrary, he's still (today in Texas) delivering his lies and the hateful messages he knows fully well will excite his mobsters.

 

He did?
When?
Cite the source and copy/paste the text to that effect.

 

@CenterField

It feels as if the ground may be shifting, on the Republican turf. So maybe this thread was not nearly as fantastical as I first called it. According to Pulitzer- winning, WAPO journalist, & MSNBC commentator, Ashley Parker, there are 10 - 20 Republican Senator yes-votes on impeachment.This will only be reinforced, if McConnell's latest (private) comments, which are being widely reported, are sincere. Mitch supposedly said he is glad the Dems are impeaching Trump, because it will aid in their pruning him from the Party.

There's a very true observation, that I will attempt to paraphrase, that says that change generally takes a lot longer than one expects (or would believe it should take) to happen but, when it does, usually occurs a lot more quickly than anyone would imagine possible.

I'm now hearing, w/ Liz Cheney (the #3 House Repub) going on the record, in favor of impeachment (as only the 2nd R.), semi-serious predictions of 20 - 30 House Repub. House votes for impeachment.

This raises the prominence of Mike Pence, in your hypothetical. Perhaps it's worth, at least, our re-examining the pros & cons behind a potential Pence pardon (though I'm definitely not seeing it, yet).

 

That’s your opinion. A very strong argument can be made for FDR’s appeasement of Hitler being much more impactful on US national security. Many would say WW2 was a pretty big deal in relation to US national security.

As far as the environment, Woodrow Wilson likely oversaw the most destructive environmental policy in US history. Policy intended to create cheap, plentiful food for the world led to adoption of farming practices that today still result in losses of up to 3 tons of topsoil per acre per year. Topsoil is by mass the US’s major export, and we see no compensation for it’s exportation.

You are just repeating catch phrases and opinions of others. In contrast, my positions have basis in actual historical facts—facts you are either unaware of or are in denial of.

As I said, ten years ago I was in as much denial as you are today. I had chosen a side. It did not benefit me in any way. If you see my advocacy for self determination as barking from the sidelines, that’s your right. But I can tell you from personal experience you’d be happier off the roller coaster ride.

What if we reformed both? If we dumped both, what would fill the vacuum? If we began to dump both, would they not be inclined to reform? Who knows. But what we have now isn’t getting much good policy enacted, is it?

Well, you declared I’m a cynic, which I’m not. You declared I’m nihilistic, and I’m the opposite of nihilistic. You implied I’m apathetic, which I am not. You’ve even admitted:

A realist accepts reality and takes action to deal with reality. I’ve accepted neither party “cares about me” and both make promises and offers to me in exchange for my vote they have no intention of delivering. I’ve taken the action of pursuing more self determination and less reliance on government, and I’ve succeeded. Not only financially and in the “happiness department”, but in my ability to actually practice liberalism and socialism in their healthy forms. You don’t need “policy” to be happy. You don’t need “policy” to practice liberalism, socialism, charity, or provide education to others.

Some are blinded to logic and evidence. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

You are correct. People here are too emotionally involved to see it. I understand. As I’ve said elsewhere, I couldn’t see it in the past.

At this point I don’t believe the endgame is making Trump supporters look bad. It’s what civil unrest gives government the “ability” to do. There’s been far too much investment in normalizing riotous and violent behavior for this to be about Trump or Trump supporters. The foundations of this normalization have been under construction for decades. It began long before Trump was even on the radar as a candidate. Trump just made things easy.

 

That piece of s.... Mike Pence has already said in a letter that he won't evoke the 25th. Like I said, that sycophant is already kowtowing to Trump again, and kiss-kiss making peace with his boss.

So I've been hearing the speeches in the House and SEVERAL Republicans are saying that they will vote for impeachment.

Yep, things are shifting. This is really turning into a bipartisan effort, which delivers a lot more legitimacy to it.

 

At this point, a days-long Pelosi presidency should be the least of anyone’s worries. You are likely correct that it would ruffle feathers though.

What makes you think Pence has further political aspirations? I’ve never got that vibe. What am I missing?

 

I was wondering whether he knows there are enough Republican votes to convict Trump in an impeachment trial and has calculated that that would do more harm to Trump while maintaining a façade of loyalty for himself.
I could be giving him too much credit though.

 

OK, maybe my SEVERAL in all caps was a bit optimistic. So far, these are the Republican representatives who have said they will vote to impeach: Liz Cheney, John Katko, Adam Kinzinger, and Fred Upton. So only four so far. Hopefully there will be at least 20 tomorrow. Bipartisanship for this is important, to vacate the Witch Hunt excuse by Trump, who already used it again today. Then we have Murkowski and Toomey, and we have Mitch saying that he favors impeachment. Also important is some figures who have some leadership like governor Lohan, former governor Christie, and former SoS Colin Powell.

Also very significant is that not even the rabid Republican leadership in the House, although they are for Trump and against impeachment, are trying to dissuade their colleagues from voting for impeachment. Mitch isn't, either.

This is all VERY different from the first Trump impeachment.

And there isn't much need of witness, hearings, etc. The whole country saw it all live on TV and on Twitter. There is no doubt in people's minds that Trump has spent the last two months, and even before (remember the debate, "Stand back and stand by"?) inciting this mob, and turning people against the democratic process.

So, things are pretty clear cut and should move fast. Impeachment tomorrow. We'll see if Schumer can convince Mitch to bring the Senate back and hold a fast trial. But if not, Schumer will be the next Senate Majority Leader and can do it himself.

---------

Also significant is the large number of big corporations that are cancelling donations to Republicans who voted to decertify the EC votes, and even Deutsch Bank is cutting off Trump.

Lindsay Graham is a rat, but even Graham said, "cut me out; enough is enough."

Trump finally went too far even for the spineless, ball-less sycophants in the Republican Party.

 

Yeah, I'd say so. He is a piece of s... which is why that fly was on him for so long.

 

Joe Manchin said, if it becomes clear that Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley were fund-raising when the insurrection was going on, they need to be expelled from the Senate.

 

You never mention the 25th in your scenario. Sure, Pence put his refusal to do that in writing, it seems like a while ago (but with all the moving news-parts, it could have only been Monday). It still feels like old news. But, to me, it was never news, as I took that much for a given.

The pardon, though I found it HIGHLY unlikely, I wouldn't have put it in the, "certainty," pile. My thinking had been that, though that might win him some points with Trump Die-hards, yet, in the eyes of many others, it would be a black mark which would leave him forever stained, in their minds. We see how it worked out for Gerry Ford (who I take at his word as to his honorable intentions, in the matter, & that it was not a quid pro quo, or pre-arrangement, in lieu of any proof to the contrary).**

The narrow option I left open was if the part of the country that just wants Trump out of office, would see this "deal--" and no one is gonna give Trump & Pence the benefit of any doubt-- as actually in service to the country. This did, and still does, seem a longshot, precisely because Pence had the option of Trump's removal, through the 25th Amendmnt, available to him.

What would have enabled this-- using your thread's pro-active way of wishful projection, or casting circumstances in the most favorable light imaginable-- would have required Pence to be cunning enough to have not come out publicly as against the 25th; then he could have at least made the argument that there were not enough members of the cabinet willing to go along with it-- which I'm pretty sure there aren't-- but even then, **he couldn't ever admit that the pardon was part of a resignation deal, could he, or it would be illegal. This is the problem with your game, or its challenge, if you prefer: every problem we creatively avoid, only leads us to a new one.

And, of course, to the Trumphiliacs, even considering invoking the 25th is asking for lynching talk to begin. Besides, it is much better, for Pence's chances in 2024, if Big Donald is not in the race, so impeachment ain't such a terrible thing, from where he's sitting. In other words, it seems like Pence has played his own role, cunningly.




P.S.- If the start of your reply does indicate a tough day for you today, as I took it to, I'm sorry to hear it. Your sacrifices do make a difference, as you know, and are appreciated. Just remember, as you unwind, to breathe deeply, and C.S.

 

Let's start with his ACCEPTING the V.P. position from someone whose behavior flew in the face of Pence's entire, moral persona. The first I heard of his being a person of interest to the Trump camp, I recall the political reporter saying something to the effect that, privately, Pence found Trump's style offensive, his person repulsive, and that what Trump represented was totally at odds w/ what Pence stood for, & believed in.

I must admit relying on these other opinions of people who followed his career, since I never had. Certainly, though, Pence has a squeaky-clean, moral image, that makes it hard to imagine him having an especially good personal rapport with theDonald.

Of course, many other Christians, particularly Evangelicals did support Trump, as well. My impression of Pence was of a party Establishment guy, with a strong Christian tilt. Trump is almost the opposite, though Trump was a party-ing guy. But Trump's platform wasn't...(I kinda want to leave it at that, but I'll continue). Trump's top-line issues, for the most part, were not especially in synch w/ Pence's political raison d' etre, were they? That is, sure, everybody's in favor of bringing jobs back to America, but was Pence Hardline on Immigration? To associate himself so closely, in such a partnership...well, let me put it to you this way: when did you ever know there to be a VICE President who, himself (& now, herself), did not have an interest in making it to the top of the ticket?

 

What do Harris and Biden have in common? Biden is more like Pence and Harris is more like Trump.

Don’t know if Pence was hardline immigration or not. Good question. Again, Biden and Harris have little in common. I think that’s the point. Make the ticket appeal to demographics the Presidential candidate can’t identify with. Biden has more in common with Pence than Harris. Only 39% of VP’s have attempted a presidential run. Maybe Pence wanted to be president. But I still don’t get that vibe. And statistics don’t make a strong case either. Anyway, you could be right. Thanks for sharing your reasoning.

 

Respectfully, the point comes from actually ANSWERING your twice-posed question. What do Biden & Harris have in common? They BOTH RAN FOR their Party's PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION. (That proves,"intent").

Generally, after one competitor has defeated others, the VP choice is a way of uniting the party's competing factions. The job, however, is no one's GOAL. Regardless of how many have actually run for President-- you say 39% (does that include failed bids in the Party Primaries?)**-- I believe that most who've served in that role have either striven to be President (& have, to that point, fallen short) or intend to mount a run. Because of all that is involved with a campaign, not least of which, is financing, these plans (more so, perhaps, than the unrealized plans of the rest of us) don't always materialize. That does not mean the desire doesn't exist.

**I have to believe that your 39% figure must be overly-skewed by the distant past, & so not representative of the current dynamic. Let's move from, "stats," to flesh & blood examples.

Obama....................BIDEN
G.W. Bush.............(Cheney)
Bill Clinton...............GORE
Geo. H.W. Bush......Quayle
Reagan.....................BUSH
Carter....................MONDALE

That's 4 of the last 6 (67%) VPs who've run, themselves, for President. The only exceptions are the "oddball" choice, Cheney, and Dan Quayle; and there is no reason to believe that Quayle lacked that ambition, instead of simply never having sufficient support coalesce around him.

Lastly, it is treated as an accepted fact, by any political commentator I've heard, when the subject even gets skirted, that Pence has higher ambitions. Are they all just assuming? I guess that's possible, but who would want the VP job, who wouldn't prefer to be the boss?



A little miscellany, if you'd like:

Yes, it is true, running-mates are chosen out of strictly political calculations, not usually from one's most trusted friends and allies; Dick Cheney, though, shows that is not a hard & fast rule. As a side note, George H.W. Bush chose his close friend, James Baker, as his Secretary of State, a position which Baker, himself, admits he lacked the qualifications for; yet it worked out wonderfully well for the two, in no small part because foreign leaders understood that Baker really DID speak for the President.

 

Yes, I was irritated with something that happened at work, and in a foul mood. This time, surprisingly, in the middle of all this, it wasn't related to Covid, but actually to another patient admitted for a different reason, who unfortunately for the patient, is an adult declared incompetent in a court of law, whose guardian is quite unreasonable, and managed to profoundly irritate me, by opposing a necessary procedure, out of profound ignorance and dumb prejudice. I wonder why in the hell the court picked that person as the guardian... and I had a tense and long discussion with the guardian in which I had to use all the diplomacy I could muster, even watching my tone of voice to prevent my irritation from showing, while internally I was about to explode and about to say "how can you be so clueless???" Thankfully for the patient, the guardian finally came to agree with me, and the procedure was done. This situation exploded at the very end of my shift and I ended up staying past my quitting time until it was resolved, and yes, when it was finally over I was tired and frustrated, thinking, "in the middle of all this and busy as we are, we still have to waste time with dumb and ignorant people...". Anyway, there was a happy ending, but I guess I was prone to displacing my anger onto someone else, and poor Mike Pence ended up being the recipient, LOL.

What does C.S. stand for?

 

That's FUNNY: I asked freedom8 the same thing when he used that abbrev. w/ me; then he explained that you and I had made it up.

I'm sure you saw my response to him: Oh, how could I have forgotten?
Lol-- do you remember, now?

 

About Pence, I am somewhat uncertain about his political ambition. I think he looks like a corpse sometimes (so, that fly... haha). I hope he never gets to be president. Even though I am a religious person (practicing Catholic), politically speaking I dislike any extremism and I see Pence's fundamentalism as dangerous for the separation between Church and State. We don't need an Ayatollah. It is quite obvious, the reason why Pence was picked: to appease the fundamentalists, who might object to Trump's depraved lifestyle.

Off topic: As for the choice of Harris, I never understood it. I don't see exactly what boxes she ticks. Woman? There were more compelling women. Black? There were more compelling black women. Asian? Not a very significant demographic, the Indian variety, and other Asians don't necessarily relate to that. Bringing in a state? Not at all, California is deep blue already. Appeasing the progressives? She is not a reliable progressive despite her voting record; I think she is what she thinks she needs to be at a given time to attract votes, and will very easily flip-flop if it's convenient for her. Very competent? Maybe so but I'm not impressed; there were more competent veep hopefuls. Popular? Not really; soundly defeated in the Dem primaries; the voters didn't want her. Inspirational, eloquent? Uh, no. What an irritating little voice... Solid, ethical? Nope, she strikes me as the very opposite.

So, what exactly did Harris bring to the ticket? Can someone explain?

Biden ended up underperforming the pre-election polls, and among other factors (the biggest one being BLM and the Defund the Police dumb idea, which Biden didn't support but attack ads tried to peg on him anyway), I wonder if part of it is some voters' hesitation in promoting a ticket with a veep they didn't like, being the head of the ticket someone so old.

Off topic as it may be, since we are discussing veeps, can someone explain to me why in the hell did Biden pick Harris???

 

Oh yes, Chuckle Softly!... Indeed, how could I have forgotten?

 

She does show (over?)-confidence and she is somewhat eloquent, compared to him at least. She seems to be a mix ( I hesitated to write quintessence) of the characteristics he felt were needed in a VP (primarily woman, rather leftist and black of course). It also shows his ability to forego grudge: he must have been mortified by her accusions of racism during that famous debate.

 

In order to be POTUS, he'd have to be sworn in, and I contend he'd resign before being sworn in and thus, his resignation would be as vice president, not president. Pelosi would only be prez for a few days, so that would be part of the calculation. All roads lead to a difficult spot. Pence calculates his moves very carefully, and though he was, in my view, not wise to be the sycophant he has been, his sensibilies are nuanced, more expert in areas with which he has more experience, such as how history would view him if he pardoned those who committed insurrection. So...on that point...

The reason I believe Pence would resign a vice president, because if he became president, he would under tremendous pressure to pardon those who committed insurrection and felony murder. He'd make the calculation that the consequence of resigning as VP would be a lesser evil that being put in the unenviable position of being under tremendous pressure to pardon those who committed the insurrection, including the President himself. Though the latter would garner favor with Trump's base, and Trump, it would put him on the wrong side of history, something of which Pence understands (insofar as that particular act), but Trump fails to.

The point is, his sensibilities have a lid, they are more correct based on his areas of knowledge and experience, but given being a Trump VP is new ( over the course of his career), and thus he had less experience in that area to have evolved any sort of real wisdom, we can see he could be correct on the former (his understanding that he'd be on the wrong side of history regarding pardoning committers of insurrection), and not wise or less wise on the latter (his being a sycophant as VP).

Such a thing (the fly) will have little bearing on history, and wasn't predictable and the humility experienced is temporary. Conversely, being president for a day for the ostensible purpose of pardoning the president and being put under tremendous pressure to pardon those who committed insurrection, the consequences are predictable, and, in terms of being on the wrong side history, permanent.

I await your response.

 

Well this is something I'm sure we can gnaw over for a while, since there are a lot of concavities on the surface of that bone, but now's not a good time for me (don't you need your sleep, as well, Dr. Grouchy?). Hope you don't mind the jest. While this won't fully answer your question, I went back in my content to retrieve some of my posts from MARCH 2nd, to the thread Klobuchar out will endorse Biden, discussing WHO Biden might pick as his veep. Enjoy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-endorse-biden.568942/page-4#post-1071479091

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-endorse-biden.568942/page-4#post-1071479131

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-endorse-biden.568942/page-4#post-1071479169

 

You do understand that, in general, and all about Fox, Newsmax, republican circles, dems, via the Russia investigation, have been accused of attempting a coup, when, in fact, the term 'coup' refers to an act that as radically far from what dems were actually attempting as it gets, noting that it was not dems who initiated investigations into Trump, whereupon, Trump, via his attempts to overturn the election, could be, much more logically viewed as an attempt to overthrow a duly elected government ( not yet having achieved fruition being merely a detail), than what repubs were accusing dems of.