Civil War 2.0


If only they had some legal power to actually do anything other than talk.

OH WAIT. They totally do, but they still don’t. Like 3 or 4 of them say “this is troubling” and then nothing.
It’s like if a cop was watching people get robbed on the street and then lamented it was happening and didn’t do anything.


I’ve done a quick research on it, but I still contend that 2 or 3 senators by themselves are powerless to have significant impact to the president, that wouldn’t ultimately be falling on their swords with no effect.

Especially since its the house that triggers impeachment and you would need 22 republicans to flip to be successful with that! Then you need Senate who is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments ,but needs a 2/3 majority is required for that, which would require an additional 8 republicans to flip. That’s not 2 or 3!

Ok, someone suggested a bill, what bill could they pass the GOP controls over 2/3 of the senate, so again you need a majority to pass, more than 2 or 3 would be required and even if you did, AND MOST importantly you know Trump would just ignore veto it, as that is within his power…so what can the senate do? Similar situation in the house, so what is the meaningful action they can take…I’m not seeing it

I actually cant find any power the senate has over the president, all the power goes in the reverse, where the president can veto them. They cant even trigger a impeachment right now with the skew of the votes, and if somehow triggered don’t have enough votes to carry it through without a LOT more then 3 congressman.

There are a few other ways to thwart the power of a president, like over the collection and expenditure of public funds, but that requires a majority, which is more than 2 or 3 GOPs. Clamp down on executive branch communications, but that again like anything congress does, the president can veto! And cant stop him at all from going on twitter. Congress can hire more legislative branch for oversight, but that had little teeth to actually do anything and again can requires a majority. Congress could enact regulations to curb power, but again would require far more than a 2 or 3 to flip to pass. Even with all that, hardcore Trump advocates can kill any effort with filibustering without 2/3 majority vote.

The claim that is that it would only power 2 or 3 senators to stop Trump, but that is inaccurate, unless its about playing obstructionism. Which I and many other find offensive and in violation of their oaths.

So again I ask, what legal power/authority/responsibility do they have? Specifically! They don’t as far as I can tell.


That stopped the GOP from voting on how many ACA repeal bills (with no long term planning?)

Your entire thesis is that a few senators can’t stop Trump by themselves so they should just go along with him and the party is rank bull. It is complete abdication if responsibility, it is abandonment of any principle. The Republican Party has majorities in house and senate, THEY ARE NOT POWERLESS! And the fact is that those majorities are not infaliable, a few principled actors can make a difference.

And if some legislation was proposed and vetoed or ignored? So what! Make Trump do it. Make him do it publically. Hold his feet to the fire and actively take a stand, rather than passively let him do whatever shit flows out of his mouth.

And when you have a situation like where kids are being separated from parents and being held and abused in cages and your options are obstruct the process until it gets righted, or blithely putter along with nary but a few tweets critical of it? THEN YOU FUCKING OBSTRUCT! If those are the only two options, and that is flatly untrue but accepting your premise anyhow, then the principled action is to stand and say ‘no further’.

Because they have power, Senators especially now. One or two brave stands can make a difference. Or do you think McCain’s thumbs down vote was meaningless?

You let them off too easy for the moral cowardness. You accept inaction, when inaction is de facto approval of the evil actions. You search too hard for the ‘both sides are bad so the answer must lie in the middle’. Sometimes that ain’t true.


It was perfect because it was a successful and stopped something that needed to be stopped, and it was a clear symbol, he came back from his near death bed to make the deciding vote!

He didn’t obstruct just to obstruct though, that is a important distinction. Obstructionism is NOT a governing policy. Stopping a specific action you know is wrong IS, and shows integrity!

Also my point you seem to glossing over is that a few congressmen cannot stop the president, a few can make a career suicide gesture to impede him for a few months, till whatever happens in Nov happens and they will likely would no longer be part of that function because the people voting for them are about 40% trump supporters, and everyone else is voting retaliation to Trumps shenanigans.

I know of about 6 house and senate folks that have taken a stand verbally and in one way or another by action. That’s not enough to make a dent till after the election, IF the blue wave hits with any success. If it does, and they back it the way I think they will, my respect will remain for them

So back to my last point, what specific action could a handful of GOP take that wouldn’t be token vain career suicide? They couldn’t even pass a bill for Trump to ignore or veto! Even if they could, making him do it publicly isn’t going to change one persons mind that currently supports him. Its not going to Stop his abuse of power, its again a token gesture of no real impact. These are politicians, not samari warriors.


They are elected representatives of the American people and they have a duty to act as a check on the president. They should do so even at the cost of their own reelection, if need be. You don’t need to be a ‘samurai’ to be willing to risk a six figure gig and then go into private consulting/law/lobbying and make 5x as much money as you did before.

The job of Senators is not to be party hacks. The fact that the years have erased this fact from popular consciousness doesn’t make the dereliction of duty any less egregious. As far as I can tell your logic mandates a completely supine Congress, in which case, why not just aggregate legislative power into the executive branch and call it a day?


This is manifestly false. It is a fact that two Senators could impede Trump’s agenda with their votes, and it is a fact that impeding his agenda is a kind of power which can have significant impact on him, so it is false that they are powerless to have significant impact on him.

It is also a fact that two Senators deciding to caucus with the Democrats flips control of the Senate, which would force Trump to present more mainstream judicial nominees. That’s power. They have it.

As for falling on their swords, 3 of the most obvious candidate Senators have or had nothing to lose, as Corker and Flake had already decided to leave the Senate, and McCain was dying.

Yet, strangely, you say right here that it was good for McCain to obstruct the ACA repeal vote:

Was that obstruction and good, an example of acting above and beyond against the President; or was it obstruction and bad, which you and many others find offensive and a violation of their oaths?


Murkowski was elected in 2016 and will be up for re-election in 2022. Collins was elected in 2014 and will be up for re-election in 2020. There’s two Republican Senators that are considered anti-Trump, have nothing to fear from this November’s elections and could actually do something to stop his policies… if they wanted to.


The logic I’m using is sound. Again I get into a lot of details so let me streamline it

What he did by blocking it was good because it was the right thing to do.

Blocking the presidents agenda period…is NOT, its a violation of their oath.


As I mentioned earlier they are not immune to recall, especially with their base. They are walking a tough tight rope. Its not all absolutes like Im hearing here. I will concede they are not being exceedingly brave but they speaking out and taken targeted action like the Russia sanctions and a few other limited actions.


There is no mechanism in place to recall a sitting US Congressperson.


Then Republicans have been violating their oath for 10 years, or do you not recall how their stated intent was block President Obama from doing anything.

Not do something themselves, but just block him.

Or what about their oath forces them to swear absolute fealty to the President? Is not their oath to the people of the United States? So is it not an abandonment of their oath to allow ICE agents to arrest and attempt to deport US Citizens? citizens who, in many cases, were born in the US? When they stay silent in such cases where US Citizens are being targeted for the color of their skin that is an abandonment of their oath. One that morality demands they stand against, and use their power to stop.

And if that means stopping the Presidents agenda wholesale is the best way to achieve that? So be it.

Plus your position on the ‘both sides narrative’ has not been as logically sound. When presented with specific incidents you have retreated to the ‘I’m talking about the parties narratives’, and when the parties narratives, and reasoning for same, is brought up you deflect ‘I only want to talk about repeatable facts’.

You try too hard to defend the GOP out of some sense that, as a moderate, the right and true answer must lie in the middle. So you try and find that middle.

But such middle does not always exist, and attempting to find such has led you to positions that defend and justify inaction in the face of grace irresponsibility and moral cowardice. That is not the middle you want to seek.


Yes, you are correct. Anyone that indulged in that behavior was in violation of their oath…


That would be every single Republican in the House and the Senate, since they simply voted against every single thing Obama tried to do.


If they set the policy, yes. In this case it was executive branch that executed it. I’ve not heard a compelling argument how a handful of honest senators could have more than a figurative impact on this, other than publicly denouncing it as reprehensible, which the ones I respect…did.


You really seem to be mistaken about how constrained these senators are. All they would have to do is side with the Democrats in a few committee votes to show that they won’t roll over for the mist egregious behavior from the president. They won’t take even that small step. They are willing participants in the continuing corruption if their party and nation


Assuming facts no in evidence.

I know that several republicans reached across the isle and supported the administration against the GOP deny all. Other times they voted against the admin because the disagreed with it. Sometimes they voted against something to get a supporting vote later on something more important to them and their personal agenda…aka politics.


What you are describing is ‘making a statement’ and not doing their jobs. Doing their jobs is looking at the item before them and having integrity to support or reject it based on your values/promises to your constituents. Making a statement is what I hate about modern politics


Again, a self contradictory statement in service of finding a middle ground that does not exist.

You hate merely making a statement in modern politics, yet laud certain senators for… merely making a statement? Doesn’t cut mustard.


I stand corrected, you are right.

They can be impeached via a house or senate vote, which they have the majority to accomplish as well as and democrats that want to jump in because why not its weakening the other party.

However, what more can they do even if they cant be recalled, in the form of their STATED job. I’ll agree that they should have fought harder for bad players like Betsy DeVos. They could also call for senate hearings to call her out…though of course there is not enough support to have the hearing happen right now…but they could make the gesture right?



Talk to me in simple descriptive language with examples… like I don’t get your point… because I don’t.

How is what I said self contradictory statement? I’ve drilled down to specific examples and provided framework. Can you provide me contrasting examples that are factually accurate and verifiable?

Unless you are talking about my support of Mccain, his dissenting vote wasn’t the statement. His coming back from his near death bed and voting and explaining why he voted was in the right for that specific measure…it was dramatic, it had a tangible return, and it had integrity. Not seeing the conflict here.

  • I would not laud it if it was just dramatic theater, defiance with no tangible result (edit by tangible I mean either stopping a specific action of the President that is against national interests, or triggering a action that leads to him directly being removed from office)
  • Nor would I laud if even if it tangible return, but had no integrity
  • Nor would I laud it if dramatic, and it had integrity, but no tangible results…though I WOULD respect it for the bravery of the self sacrifice it was.

Seems pretty logical to me, but I’ll acknowledge my values are not very vanilla.