Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is Spanish Inquisition level word torture. If you have to go to this level, skip the point.
|
It's a pretty fundamental choice, not just a question of technique. If you think like a lawyer, they don't accomplish anything, but (as Yglesias points out) mass protests have accomplished quite a bit, in the US in 2017 and elsewhere. Is there some guarantee that they'll work? Of course not. But if you start from the premise that Trump is corrupt, the alternative is to work within the system on the Hill, building a case and hoping to persuade enough Republican Senators to put principle over party, something you have previously announced will be futile.
One of the GOP talking points that you have internalized is that whatever it is, it's always good news for Trump, and now the Democrats have gone and thrown him in the briar patch again. I don't buy it. For one thing, Trump really seems bothered by impeachment. Also, I don't get which voters might decide that they don't like him, but are going to go back to him because we spend several months talking about how he used the government to smear Joe Biden. The way this trick works is, Trump does x, and someone like Nancy Pelosi does or says y in response, and the GOP talking head shifts the focus from x to y and says, you know, voters really don't like it when Pelosi overreaches. It plays to the stereotype of the centrist disengaged voter guy who doesn't much like Washington at all, and the implication is that Democrats should just shrink into the wallpaper until voter guy votes them back into office. There are voters who don't like it when Democrats do things. They're called conservatives.
