this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
164 points (93.6% liked)
Asklemmy
50977 readers
558 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is an impeachment then? I thought the result of an impeachment would be the removal of the president.
It's kind of a vote of no confidence that then requires the US Senate to hold a "trial" on whether to remove. Essentially, the House (a more general populace representative body) says "he is bad and should be reviewed'. Then the Senate (which more represents the states, not the public) decides whether to agree and then a removal happens if they do.
Otherwise? It's just the Senate saying "he's fine and we're okay with it", which is what the Republicans are. They're okay with crime and hatred of fellow Americans as long as it's their people doing the hating and criming.
Wow, that’s not very useful then, is it?
It relies mostly upon people feeling shame about being denounced. Being impeached is mostly about an official denouncement.
If you don't care, then it means nothing to the individual. It then falls upon the citizens to actually give a fuck about their country having leadership who is more positive than negative. What we've learned in the last handful of years is that about 30% of voters would vote for a king if that king hates the same people they do. Another 30% don't care who runs anything, so a king is fine with them.
So... A ruling monarch the US will have. It's nearing the end of the Republic and Orange Fürher has crossed the Rubicon. Apparently no one cares enough to really deal with it, but we'll surely see lots of walking around on a weekend as to not cause any inconvenience.
Yes, I feel No Kings is the right message, but the actual wherewithal to enforce the Republic isn't visible yet.
What a freaking nothing burger. What a flawed system.
Yep. Trump has showed every weakness in American government in such extreme ways that if we don't change those weaknesses we can never expect anything but worse than trump.
Impeachment is basically voting for there to be a hearing. You can think of it like an indictment. But then he has to be convicted at the hearing and be removed. Which will never ever happen in a senate controlled by Republicans.
The system is flawed. These "safety systems" being controlled politically rather than by law is absolutely broken. 😆 Who thought up this asinine system?
Men with morals and standards; however flawed some of them were. They didn’t conceive that an honourable elected official would act egregiously outside the norms of decorum, respect, dignity; basically, “gentleman’s rules.” Respect for your fellow countrymen; at least those of equal or better status to your own; was baked into society, so it wasn’t even a consideration. In that regard at least, it was maybe a better time (JUST in that regard; limited though it was).
Now no one gives two shits about anything. If some deranged, narcissistic, prevaricating dimwit tells people it’s okay to hate the other people they already want to hate; and that hate gives them even a moment’s relief from their shitty lives (lives largely ruined by similar prevaricating dimwits) then that man can, and shall, be their king.
I definitely think there was more honor back in those days. I mean, thieves have always existed, but I remember even my grandfather said he never even had a lock on the front door, or needed a lock on his car, or his bike, wherever he went. People didn't steal shit from people. At least in the city where he lived. (It was a very Christian and religious place back then; everyone went to church.)
The thieves and criminals that existed back then were truly vile though. These days, someone might break a window and carry off your TV. In those days, the thieves would take everything you owned and then press you into lifelong servitude, beating you if you ever disobeyed, they would even steal your children away from you and do the same to them.
And nobody did shit about it. Why? Because these thieves were "honorable" because there were "gentlemen's agreements" and "decorum" and "civility" meant that they were allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted to those who were considered "racially inferior."
If that's what honor means, then fuck honor. Fuck this civility fetishism, this nostalgia for a time of greater injustice and oppression. Half the problems we have today is because of these evil and idiotic founders setting up a stupid dysfunctional system, in some ways designed to be dysfunctional because they were afraid of "the masses" voting according to their own interests and freeing the slaves the elites relied on for their lavish lifestyles.
Source?
Source on what? That the founders owned slaves?
That's... not what I meant by honor, no. 😳
Christianity these days is a whole different animal.
At least Christian extremism like you see in America.
An impeachment is basically a political indictment. It's the step before the political equivalent of a trial, not the result of it.
Trump "won" both his trials because the Senate was too corrupt to vote to remove.
I suppose a system is free from corruption as much as the people in it/controlling it. 🙈
All states ultimately serve one class of society, which rests on who owns and controls the large firms and key industries, ie which form of ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and therefore forms the basis of the mode of production and distribution. Capitalist economies always serve capitalists, while socialist countries serve the working class.