If the president can credibly disagree on his removal, then you still need 2/3 of Senate, and also 2/3 of the house.

Removing a president still capable of uttering the words “I should not be removed” is harder than convicting after impeachment.

Now if Trump does not object, the 25th is easier, but however screwed up he is, he is still quite capable of disagreeing in a way to trigger the 2/3 of Congress requirement.

Beyond what others have said, I’ve heard him interview and I don’t think he can think on his feet too well.

He seemed to have a library of scripted responses and select the closest, but still mismatched response and sounded like he was reading a script. When the interviewer interjected to attempt to clarify what she assumed was a misunderstood question because the response was off, he just rewound a few words in his speech and continued, saying verbatim the last few words again before the interjection on the way to finish the response (which did kind of have an answer in the responses closing section, but the rest of the answer was useless and off topic).

On one question where he didn’t seem to have a good enough prepared response and he clearly had to wing it, it was pretty bad.

I support this, but I do want it settled quickly either way, not like the clusterfuck of infighting when the GOP had to pick a speaker.

It would be pretty screwed if a Governor could unilaterally decide to change how a state’s participation in the presidential election without even a majority of the Senate.

I would not be shocked that if the pact ever did one day come to actually mean something for someone to come along and sue over it because it ends up going against some state’s constitution and they only passed it as a law not an amendment.

Texas could join now, instead of looking at old 2020 coalition.

They still have a Republican state Senate looks like.

Well technically impeachment is just half the house, is just that impeachment doea not mean anything on its own.

Had a conversation today speculating that there is a non zero chance Republicans could decide to go with some convictions. Throwing a few of this administration under the bus might be seen as more strategically valuable to salvage the wreckage of their reputation. Patel, Hegseth, Miller, RFK Jr all seem to be ripe for some populist scapegoating. Hell maybe even the big man himself, though they might be betting on a cardiac event or similar to do it for them.

Most hilarious is that all the redone maps actually went Democrat.

There was one stare where Republican government refused to redo maps, because they were afraid exactly this would happen. Guess they can say “told you so”.

I’m guessing DC was the intended remark, that he said Ohio and then DC was the intended correction.

He was probably reminding himself in his head that he was in Ohio as he spoke and when it came to say a state like name, his internal reminder just leaked out.

Still funny, but I can see how it could have happened.

If you have 2/3rds of Senate, sure.

But short of getting a bunch of people willing to visibly undermine Trump from his own party, that’s not going to happen. Keep in mind these were the same people who didn’t like the optics of removing Trump even after he lost and was on his way out and actively incited a violent insurrection. If they won’t even vote to remove what was presumed to be a dead-end politician on his way out of politics anyway, then they sure as hell won’t go against him on a veto.

Doesn’t matter, it’s 33 senators he needs, and he already has 31 senators that aren’t even up for re-election. If they win just 3 senate races, they are golden. And they absolutely will, most assume there’s a “rounds to 100%” chance of 11 republican wins, which means even a ‘filibuster proof majority’ is not a possibility.

Also, frankly, what a lot of presidents pretty much do.

I guess the biggest problem is that usually stops short of the budget/debt ceiling bills, so if he sticks to his guns of ‘veto no matter what’, hard to see how budget bills can work anymore.

Nah, she is now too visisble a liability and would be a bigger problem than any benefit.

AIPAC will happily compensate her for her service, but will move on to less obviously controversial folks. They have no shortage of “cleaner” options, so they don’t have to be especially loyal to any particular Congress figure. She can be an example of being treated well on the way out.

Now let’s make them choose between climate action and economy, see how many of them would accept a risk to economy for sake of better climate.

That’s the horrible reality, that campaigns have to focus narrowly on the top issue, and if the GOP assert that climate action will hurt economy, then it can hurt campaigns.

Despite the Democrats barely saying anything on climate, the GOP is still getting crowds to boo over the Democrats theoretically pursuing a “Green New Deal” as an economy ruining disaster.

The challenge is that for it to be a good campaign issue, it has to be a big priority with minimal exploitable downside. While people might abstractly want to address climate change, they care more about their economic well being. So taking time away from talking about economy is taking time away from the more impactful messaging. Also, gives opportunity for the opposition to assert the obsession with climate change will hurt their economic outcome. The good answers address all at once with nuance, but nuance sadly does not work well in a campaign.

But you know who genuinely can’t see it backfiring? Absolute sociopaths.

Well, this wouldn’t be impeachable, it’s not that far off from business as usual.

Back during Obama’s presidency, the GOP in fact relied upon that reality. They passed a repeal of ACA multiple times to pander to their campaign promises of getting rid of it. Then as soon as they held the presidency, suddenly they couldn’t pass that repeal.

They’d also have to throw Vance under the bus, because he came out strongly in support of that ad, even after everyone knew the details.

Billionaire status is luck, megalomania, and being a sociopath. Being smart isn’t that important.

The filibuster rule is a parliamentary thing that could be changed/ignored, but the veto is very much unavoidable. Without 2/3rds they cannot pass a thing Trump would object to, and without 2/3rds they can’t remove him.

So it was a bit of a bullshit thing when a party has house, senate, and president and still can’t vote things through due to the filibuster, but at least for now the democrats are still stuck with the veto.

But at least they have to tell the voters roughly what they want to do so the voters know what they are actually voting for. So ‘just win the damn elections’ should include some indication of their priorities.