First, it is very important to understand the function of national parties as the Democrats and Republicans. These are organizations who candidates affiliate with whose financial fundraising is utilized cross wards, districts, counties, and states. This enables Democrats and Republicans who date to the Democratic-Republican Party that decoupled as a result of Andrew Jackson’s election and led to outright civil war with the election of Abraham Lincoln. This dynamic is why Independent Parties as the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and etc have no real chance in presidential election cycles; in fact, the Libertarian Party has 145 or so positions predominantly made up of County Auditor than state or federal offices as a Representative, Senator, or Governor.
In other words, if you want to succeed in challenging either national party, you have to organize an Independent Party to counter it. The biggest reasons they don’t is that they don’t want to centralize enough to organize such a feat, so they bank on arguing enhanced media exposure through the Committee of Presidential Debates adds enough to their campaign activism enthusiasm is enough to turn the tide.
If you can’t challenge Democrats or Republicans for ‘Governor’, you won’t be able to challenge them for President. It’s effectively a mathematical certainty even if they convince the Committee of Presidential Debates to include them in the debates.
The next issue is the DNC and RNC determine where those funds are allocated; this is a bottom-up, top-down approach that enables either Party’s chair to decide. It’s also why they won’t ever, and I mean won’t ever seek to curtail campaign contributions from crossing over State lines. For starters, this violates the Top-Down interpretation of the Supremacy Clause Progressives aka Bismarkians argue for Top-Down socio-economic-political solutions, and it violates their strangle hold. The Committee of Presidential Debates would be more likely to include independent party candidates in debates before that catalyst is rescinded.
This is why both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders participated in the Democratic and Republican Primaries. The difference is Democrats utilize the super-delegates that became their standard after the Illinois decision ruling the Democratic Party is a private club enabling them to lay the foundation of today’s super-delegates. According to exit polls during the primaries, Trump gets thumped by Sanders in the general election. After Clinton won the primary, several Sander’s supporters crossed the aisle including PACs that arguably enabled Trump to cinch Michigan’s, Ohio’s, Pennsylvania’s, and etc State popular votes determining their Electoral College electors to vote for Trump when the EC tally occurred. Clinton won only 19 of 50 Nation-States of the economic-political union of the United States.
The backlash against the Electoral College was largely predictable; the reason they argue the national popular vote ignores and omits States are Nation-States that means California’s popular vote can only determine California’s Electoral College elector’s vote determined by their State Constitution.
Case and point, are we arguing against the Electoral College that observes the US is an economic-political union of 50 Nation-States in which Clinton won only 19 Nation-States of 50 Nation-States. Nope, we’re arguing California and New York who are two sides of the global economy argue their interests trumps every other States.
Lets get into the nit and gritty. There are predictions and calls for Trump’s impeachment. Here’s one who also predicted Trump winning the Presidency followed by impeachment:
Here are is his focus:
Lichtman is clearly no Trump fan, writing at length about his discomfort with Trump’s opposition to the Paris Climate accord. He refers to Trump’s travel ban as “dimming the torch of liberty” and heads one section of the book, “Trump’s policies and appointments pose an existential threat to humanity.”
It may not take that long, Lichtman argues, writing that his book is meant to “explain how Trump threatens the institutions and traditions that have made America safe and free for 230 years, and I’ll make clear why a Republican Congress might impeach a president of its own party.”
Lichtman’s list of possible offenses that could get Trump to that point are familiar: charges of treason with Russia, abuse of power and emoluments violations. Lichtman also cites now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then a senator, who argued that a president could be impeached for offenses committed before he took office. Among those potential offenses, Lichtman lists Trump’s housing violations, charity problems, potential violations of the Cuba embargo and Trump University.
Lichtman’s argument ignores or omits the biggest reasons Trump’s support base should abandon him.
-Responsibility to Protect mandates the support granted is granted to the Established Government:
-Ukraine’s Established Government fled to Crimea after the coup in Kiev.
-Assad’s Syrian Regime
-Gadaffi’s regime in Libya
The purpose behind RTP is to prevent destabilization under ‘the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t’. It also prevents the regime change operations as the removal of the Shah of Iran or previously installed by Russian Persian Cossacks Iranian regime (dates to the Anglo-Russo Great Game).
In order to support rebel forces, they would be required to form an alternative Established Government in exactly the same manner that developed North and South Korea and North and South Vietnam.
The alternative is utilizing a UN Resolution presenting evidence of either Hawkish WMDs or Dovish Humanitarian crisis as ‘Bio-Chemical Weapon attack’. No need for a West V East Libya or Syria when you can get a UN Resolution; provided, no one ever challenges the claim’s validity.
Congress Constitutionally has the war powers, and the President can only act unilaterally when the US is under direct and imminent threat. National Interests is not an direct and imminent threat unless you support the corrupt interpretation sole superpower status means sole global power status, and this is where national interests justifying Presidential unilateral action is derived.
According to outlets, it would seem that prominent Trump support is already waning:
“If there was only one of them, it would be seen as a rather remarkable shift,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. “The fact that there are several at once is what’s unusual about the amplitude of the moment. The careening aspects of this are pretty unsettling.”
“I’m not so infatuated with Trump that I can’t see the facts,” she said. “People’s belief, their trust in him, it’s declining.”
Many of Trump’s most stalwart supporters, including radio show hosts Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham, called last week’s bombing of Syria a betrayal of Trump’s pledge to be an “America First” commander in chief who would avoid unnecessary conflicts overseas.
As he approaches 100 days in office Trump appears to be increasingly embracing what he describes as his “flexibility” — acknowledging he may not have thought deeply about some of the issues he shouted about throughout his political campaign.
Over the past 48 hours, the outsider politician who pledged to upend Washington has:
— Abandoned his vow to label China a currency manipulator.
— Rethought his hands-off assessment of the Syrian conflict — and ordered a missile attack.
— Turned his warm approach toward Vladimir Putin decidedly chilly and declared U.S.-Russia relations “may be at an all-time low.”
— Decided NATO isn’t actually obsolete, as he had claimed.
— Realized the U.S. Export-Import Bank is worth keeping around.
Each individual conducts their own evaluation of policy actions and catalysts, but it doesn’t look good that is also the fatal flaw of democratically regime changing governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and aspiring public-private mergers as Too Big To Fail banking institutions promoted by Bernie Sanders.
So, what does this mean in relation to Trump impeachment?
Lichtman’s advice to Trump to avoid his prediction is a checklist that includes divesting, supporting the Paris Climate accord, using a fact-checker and treating women with respect.
Trump becoming an ‘mainstream Republican’ makes him a Progressive Republican made up of Bush Republicanism, Neocons, and Social Conservatives who only really differ to Progressive Democrats in the details of power-structure not the power-structure and catalysts themselves.
Trump support base has to make a decision here:
1). Trump made a deal to avoid impeachment.
2). Trump was never an outsider.
Premeditated war-crimes is a colossal political leverage, so he’ll shift to Progressive Republican or face impeachment resulting in President Pence who has much to lose from altering course. Pence is a Progressive Republican.
It truly reminds me of Bill Kristoll, Eric Erickson, and etc asserting Trump supporters should be punished or otherwise purged from the Republican Party. What does this mean? Pretty much the same as what Progressive Democrats are doing
Sanders’ rallies for Clinton during the election had much lower attendance in comparison to his own campaign’s rallies because the progressives, independents and Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders throughout the primaries knew that Sanders and his supporters were not welcome in the Democratic Party.
This is about compelling conformity to DNC and RNC preferences or seek another party, and the thousands of Independent Parties are horribly disorganized and pose no threat to the 2-Party system derived by the Democrat and Republican Parties.
Yes, Trump support base should abandon him, but neither Trump’s support base nor Sander’s support base should conform to the interests and preferences of the DNC or RNC.