Support among House Democrats for impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is skyrocketing, nearly doubling in the last week to 100 co-sponsors.
That’s an unprecedented level of support for an impeachment effort during President Trump’s second term, with lawmakers who have bristled at the topic in the past now warming to the idea.
Kelly is urging Republicans to get on board with her efforts — even as no GOP lawmaker has come close to expressing support for Noem’s impeachment.
“As Secretary Noem continues to lie, obstruct Congress, and violate people’s civil rights, the support for her impeachment only grows,” she said.
Killing people is even more effective. Why aren’t they doing that either?
Probably spineless cowards!
Well that’s just not true, unless they’re representing a solid blue area. You think Alabama, Arizona, Texas, or Washington Democrats aren’t going to get ‘repurcussions’ from their constituencies for impeaching the head of DHS? Why aren’t they socialist firebrands?
Well, the better question is why aren’t any socialist firebrands in office? (Yes, fine, Bernie. He’s from Texas, right?)
So your argument boils down to “Democrats shouldn’t oppose Trump & Co because it might hurt their chances at reelection?” What kind of nonsense is that?
There are no repercussions because they don’t have the numbers to actually get an impeachment without Republicans joining forces with them, which is unlikely to happen but even a potentially fruitless endeavor is better than sitting by doing absolutely nothing while the nation burns in front of our eyes.
Politics only happens with an election, so yeah that’s usually an omnipresent factor in pushing legislation. No, it’s not great.
And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?
If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.
Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.
This statement doesn’t make any sense.
Yes.
Well then it must follow that there’s no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right? Democrats should only go after the easy wins and instant gratification because nobody will remember any of this at any point in the future.
So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward? If they’re not doing this now or at any point in the past, why would they do it in the future? What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren’t enough?
Absolutely not. And that’s a weird jump to make.
Yes to the former, nope to the latter. I’m saying the real world is significantly more complicated than rageposting on the intertubes. Like, sure we all wish all the nazis were dead, but getting there is gonna take more than tapping it out on a phone keyboard. And very possibly going on a killing spree by one or more of us is not the optimal way to move that particular project forward, you see? That’s just a hypothetical example, but you get my point there.
Well, having the votes might be a good start. Professional political people do this thing called a “whip count” where the go around and ask everyone how their day is going, and oh those are great shoes and by-the-by would you vote for bill #12345? And if they don’t have enough votes to get the thing passed, sometimes they’ll redirect their efforts into other things. (Stupid republicans will still have the vote fifty or sixty times because they can’t figure out a better plan.)
So that’s a big one. Now if they just want to grandstand, maybe read a little Dr. Suess on C-SPAN, sure. “The People” would get the benefit of that speech, but little else.
And that’s if the Senate feels like doing a goddamned thing, which - unlikely, right? So just go out front, go on any show that’ll have you and talk about how he should be impeached. But that’s all that would happen.
The repercussions for those democrats would be greater numbers of people voting for them in the future. Arizona and Texas have more population that are vulnerable to dhs attacks, so any house members against the impeachment are acting against their constituents. Sure the state government won’t like it, but it would at least be something they do for the people.
Oh how I wish that was so. We just lost the most important election of our lifetimes because that isn’t so. Maybe some of our louder non-voters want to weigh in on that.
We lost that election because both the Republican and Democratic candidates thought pushing right wing ideology was the best tactic. Turns out that only works for one of the party’s base.
And all the people not voting against trump.
Nope. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-election-non-voters-coalition
Lol. Bullshit.
I cut this one up awhile ago but it’s bullshit. Probably makes non-voters feel even more self righteous, but it’s bullshit.
If you want to get non-voters to vote, you need to give them a reason to vote. You’ve just seen that shouting at them and demanding that they vote for someone they don’t want to vote for doesn’t work, regardless of how severe the consequences are. You’re determined to continue along this course of action no matter how many times it fails.
The voters you need are alienated. What will you do to get them back? More of the same is not an acceptable answer, because it has to be clear to you by now that it will never work. Dismissing them entirely and moving to the right hasn’t worked either. It just alienates people the party breaks solidarity with in order to chase republican votes, and the republicans it aims to get still vote republican.
If Democrats do not change, they will continue to lose. That’s not some petulant tankie demanding perfection. That’s someone looking at political reality as it currently stands, assessing the failures of the Democratic Party, and telling you that if they don’t change, they will lose.
I’m saying that if Democrats fight for the people, they will see better voting outcomes. What does that have to do with the last election? Democrats didn’t fight for us from 2020-2024, so they lost voters, which is complimentary to my point.
It was great that Biden’s policies helped slow down inflation, but that’s pretty much all they did. There were no consequences for treason, no big investigations, no major reforms of the political system, no safeguards for rights put into place. The last thing a major Democrat did in TX was when Obama had tacos in Austin over 10 years ago.
Look at the voting record and it echoes my point.
In 2004, Bush 4.5 million, Kerry 2.8 million
In 2008, McCain 4.5 million, Obama 3.5 million after Obama ran a campaign about a better future giving us something to vote for
In 2010, the ACA passed
In 2012, Romney 4.6 million, Obama 3.3 million McConnell succeeded in preventing a lot of Democrat proposals from being passed and the democrats weren’t able to fulfill a lot of things during the tike before this election
In 2016, Trump 4.7 million, Clinton 3.9 million Marriage Equality had recently passed and Democrats proposed the Equality Act and were very vocal about the potential consequences of an election loss
In 2020, Trump 5.9 million, Biden 5.3 million, Democrats made promises and said they would fight for rights. Many democrats aligned themselves with protests and even with some tonedeaf messaging, attempted to show a united front against the chaos
In 2022, women lost the right to bodily autonomy In 2023, Women’s Health Protection Act was introduced but went nowhere
In 2024, Trump 6.4 million, Harris 4.8 million after democrats revealed the United front was a ruse and failed to follow through on issues that won them the 2020 election even though the threat of chaos was even worse than we had seen in 2020.
I’d prefer they fight for the people either way, but the problem is “fighting for the people” is pretty subjective. Did they or did they not is a subjective opinion about which we only know what is public.
I’d say that’s a valid opinion, though one I don’t particularly share. They got some Big Shit Done for the gridlock that is Congress, imo.
I see you’re referring to Texas specifically which is fine, I was just confused at first.
The main problem with saying these numbers validate my opinion is that there’s no way to prove it one way or the other, and so you may be right, I may be crazy but I don’t see the numbers making the point that Democrats (in Texas? For Texas? Of Texas?) did or did not “fight for the people”.
First off, it’s Texas, but secondly Obama was a superstar candidate with -at the time- limited experience. And he came after eight long terra-terra-terra years of -at the time- The Worst President in History. His getting higher numbers than Kerry (again, in Texas, with the global financial markets hanging by a thread under Bush the Dubz) doesn’t have anything to do with ‘fighting fir the people’.
I could go on, but I’d have the same arguments about some of the other numbers and you get my point.
What we don’t have numbers for are the votes that candidates didn’t get after ‘fighting for the people’, which again is a subjective call that could mean a bunch of different things.
Based strictly on Primaries and the platforms different candidates have, the most ‘fight for the people’ candidates don’t win - sometimes they don’t win a lot. And yes we can talk about how they screwed Bernie but that’s ultimately a side issue; lots of “fight for the people” candidates have lost in the primaries - including non-screwed Bernie.
It’s (a) subjective and (b) not a sure thing by any stretch. US politics is gnarly, and Jesus Christ by any other name would lose Texas to Romney.