Mediaboss Marketing

Trans activists, like Bidens pick as assistant health secretary, Rachel Levine, say schoolkids can choose to have puberty blockers and sex-change surgery. But confused children are too young to make such life-changing decisions.

We all know the mantra by now trans women are women, and trans men are men. Deep down we may know it to be nonsense, but unless we pay it lip service we risk being labelled as bigots or worse despicable people who question the very humanity of trans people, to use the language of theNew York Times.

Victims of this ideology include women, whose boundaries and spaces are being violated by male people who claim to feel like women, and trans women like me who had been getting on with our lives. Nobody consulted with me before social justice warriors made us their cause clbre. Depicted falsely as one of the most vulnerable groups on the planet, many of us are relatively privileged, only transitioning after our male bodies helped us secure our places in society.

But the biggest casualties in my view are children. Confused young people, perhaps struggling with identity and nascent sexuality, are being told that if they are unhappy with their sex, then they can change it, with potentially disastrous consequences on their bodies. Nevertheless, this has become a major industry. The US Human Rights Campaignlists no fewer than 57 clinical care programs for gender-expansive children and adolescents in the United States and Canada alone. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and referrals for surgery are the go-to treatments.

Last week, Republican Senator Rand Paul decided he needed answers when Rachel Levine appeared before him. Levine is President Bidens nominee for assistant secretary of health and, like me, transitioned in mid-life after fathering children. One would expect, therefore, that Levine would be aware of the issues and dangers facing transgender-identifying children. Even so, Pauls question could not be clearer:

Dr. Levine, do you believe that minors are capable of making such a life changing decision as changing ones sex?

Levines attempt at obfuscation appeared to rely on a prepared text, Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field, with robust research and standards of care that have been developed. After Paul explained his question, the exchange descended into farce when Levine again refused to answer and repeated word-for-word, Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field... Paul was unimpressed at Levines reticence and noted, the witness refused to answer the question.

The video clip of the exchange encapsulates the dire state of what should be a serious political debate about the medicalisation of children:

Equally remarkable was Senator Patty Murrays response to the episode. Murray praised Levines thoughtful and medically informed responses, and even appeared to suggest that Levine had not been treated with respect.

In his questioning, Paul cited the case of Keira Bell, a British woman who had been prescribed hormone therapy as a teenager. Now aged 23, she regrets it. Recently, she brought a case to the High Court of England and Wales against her erstwhile clinic. She claimed that she had been too young to give consent. I am relieved that the courtagreed with her. Throughout childhood, I struggled with gender dysphoria and had gender affirming treatment been available to children in the 1980s I would have clamoured for it. But at best it is a palliative solution; had I taken it in my teens, I would never have had children of my own.

Following the Bell judgment, public health clinics in England and Wales can no longer prescribe puberty blocking drugs to children without the permission of a court, to protect young people from the folly of their own immaturity. But even so, children are not safe. Where there is money to be made, unscrupulous practitioners will look for openings.

On Saturday, we learned thatGender GP an online clinic working with children in the UK was prepared to use a legal loophole to supply testosterone, a class 3 controlled drug, to someone they thought was a 15-year-old girl. She was actually an undercover reporter at the Daily Telegraph. But Gender GP did not know that, having never actually met their patient, let alone examined them, and had never spoken to her parents.

Campaigning group forwomen.scot described it as a shocking dereliction of medical care.

Pictured in the featured image is Marianne Oakes, the lead counsellor at Gender GP, and a transwoman.Personaltestimony on the Gender GP website suggests that Oakes transitioned recently, having first been referred for treatment in September 2015, three months after qualifying as a therapeutic counsellor, with a view to realising my dream of working as a female therapist.

Oakes told the 15-year-old girl/Telegraph reporter that they did not require her parents permission. Staff accepted at face value the reporters stated belief that she was really male, telling her were not worried about your truth because theres no debate about that.

The Telegraph went on toreport that,

[The Prescription] was signed by a doctor in Romania, who the Telegraph has identified as a geriatrician also trained in administering Botox. GenderGP does not offer patients the chance of an appointment with her, even though she authorises the medication. Instead, they are directed to a doctor in Egypt, who told the reporter that it was excellent that, aged 15, she knew she never wanted to have children.

Appallingly, British children continue to access cross sex hormones, despite the Keira Bell judgment that they cannot even consent to puberty blockers.

Vulnerable children are being put at risk. The adults involved need to be called to account, transgender adults included. We may have first-hand experience of gender dysphoria, but we have no more idea than anyone else what it might feel like to be a member of the opposite sex. Nor can adult transitioners like Levine, Oakes or me, indeed ever really empathise with children who are being forced into life changing decisions about their future fertility before they know what it means to be an adult.

I never thought I would agree with a right-winger like Rand Paul. I started out as a socialist and I think I am still a socialist, but however wide the political gulf between us, it is transcended by something far more important the safeguarding of children.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Continued here:
As a socialist and a trans woman, I never thought Id agree with Rand Paul. But on this issue of protecting children, hes right - RT

I know many liberals will disagree with me on this, but in 1988 there really was a liberal media. I found it very hard to get honest-to-God news that interested me as a conservative, even as a White House staffer. It had to be sought out in small-circulation magazines like Human Events and National Review or from the very few conservative columnists in major newspapers.

When the established media lost its gatekeeper function, it led to a vast proliferation of crackpot ideas that circulate unimpeded today.

I didn't need validation of my views, as was the case with many grassroots conservatives. I wanted intellectual ammunition I could use to design and promote conservative policies in government. Contrary to popular belief, the Reagan administration took analysis and research seriously.

Unlike the Trump White House, which often sent out documents with typos in them (a firing offense when I worked there), the policy development process in the Reagan White House was reasonably competent.

A key reason for making sure that there were proper analysis and documentation for administration proposals is that they would have been picked apart in the media otherwise. Not only was the American press generally skeptical of our philosophy, but it was exponentially more powerful in those days and could make or break a policy proposal very easily.

Frankly, I think Democrats on Capitol Hill, who controlled the House of Representatives during Reagan's entire eight-year term, tended to outsource their criticism of Republicans to The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Beat reporters for the major newspapers were gatekeepers, refusing to even mention any proposal or idea that was insufficiently worked out, lacked empirical data or academic support or just seemed stupid. Back when I worked for Jack Kemp, it took me years to get The Wall Street Journal tax reporter to mention Kemp's tax cut planeven after it had been endorsed by the Journal's editorial page.

Liberal Media Rules

And in those days before the internet, politicians were very heavily dependent on the mainstream media to get out their messages. About the only other way of doing so was direct mail. But printing and mailing newsletters was very expensive, and it took an enormous amount of effort to build a mailing list.

Like it or not, conservatives in the pre-talk radio, pre-Fox News, pre-internet era had to work through the liberal media and play by its rules.

Rules of the once-dominant mainstream media were mostly good. When the established media lost its gatekeeper function, it led to a vast proliferation of crackpot ideas that circulate unimpeded today. Even members of the prestige media have found themselves unable to keep nutty conspiracy theories from affecting their reporting as they document what is motivating Republican voters and politicians. But in reporting the existence of crackpot ideas and fake news, the mainstream media implicitly validates them and publicizes them.

When Limbaugh first went on the air, he was a breath of fresh air for conservativeseven those working in the White House. He was an essential source of news. As all of his listeners know, Limbaugh hoarded a "stack of stuff" consisting of news clippings, press releases, faxes and whatnot that caught his eye and formed the basis for his monologues.

He was as much a news consolidator and reviewer as he was a commentator in those days. And he frequently had an intelligent spin on the news, often picked up from the many politicians and policymakers he talked to off the air.

Master of Radio

Of course, Limbaugh was also a blowhard, and his massive hubris was off-putting. But it was part of his schtick and one of the reasons he was popular. Say whatever else you like about him, but Limbaugh was a masterful radio personality. He really understood and loved the medium. His foray into television just didn't suit his style and was soon abandoned.

As is well known, what made Limbaugh's breakthrough moment possible was the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan's Federal Communications Commission in 1987. Previously, the expression of political opinions on television or radio required that time be provided for differing opinions. Since this was costly, it was easier for stations simply to present no opinions at all.

Those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine often fail to note its limitations. It applied only to over-the-air broadcast channels. It didn't apply to newspapers, magazines or cable television, which was already becoming a force. CNN went on the air in 1980. Naturally, it did not apply to the internet or any of its content.

Moreover, the Fairness Doctrine was under heavy legal assault as an infringement on the First Amendment. Personally, I think it was inevitable that the Fairness Doctrine would have been killed by the Supreme Court if it hadn't been repealed.

Savior of AM Band

The abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine coincided with more sweeping changes in the radio market. For some years, the AM band had been in decline as people switched to FM, where sound quality was better for listening to music.

But the AM band was perfect for talk radio, and that became its financial savior. Once Limbaugh showed how profitable talk radio could be, it took over AM radio, where it appealed to a certain demographic of working men and women and others who liked listening to the radio while they worked.

One reason I enjoyed listening to Limbaugh is that I had his private email address. Oftentimes, while he was on the air, I would have some thought or an obscure fact that fit with whatever he was pontificating about. Literally within minutes, I would hear him repeating what I told him. It was exhilarating.

Perhaps the most important long-term effect Limbaugh had on the media is that his success helped convince Australian press baron Rupert Murdoch to launch Fox News. Longtime Republican political consultant and television producer Roger Ailes drew up the plans for Fox and helped Limbaugh go national with his radio show. (For almost 20 years before meeting Ailes, Limbaugh had labored in the vineyards of small radio stations in Kansas City, Sacramento and elsewhere.) Without Ailes's help, Limbaugh would have never become what he was.

No One on the Left

It's also well known that liberal commentators have never been able to duplicate the success of Limbaugh. Even Al Franken, a skilled entertainer with deep political knowledge, failed to find an audience for a contra-Limbaugh radio show. I think the reason for this failure is simpler than it appears: Progressives already have their own talk radio network with a broad reachNational Public Radio. It's not as ideological as conservative talk radio, of course, but NPR produces exactly what liberals want radio to do, and it does so very, very well. Moreover, I think liberals are basically content with the mainstream media: The New York Times fulfills their news needs almost perfectly. That's why they get so upset when it strays from the liberal path by publishing conservative commentary.

In truth, the Times attracts precisely zero conservative subscribers by publishing the likes of Bret Stephens. I know this from many years in the conservative movement. I even remember the first moment when I realized how closed the conservative mind had become.

It was in 2004. As I have mentioned earlier, I had been quoted extensively in an article by the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind that ran in the Times magazine. When I asked my conservative friends what they thought of it, they universally said that they never read that leftist rag. I was shocked because I had built my career on getting stuff into the Times and had gotten pretty good at it.

I stopped listening to Limbaugh and watching Fox News in 2006, as I was beginning to shift my perspective leftward. I didn't do this so much because I no longer agreed with their ideology, but because I disagreed with their news judgment. I found myself paying attention to stupid memes circulating on the right that did not deserve any attention at all.

One of the most important things Fox and the rest of the right-wing media do is establish prioritiestelling their audience what is news and what isn't. To this day, I'm not sure if Fox viewers even know what happened on Jan. 6 or that Donald Trump was impeached for it.

Even before Limbaugh's death, there were press reports indicating that right-wing talk radio was dying. (And Fox's ratings are also collapsing.) I seriously doubt that the Limbaugh phenomenon can be duplicated, although his syndicator will undoubtedly try. I suspect that AM radio will find something other than right-wing outrage to sustain it in the post-Limbaugh erathough what that proves to be is likewise far from clear at the moment.

Bruce Bartlett is president of the DCReport board of directors.

CONTINUE READING Show less

Follow this link:
WATCH: Rand Paul laughs out loud about not wearing a mask on the Senate floor - Raw Story

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

A Never Trump colleague asks why I didnt support a second impeachment of Donald Trump, given that I say that I want the conservative movement to move beyond Trump. The answer isnt difficult.

For starters, the impeachment trial from the outset was a political spectacle, a rash judgment by Democrats. First, there was the debatable question of whether a non-sitting president can be impeached. Moreover, there were crucial questions not only of whether Trump instigated what happened on Jan. 6 but how House Democrats could immediately rush to an impeachment vote before an investigation had even been done on whether what happened was pre-planned well in advance (as everyone from the likes of CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The Washington Post and the FBI have reported), or whether those assaulting the building started before Trump even finished his speech (The Washington Post and The New York Times printed timelines before Democrats evidently thought of one). Theres also the crucial question of why tens of thousands present at the Trump speech were not instigated vs. a few hundred who allegedly were.

In sum, this was a snap House vote without an investigation, without witnesses (not even in the Senate trial) and without due process against the person charged. A political rush job and hack job by Democrats. The country needs to move on. You want unity, then pursue unity.

Of course, the deeper motivation by Democrats and certain anti-Trump Republicans was to use a second impeachment as a tool to disqualify Trump from running again. Thats what perplexed my colleague about my position: If I genuinely would like to see the conservative movement move beyond Donald Trump, why not support a move to disqualify him from running again? The answer is that the ends dont justify the means that is, a partisan exploitation of the impeachment process.

But as to the matter of the conservative movement moving beyond Trump, thats something Ive longed for since 2015, regardless of whether I concede that Trump as president did things that conservatives should applaud, from being a surprising defender of religious liberty and the pro-life position, to fracking and energy independence and deregulation, to making solid court picks, and more. Still, I saw from the outset, especially as a college professor, Trumps deleterious effect on young conservatives in particular. Of course, not all were repelled by him entire conservative youth groups like Turning Point USA became pro-Trump organizations. Overall, however, many young conservatives dropped out. They found nothing attractive about Trump.

Importantly, this is completely different from what happened in the 1980s, when droves of youth were attracted to conservativism because of the inspiring person and winsome message of Ronald Reagan. The likes of an Alex P. Keaton (played by Michael J. Fox) on Family Ties reflected a common kind of young conservative. I was one of them. As the conservative editorial page editor of The Pitt News in the late 1980s, I had a bunch of fellow writers who had been attracted to the movement.

I can speak to this keenly right now as Im writing the history of The American Spectator, which in the 1980s thrived among young conservatives. In the early 1980s, the notables who started their careers at Spectator were as diverse as bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell, prominent Never Trumpers John Podhoretz and Bill Kristol and George Will, and academic Mark Lilla, a Harvard Ph.D. and faculty member at Columbia University, who today writes for The New York Times and New York Review of Books, and has penned thoughtful works critiquing liberalism.

It was cool to be a conservative then. It was intellectually stimulating. It was fun.

I was a conservative back then in the 1980s because being a conservative was the most intellectually exciting option out there, Gladwell told me. It was where all the free thinking and the innovation was. The American Spectator was a key part of that. I think it attracted lots of young talent because it gave us all a chance to thumb our nose at the establishment.

What Im urging is to move the conservative movement beyond Donald Trump, with messengers like Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Kristi Noem, Dan Crenshaw and so many others (I could list pundits at length). This is a major moment of opportunity for a movement to regain its strength. Conservatism is about an enduring order that, well, endures. It transcends. It now must transcend Donald Trump.

But until then, you dont pursue a political spectacle of an impeachment trial intended to disqualify Trump from office simply for the purpose of getting there.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and chief academic fellow of the Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College.

Categories:Opinion | Paul Kengor Columns

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Paul Kengor Columns Stories

Go here to read the rest:
Paul Kengor: Moving the movement beyond Trump - TribLIVE

The Republican Party is broken.

If Mitch McConnell were just another Republican senator, I'd say he was the eighth bravest. The seven bravest are the ones who voted to convict Donald Trump.

For weeks I've been saying that if you honestly believe the Constitution forbids the Senate from convicting a former president (who was impeached while in office), you're free to do so. I think it's a profoundly wrong and dangerous view, creating precisely the "January exception" that impeachment managers warned about. But if that's your sincere opinion, you should be the one denouncing Trump's actions more than anyone else. You should be full of anger, sorrow and frustration that this lamentable oversight by the founders -- which doesn't actually exist -- prevents you from doing what the facts and morality warrant: convicting Trump for his hideous behavior leading up to, and during, the events of Jan. 6.

That is precisely what McConnell did Saturday, delivering a blistering and accurate denunciation of Trump's moral, political and, possibly, criminal culpability. And while McConnell was wrong in his vote, he at least voiced the truth, something beyond the likes of those governed solely by political appetites -- Sens. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio et al.

It's always better to acknowledge the right, even when doing wrong, than to deny that wrong even happened. Hypocrisy, after all, is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

Sign up for Daily Headlines

Get each day's latest first thing in the morning.

The problem is that McConnell, whom I have long defended from many of his more extreme critics, is not just another senator. He is the Republican leader in the Senate and the highest-ranking GOP official in the country. More importantly, he was the majority leader Jan. 7, and by all accounts his views of Trump's behavior were the same then as they are today.

If he wanted to, McConnell could have taken action to avoid the alleged problem of trying a former president by supporting a trial while Trump was still in office. Given the rules of the Senate, that effort may well have failed. But McConnell didn't want to try for partisan reasons.

As Yogi Berra might say, when McConnell came to a fork in the road, he took it.

McConnell's theory is that he can have it both ways: simultaneously denounce Trump and provide him cover in the hope of reconciling the divisions in the party that cannot be reconciled. McConnell, as shrewd as he is, will fail to satisfy both Republican and independent voters (and donors) horrified by Trump and the movement of those who want Trump and Trumpist populism to define the party.

McConnell's choice is emblematic of the GOP's rot. Republicans claim to fight for fidelity to the Constitution, traditional morality, law and order, economic liberty, fiscal responsibility, etc. As a conservative, I believe these are things worth fighting for. But most Republicans today don't see them as principles to stand for; they see them as slogans to campaign on.

That's the only way to reconcile their sloganeering with their slavish support for Donald Trump -- a thrice-married, admitted sexual predator who, as president, lavished praise on dictators, imposed tariffs with abandon, tried to steal an election so brazenly that he was impeached twice, and set in motion a multipronged anti-constitutional assault on Congress and democracy that left dead cops in its wake and the impeachment clause of the Constitution a dead letter.

"Courage," C.S. Lewis wrote, "is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality."

Again and again, at the moment of highest political reality, the bulk of the Republican Party has chosen Trump -- and the voters who dominate the primaries -- over all other considerations.

Graham, who spouts conservative campaign slogans so unctuously that he's left indelible grease stains in TV studios all around Washington, admitted on "Fox News Sunday" what his top priority actually is: "I'm into winning."

Recall that on Jan. 7, before he was intimidated by the MAGA movement he now once again champions, Graham blamed Trump for the Capitol attack. He now blames the police for not killing more Trump supporters, and he blames House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (whom some of those supporters wanted to kill) for not being better prepared for Trump's mob.

Graham personifies political cowardice. Whether cowardice can lead to "winning" remains to be seen. And whether such winning is worth the price the Republican Party is willing to pay, only history can answer.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Visit link:
Column: Jonah Goldberg: Emblems of the GOP's dysfunction (2/20/21) - Southeast Missourian

The vote, the explanation and the future of impeachments

Donald John Trump was impeached for the second time in his presidency. He is the only U.S. president to be impeached twice, but he is also the first former public official to have an impeachment trial. The trial began Feb. 9 and ended Feb. 13.The Houses Lead impeachment manager is Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, an expert in constitutional law. Joaquin Castro-TX, Madeleine Dean-PA, Diana DeGette-CO, Ted Lieu-CA, Joe Neguse-CO, Stacey Plaskett-US Virgin Islands and Eric Swalwell-CA were the supporting managers.For the Trump legal team, Bruce Castor Jr., David Schoen and Michael van der Veen were chosen a day before the impeachment trial. A disagreement between the previous team and Trump occurred due to a difference of legal strategy. This team was going to be led by Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer, and Deborah Barbier was supposed to join the original team as well. Former President Trump wanted his defense team solely to use fraudulent election allegations; however, Barbier and Bowers were not going to do so.In the U.S., our branches of government are unique in design due to checks and balances. An impeachment is a check for the chief executive, and the rules for the trials proceedings and the two-thirds requirements for a conviction provides the balance between the legislative chambers.I think it is important to remind people what exactly an impeachment is. An impeachment is a power the House of Representatives has; further, any public official including the president and congressional members may be brought to this ultimate or highest action to check them. If the article of impeachment passes the House, it is said that the President has been formally impeached; however, to see any change, the Senates impeachment trial must have a two-thirds majority vote in order to convict the respective official from the charge the House passed. If a conviction satisfies the two-thirds vote outlined in the constitution, the highest judgment the conviction can lead to is removal from office (if held at the time) and/or disqualification from holding public office in the future.If the impeachment trial is conducted while the president is in office, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides; however, this trial was held after Trump left office. So, the Senate designated Patrick Leahy-VT (President Pro-Tempore) as the chair. One criticism I have is, the trial could have gone better in the sense of structure. During this trial, there were times where a little more knowledge on Parliamentary Procedure could have dissolved confusion in the body. I believe that a chair of an impeachment trial should be the closest to excellence in Roberts Rules of Order. Instead, Leahy relied on the Parliamentarian, which could have undermined his legitimacy, causing more distrust in the process.The defense attorneys for the former president argued that the impeachment trial challenges constitutionality. Consequently, Sen. Rand Paul-KY invoked a motion the first day of the trial to halt the proceedings against Trump for incitement of insurrection. The motion passed 55-45 with five Republicans agreeing it was constitutional.Trumps constitutional impeachment trial allocated a few days to submit evidence and strengthen arguments for both parties. The House managers unveiled some video clips not previously made public. These included, but were not limited to, different angles of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, police body cam footage of battery and the Capitol security camera footage. The defense countered the Houses case with video clips of Democratic Party officials making statements in mid-2020 they said were similar to the inciting effect Trump had on Jan. 6.On Saturday, Feb. 13, the vote to not include witnesses led to closing statements from the House and defense and concluded the trial, invoking a roll call vote. Even though the Houses impeachment article was the most bipartisan of Trumps two impeachments, the current Republican Party had 43 senators voting not guilty. Seven of the 50 Republican senators voted guilty; this did not meet the two-thirds majority vote to disqualify Trump of holding future public office.So, how does this impeachment trial affect us? Well, we had a unique situation. The House impeached a President still in office, but the Senate trial for Trump occurred after he left the White House. I believe everyone has a right to disagree with it being constitutional or agreeing to it being constitutional.I think after this impeachment trial, there will be increased conversation about the introduction of an amendment to the Constitution for clarification. It does not matter whether you lean left, right or are grounded in the center. If the clause on impeachment should be changed or refined, then it will be done so by an amendment; however, our framers made this clause to be broadly interpreted in order to accommodate to the future accepted values of Americans.I have heard the argument that impeachment trials should require only a simple majority vote. This should not be done. According to 65th Federalist Paper authored by Alexander Hamilton, impeachments are purely political, and we must remember every human being is political. Trumps incitement of insurrection was political, and the house of the common people (the House) responded with a political reaction consequently for his action. The Senate is also structured as the upper house, or more elite public officials, that decides between acquittal or conviction. This is to check the House of Representatives power. It is important to know that at the time the impeachment clause was written that senators were chosen by the respective states legislatures until the 17th amendment (which allows the popular vote to be used to select a states senator).If conviction required a simple majority vote, you would see the legitimacy of the presidency steer downwards because it would lead to the legislative branch becoming the executive in a sense; therefore, abusing the checks and balances. This creates a pathway to impeaching officials, particularly the president, more easily, risking high turnover. If someone blames the senators who voted to acquit the 45th president, then we should be blaming the people who elected them into office. Representatives from the House may feel more pressure to vote in line with their constituency due to their two-year terms; however, senators may not feel as much pressure due to their longer, six-year terms. Additionally, the composition of the House of Representatives will respond more quickly to the political shift of voters because Senate elections are staggered. For example, Sen. Tammy Baldwin-WI was last voted in 2018, and her re-election is in 2024; on the other hand, Sen. Ron Johnson was last voted in 2016, and his re-election is in 2022. There is not as much turnover in the Senates elections compared to House elections, which are every two years.In all seriousness, if someone does not like the way their senator voted for this impeachment, not only should they voice their opinion by voting, but they should also actively reach out to the community and lead civic and civil conversations even during non-election years.The House impeached Donald Trump for inciting insurrection. The Senate did not meet the two-thirds vote to convict him, but a simple majority was met. Moreover, the fact that Trump was acquitted should not be used as evidence that the majority of Congress found Trump innocent of the incitement.Trump faces other preliminary criminal cases in Georgia and New York, but he is not disqualified from running for office. The justice systems judgments in those states will be the deciding factor whether Donald J. Trump will be in prison during one or more future general election cycles. If he is not ruled guilty, the American people (not solely relying on editorial broadcasting or social media) must hold each other accountable to inform our publics opinion of why he should not be voted in again.

See the original post here:
Opinion Piece: The 2nd Impeachment Exponent - Exponent