So when are sedition charges going to be brought against those involved in an active coup against a sitting president? Popcorn ready.
careless and extreme talk, at the same time. those who investigated Nixon were not accused of a coup, and for good reason. try eating a few facts per week. Read Taylor’s testimony.
I suppose there's a chance you're really directing this comment at dachuda's "sedition" claim, in which case I've got nothing to add. But on the question of using "coup" to describe the activities of the opposition since Trump's election, I think reasonable, educated, and well-intended people can disagree in good faith as to whether that term applies or not. I know folks here are not big fans of Jack Marshall's blog, and I myself rarely find myself agreeing with his "ethics" takes on things (he's not really an ethicist even if he teaches legal ethics professionally), but his post from yesterday is at least worth considering in a serious way. You may disagree with his use of the word "coup" to describe what he describes, but I don't think he uses the term carelessly or casually. https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/11/07/the-coup-in-progress-presidential-impeachment-removal-plans/
"In a democracy, presidents are chosen by the people in an election; if removed, that should also happen by election. Impeachment can facilitate that process. It can’t replace it." There might not be a democracy when there isn't free and fair election. When free and fair elections can't happen because of abuse of power from the President, the only course left might be impeachment itself. Unfortunately, since impeachment is dependent on politicians to do the right thing, above self-interest or politics, it is rarely immediately effective and sometimes abused. And of all the potential cases for impeachment, maintaining a free and fair election from internal (see Nixon) and external influence is probably the most crucial and most difficult due to self-interest. Yes, we should have something better, ideally something non-political. I haven't a clue what that could be. Maybe something that can be applied much sooner - a warning sign if you will with real teeth. Cut it out now and you are under automatic surveillance for some duration. I also think we need to strengthen our capability to remove a President with a process that is less politically involved. Maybe a needed step is once impeachment happens in the House, there is more than one way for removal. Maybe there should be two votes. A public vote and a blind vote (blind as in no one know who voted for what - this improves the chance of the Senate doing the right thing with less self-interest). There must be a simple majority public vote and either public or private vote crossing the 2/3 threshold removes the President.
Started but haven't finished reading Dr. Hill's testimony yet. Was expecting something dry and boring, but it's not that at all. So far I find this closed-door testimony such valuable insight. You get to see how she operates, thinks and her overall professionalism. You also get a sense of how others around them operate. Such much more direct info than from news or talking head. https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6543445-Fiona-Hill-Testimony
The use of terms like "coup" and "sedition" are not just irresponsible but completely misplaced. The Constitution not only grants Congress the power to check and remove the President the very nature of our system is for the branches to check each other. Also this idea that impeachment isn't democratic ignores that our system doesn't have direct democracy. We already have a minority president who sits because of Electors against the will of direct democracy. Members of the House are elected as our representatives and have as much if not more accountability as the Electors.
Know nothing of him, but at least some of his assessments are factually incorrect. I can't take it seriously. If I ignore all of that - his use of "soft coup" is applicable to all past Presidents and nothing unique to Trump. If fact, it's applicable to all politicians. It's also applicable to anyone who has faced politics against them at work, at school or wherever else. Politics as usual. It's wrong but then that's why people in politic needs to not do politically stupid things first, and definitely not illegal things.
Strange that a professor an published writer could be so wrong and not have basic facts correct. I'm curious why his editors would let the article go out like this.
I'm fine with that list even though I don't see how Hunter Biden is relevant to the legality and ethics of Trump's actions, but I am happy to have him appear.
Agree to disagree pretty strongly on this front. For anyone to use the term 'coup' in would-be good faith, here's what they have to deny, if you ask me: * That Congress is a co-equal branch of the government. * That the congressional representatives are elected just like the president was duly elected. * That the founding documents of our republic clearly set out a process of checks and balances including impeachment. In fact, you kind of have to buy in to President Trump's insistence that he is the living embodiment of the United States of America. Any criticism of him is anti-American, according to him, and any attempt to hold his power in check is a 'coup' in his way of telling the story. But other than that, for the sake of rhetorical gymnastics we can use terms like "soft coup" for things like: * impeaching Clinton for his perjury (allowed under constitution) * not letting Obama fill court vacancies (questionable, at best, under constitution) * not holding a vote on USSC nominees (questionable, at best, under constitution) * racially motivated gerrymandering to greatly diminish one group's representation in the republic (not in the spirit of the constitution). * the squabbles of Parliament versus Boris Johnson in the UK. In other words, guly business as usual in contentious times seems to be filled with 'soft coups,' and that just removes any real utility for the word 'coup' in times where it might be more useful. I just don't personally enjoy 'for the sake of argument' as an exercise when a major political party refuses to acknowledge the in-evidence misdeeds of a chief executive. Sometimes Occam's Razor is very helpful: we have a thug in power, by all current and lifelong evidence. Calling legal attempts to have that executive recognize and respect the laws of our country a 'coup' is just another disappointing way a political group aims to prioritize the thug's political career above their own stated principles and the straightforward principles underwriting our system of governance.
American Heros Channel program Mysteries of the Mundane lady-man Dr. Lynette says 48% of the German population had eutrapelia during WW2.
He's successfully convinced 2/5ths of the nation that critics of the president are the "enemy of the people". I'm surprised with the level of fascist like arguments from people like @Os Trigonum
Yes, the facts are simply not supportive of a coup in any way shape or form. The writer and editors that allowed that article to be published have taken a hit to their credibility. I think everyone but @bigtexxx and @dachuda86 can understand that. Those posters have a pretend-tenuous and genuinely tenuous grip on reality anyway.
that's fine . . . I'm not sure we're exactly talking about the same thing, but I appreciate your response. I take it that "coup" talk of the kind discussed in the linked blog essay has more to do with the rejection of the traditional idea of "loyal opposition" and the substitution or wholesale adoption of a subversive agenda from the moment the individual was elected President. Thus some of the things you cite e.g., seem to be rather besides the point. Nobody is denying those things at all so far as I can see. And some of what you write, e.g., I just don't know what to do with. I don't think anyone is saying "Any criticism of him is anti-American" (other than perhaps Trump himself, but it would be hard to know if he's serious or if that would be just bluster). Jack Marshall himself detests Trump and has a sort of running joke about "don't make me defend Trump," but over time finds himself having to make principled arguments in defense of the institution of the Presidency that have as a byproduct or side effect of implying a defense of the current occupant of that office. but again, I appreciate both your response and your agreement to disagree. I do not believe the use of "soft coup" language necessarily entails either an endorsement of Trump himself or any kind of endorsement of Trump's methods or policies.
HP, I'm guessing you were going to share this link of a WaPo article documenting how many Democrats called Clinton's impeachment a "coup." . Great minds must think alike. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...racterize-impeachment-coup-protect-their-own/
this 2016 piece by Richard Epstein seems especially prescient now. https://www.hoover.org/research/loyal-opposition more at the link
Well I would say attempting to remove someone from office because they lied about a blowjob vs attempting to remove someone from office for abusing US power to extort a country for your own personal political gain are quite different.
