The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Birds Away]

It isn't a coup per se. I suppose it isn't even a conspiracy as individual actors or small groups with the same goal seem to get in each others way as often as not. When this President speaks the left hears racism and demagoguery. The right hears patriotism and stoicism in the face of constant attacks. It isn't either but you can't convince anyone of that. The attacks have been unyielding since day one. Because of this a large swath of the population simply isn't listening anymore. The latest iteration, the proposed impeachment, is just more crying wolf to many people. It's all so far afield that people on either side wouldn't know the truth if they heard it.

 

[T.Lex]

We’re in a positive feedback loop of hyperbole. The only way to stop it is to break the loop. Who can do that? And who, with the power to do that, will stand up?

Clearly, not POTUS nor Pelosi.

At some point, using the wrong word becomes a lie. Just like "literal Hitler" is a lie, so too is "coup," in the absence of violence or the threat of violence.

Unlike molon labe, which IMHO does not have an implicit "threat" of violence, a "coup" requires arms and at least the threat to use them.

Does antifa threaten violence? Yes. Do Pelosi and the House Dems in the articles of impeachment? No.

 

[Birds Away]

You've never heard of a bloodless coup?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You've never heard of a bloodless coup?

Trying to think of the last one that went through the legal means of government, rather than forceful removal.

 

[T.Lex]

You've never heard of a bloodless coup?

Sure, and a palace coup. Both of which involve the threat of force.

Usually it is the army or a paramilitary group that does it.

In every instance, they are extra-legal. That is, they are not pursuant to a legal authority to change the government.

Impeachment, almost by definition, is a lawful exercise.

 

[jamil]

Literal Hitler v. Literal Coup in a race to the bottom.

Oh. Boy.

Pretty much. But I have re-evaluated my math and I got the computation of the multiplier coefficient wrong. I estimated about 3x for a president to engage in hyperbole compared with a mere congress critter or media conglomerate. Their standard hyperbole is probably 1/3 the impact of the president’s. However, I did not account for the hyperbolic impact of a direct hyperbolic accusation of the president breaking the law, feigned as a credible accusation. The hyperbolic impact of either side is less if only the faithful believe it.

So, calling him literally Hitler is probably the equivalent of him calling them fake news (well, except it’s more entertaining when he does that). But certainly them accusing the President of the United States of an impeachable crime, is probably more impactful than just about any hyperbole that typically comes from his twitter feed.

 

[Birds Away]

Trying to think of the last one that went through the legal means of government, rather than forceful removal.

Exactly what high crime or misdemeanor is the President being accused of? For this to be "legal" doesn't that little hurdle have to be crossed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Exactly what high crime or misdemeanor is the President being accused of? For this to be "legal" doesn't that little hurdle have to be crossed.

A bit unrelated. I don't see any crime here, and the impeachment is just a nonsense political move. They'll lose in the Senate, so it's pointless. Probably going to hurt both sides with whatever information comes out, typical political play.

But I don't see them marching into the White House with the military behind them to depose Trump.

 

[Birds Away]

A bit unrelated. I don't see any crime here, and the impeachment is just a nonsense political move. They'll lose in the Senate, so it's pointless. Probably going to hurt both sides with whatever information comes out, typical political play.

But I don't see them marching into the White House with the military behind them to depose Trump.

I clearly stated this was not a coup. But to call it a removal by "legal means" isn't completely accurate either. Some will disagree.

 

[T.Lex]

Exactly what high crime or misdemeanor is the President being accused of? For this to be "legal" doesn't that little hurdle have to be crossed.

Not really. Kinda like when someone is charged with perjury, it isn't a legal conclusion until there's a conviction. A prosecutor can believe that a statement is perjury, but it is up to the jury to decide. The filing of the charge is a legal mechanism, though.

Similarly, if the House votes articles of impeachment for a "high crime or misdemeanor," then that is like filing the charge. It is then up to the Senate to determine if the alleged conduct is a "high crime or misdemeanor" and if it is, whether POTUS is guilty of it.

That's kinda what left Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in office.

 

[BugI02]

Sure, and a palace coup. Both of which involve the threat of force.

Usually it is the army or a paramilitary group that does it.

In every instance, they are extra-legal. That is, they are not pursuant to a legal authority to change the government.

Impeachment, almost by definition, is a lawful exercise.

American Revolution - coup? It's all about the [STRIKE]bass[/STRIKE] semantics and who's making the speeches

“One man's [STRIKE]terrorist[/STRIKE] [coup participant] is another man's freedom fighter,”

 

[Birds Away]

The velvet revolution was a coup without an inherent threat of force.

 

[jamil]

Clearly, not POTUS nor Pelosi.

At some point, using the wrong word becomes a lie. Just like "literal Hitler" is a lie, so too is "coup," in the absence of violence or the threat of violence.

Unlike molon labe, which IMHO does not have an implicit "threat" of violence, a "coup" requires arms and at least the threat to use them.

Does antifa threaten violence? Yes. Do Pelosi and the House Dems in the articles of impeachment? No.

It’s okay to use hyperbole as a literary device, in an allegoric sense to make clearer an underlying truth. That kind of usage is not a lie. And, one could use “coup” in this case as such a device. The Democrats are indeed trying to evict this president from the White House because they see him as illegitimate. They’ve made this obvious since the beginning. They’ve in no uncertain language expressed that this is a by all means necessary kind of emergency for them.

But I doubt that the president means it that way.

Who can stop the ratcheting unfounded hyperbole? Not one side. If both sides don’t do it, it’s just going to play itself out. And that’s the ride I think we’re on now. Just strap in and find some entertainment value because there isn’t anything we can do about it other than argue and **** one another off.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

California's "tax return" requirement got shot down in court

 

[Birds Away]

I don't think Trump should rely on the fealty of Republicans in the Senate as much as he does. The vote, if taken, will be much closer than many suppose. Even those who purportedly support him only do so with their own future electability in mind. If they detect the slightest change in the wind they will fall like a house of cards.

 

[T.Lex]

The velvet revolution was a coup without an inherent threat of force.

Hold up.

Let's not dilute either "revolution" or "coup." There's a difference.

The Velvet Revolution was... a revolution. The PEOPLE deposed their government. It was absolutely not a coup any more than our own revolution was. Nor was our Civil War a coup.

 

[jamil]

American Revolution - coup? It's all about the [STRIKE]bass[/STRIKE] semantics and who's making the speeches

“One man's [STRIKE]terrorist[/STRIKE] [coup participant] is another man's freedom fighter,”

[video=youtube_share;iyTTX6Wlf1Y]http://youtu.be/iyTTX6Wlf1Y[/video]

 

[KG1]

A bit unrelated. I don't see any crime here, and the impeachment is just a nonsense political move. They'll lose in the Senate, so it's pointless. Probably going to hurt both sides with whatever information comes out, typical political play.

But I don't see them marching into the White House with the military behind them to depose Trump.

There is certainly enough of a grey area being fought over partisan lines on whether an impeachable offense has been committed which in and of itself should give pause to the invocation of the impeachment process lead by a Democrat majority House.

 

[Birds Away]

Hold up.

Let's not dilute either "revolution" or "coup." There's a difference.

The Velvet Revolution was... a revolution. The PEOPLE deposed their government. It was absolutely not a coup any more than our own revolution was. Nor was our Civil War a coup.

So what we're experiencing is the NeverTrump revolution of Leftists and elitist Republicans. That makes sense.

 

[KG1]

So what we're experiencing is the NeverTrump revolution of Leftists and elitist Republicans. That makes sense.

I think Trump should call it that in his next tweet.