That's exactly the point. The MPs were prepared to make a stand to uphold their principles and fight for what they believed was right irrespective of the personal cost. Contrast that to the Republicans who enable a sociopathic, racist and demented President and won't even call him out on his behaviour for fear of their own political careers. There's no way Trump would last three months let alone three years if he was the British PM.
Donald Trump - All things impeachment.... | Acquitted in the Senate
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
- Status
So, the Democrats will keep extending his period of 'martyrdom'; isn't that grits to the mill for Trump?
Isn't this the same play-book the Remain-leaning people in the UK were following in the previous UK parliament, i.e. that they could only postpone the outcome not change it? Eventually the public got fed up with Brexit politics and re-elected Boris Johnson and his party with a mind blowing majority. Won't this happen over there, that the US public (that is the uncommitted) will get fed up with a daily diet of impeachment politics and there will be a backlash, not against Trump but against the Democratic Party.
Surely history teaches us that if you want to succeed in your coup by bringing down the Head of State,then you do it quickly and quietly, don't turn it into long running soap opera, which is an embarrassment to everyone, the accused and his accusers alike!
I think so... also thinking through the implications I can really only see 4 possible outcomes as I cant see the senate agreeing what pelosi defines as a fair trial so the longer it goes on it plays as one branch of government vs 2 but in the end I think either:
1. Polosi moves forward quickly with a trial which will now look like backing down
2. Pelosi stalls for ages and moves forwards anyway (potentially moving the trial into the middle of the democratic nominations or even the election) - i dont think either will play well
3. Pelosi refuses to move forward with a trial at all which I think is also a bad look
4. Pelosi looks to legal action which I think would be a huge mess
Perhaps there is another way around it but right ow I don't see it
If history has taught us anything, it’s that America has a hard time learning from history.
Sorry to be that guy, but its grist to the mill, unless of course your name is cletus?
you keep saying it's a "coup", but its not. It's a constitutional process.
anyway, from what you're saying what should be the Democrats plan? just let Trump do whatever he wants? let him bribe his way into the next election and act as a dictator and just sit there and watch? that sure sounds super motivating to democratic voting population
History never existed prior to WWII, which America won.
It’s not a coup and there’s literally nothing about impeachment that will go quietly, especially with the Tweeter in Chief whose mere existence is deafening.
Yes to the outside world it perhaps looks like a 'paralysis of power' in the USA, like it did in the UK with the Executive v Parliament over Brexit. Could it embolden the USA's enemies? Could it return Trump with and even greater mandate, like its done for Boris Johnson?
Yes it is, thanks for the correction.
When you start a process, any process, to remove a sitting President/Head of State duly elected but you know you cannot finish it, what else would you call it, except a 'failed coup'?
Why not, at least for a while...? When Trump's not under attack he's lost, he's a counter-hitter, but then with no one to blame he runs out of fuel, eventually grinding to a halt and exposes his true position. When he started out as potential nominee with the Republicans the world and his wife lined up to take pot shots at him, he defied all expectation, some would say common sense, battled through to win the nomination and then rolled on to what everyone thought would be the worst Republican defeat in Presidential history, but the rest is history, written by the winner!
Its worth a shot don't you think? Democrats have to stop serving him balls he can hammer out of the park. It would of course need absolute will power from ever part of the Democratic Party, but you know it might convince fellow Americans that with that sort of self discipline, "you know these guys could run the country"!
As above; if you know you cannot guarantee the outcome then the attempt at removal, what ever the process, is a 'coup', a failed coup at that!
I would suspect Trump does not want it to go quietly, its what he craves, being the centre of attention.
Is that paraphrasing Hegel?
I didn't want to post the literal dictionary definition but you forced my hand.
A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ (listen); French: [ku deta]), also known by its German name putsch (/pʊtʃ/), or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.
Impeachment is not non-democratic, not illegal and not unconstitutional. And the main faction of this political scene that is using the word "coup" are the republicans trying make this constitutional process sound illegal. So, yeah I don't want to presume what it says about you.
Anyway, like you mentioned Trump is a counter-hitter but for your argument to work Trump should only use attacks on him to counter-attack. But the problem is , based on whats happened in the last 4 years, Trump doesn't need an attack to counter-attack. He just pulls those attacks out of thin air and basically makes up enemies to to "counter-attack". Do you really think if democrats kept quiet he would not keep tweeting shit about democrats, making up stuff like they are coming for your guns, your christianity, your babies, your money and so on and so forth to rile up his base and play every dirty tricks in his book? And again keeping quiet in the face of demonstrable disregard for the ethics, laws and the constitution is not really a sign that will show American people that "you know these guys could run the country". It will only make them look like a complicit.
Last edited:
Oh please for heavens sake;
OXFORD (Clarendon Press): coup (koo) n. successful stroke or move
This impeachment process isn't going to be successful is it?
You’re clearly being deliberately disingenuous at this point.
Or more likely, the people willing to be principled are now gone, and the Tories picked candidates this time that will follow the party line. Just like the GOP drove out all their congress and senate members who were willing to speak out against Trump. The state of the GOP is relatively recent, and the Tories are certainly watching and copying tactics from them.
i'm just speechless. Even by your own definition impeachment is not a "coup" and the fact is you are giving a definition of the word "coup" that has no relevance to how you have used it in your original statement.Am I, because...what? I pointed out the Oxford definition of the word I actually used?
I did not say it was a coup d'état I used the definition of coup as a successful stroke or move, which this impeachment process is clearly not going to be
Its not my definition its the Oxford Dictionary's definition, I used it in this context because the impeachment process is not going to be a successful stroke or move, which is what the Democrats were hoping it would be. Please stop using the strawman argument!
Going by any definition, impeachment is not a coup as congress itself is another democratically elected body with constitutional mandate to have oversight over the presidency. It would be their own dereliction of duty if they saw any wrongdoing and declined to act.
I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said “we learn from history that we learn nothing from history“
So perhaps not just you dumb Americans
I wanted to post the oxford dictionary definitions of what you were trying to mean and what it meant in the context of your original statement. But for the sake of discussion here, I'll give you the benefit of doubt of using that word incorrectly in the original context. Either way the word has negative connotations in the political sense and should not be used to describe a constitutional process. It would be better if you replied to the meat of the discussion in the previous post.
So, theoretical question: If they see something that isn't there, and act as if it was there, what is the definition? Because that's what's happening here. I believe it's called "delusion" rather than "dereliction of duty." This bunch lost an election and can't handle the truth. This has been their endgame since the results came out.
yeah.. that’s like your opinion man.
Sorry, I know and live around too many Democrats... it's opinion based on observation. These people abandon all reason when they hear the name "Trump". It would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.
A “failed impeachment”...?
But it's a successful impeachment.
It should be when almost half the population believe a constitutional process is being used as a tool to try remove a political opponent from high office and it is known from the outset it is going to be unsuccessful, in such circumstances it is therefore appropriate to describe it as an attempted coup!
I am not sure what the 'meat' of your argument was. I was suggesting one way to deal with Trump is to deny him the 'oxygen' of publicity, provided to him when the Democrats attack him on his own ground and/or when they cannot pin him down. Surely they should choose only the political' battles they can win.
Tweeting, seems to be Trumps way of avoiding the press, he appears to see this as a way to bypass/avoid what he describes as fake news; but perhaps more importantly he knows it riles his opponents especially when he can use non-diplomatic language and at the same time it lifts the spirits of his supporters because presumably they think he is speaking directly to them.
A silent response can be devastating if used in the correct context.
I hardly believe that the Tories are modelling their politics from the Republicans.
It’s a failed coup apparently. The Dems are desperate to get their man Mike Pence in the hot seat.
coup
/ko͞o/
Learn to pronounce
noun
- 1.
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
Could you elaborate?
Like some others have already said, he is impeached so the process was successful.
I don't think there's a single democrat that believed before all of this started that the GOP controlled senate would remove Trump from office no matter what he did. I think it's simply the Dems showing that they will do the right thing and hold Trump accountable for the shit he's doing and not just sit idly by and let him cheat his way into another term like some Putin wannabe. A bit like a police officer arresting the kid of the mayor even though he knows his dad will get the charges dropped within 5min, it's the right thing to do even though the end result isn't anything to write home about.
The only coup that was unsuccessful was Donnie's attempt at getting a country in need of help to do his bidding when he realized that Biden was a threat for 2020.
Sure, every time they see anything Trump, the devolve into epithets and half-truths (or less than half-truths). They attribute things to him that their own favorite politicians have made careers doing. They immediately go straight to the toilet with their humor (not that that's out of the ordinary for many of them, it's a common trait I've seen among neo-liberals when they see something with which they disagree, and it's a one-way street for them). Put simply, they act like early adolescents.
As for the Biden thing, it's pretty apparent they have no real evidence, it's all second- and third-hand hearsay, which would never be admissible in any real court of law. Further, much of the "fact gathering" that they are relying on may have been obtained through illegitimate means which would get any evidence gained by such means thrown out of any real court of law.
The irony here is that it does appear that Biden did use his own influence as Vice President of the United States of America to get his son some nice kick-back, and, if that was the case, then Trump, now as Chief Executive, would be well within the bounds of his position to ferret that out as a matter of law enforcement (which falls under the purvey of the Executive Branch).
What half truths of less than half truths are you referring to? Most of the stuff I've heard seems pretty cut and dry.
Which cut and dry things are you referring to? Most of the stuff I've heard sounds like hearsay?
You can see why Trump does so well with distractions when we've had a page arguing over the use and definition of coup.
It's not fecking difficult. Signing Ronaldo was a coup.
Impeachment is not a coup, it's a legitimate, legal process.
As for straight to the toilet with their humour, what examples? And surely you must be saying that tongue in cheek given Trump's penchant for nicknames and mocking appearances, disabilities, sex, race, social status, if someone has been captured and tortured or not and even if they are dead or alive.
Recently pardoning war criminals, is that devolving in to half truths? Or mocking Gold Star families? Paying off porn stars? Etc....
It's not fecking difficult. Signing Ronaldo was a coup.
Impeachment is not a coup, it's a legitimate, legal process.
As for the Biden thing? Are you arguing for or against Trump and his impeachment here?
As for straight to the toilet with their humour, what examples? And surely you must be saying that tongue in cheek given Trump's penchant for nicknames and mocking appearances, disabilities, sex, race, social status, if someone has been captured and tortured or not and even if they are dead or alive.
Recently pardoning war criminals, is that devolving in to half truths? Or mocking Gold Star families? Paying off porn stars? Etc....
Against. It's a political distraction by the Dems. They've done feck all since winning the House and this is all they've got.
As for Trump's tweets, a lot of that is attribution of things that he does not say. People read what they want into it because they just "know" what he means. Right...
Pardoning war criminals? Potayto - Potahto... Most, if not all, of those were scapegoats for higher-ups.
Mocking Gold Star families? Much was made of little.
Paying off porn stars? Really? Who cares? Many, maybe most, politicians have paid others off to keep things quiet. Athletes do this all the time (Ronaldo?). Bill Clinton was a philanderer extraordinaire - everyone that lived in Arkansas when he was governor knows this. Most of America knows this. Democrats loved him. Hillary made a career of putting out those fires - the Bimbo Eruption Unit was real. But now it matters?
All that said, I didn't vote for Trump. Didn't vote for Hillary, either. But from a governing perspective, Trump is no worse than Obama, and in most ways better. More than the last three presidents, he does respect the process. It's just that most people are ignorant of the process thanks to decades of public education not teaching how the government was designed to operate.
Are you being coy on purpose?
Just pointing out that your opinion is no more valid than mine, and mine is no less valid than yours.
- Status