Why do you insist on using the word coup when it's been explained that its nothing of the sort.
Donald Trump - All things impeachment.... | Acquitted in the Senate
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
- Status
Only to those who haven’t done the slightest bit of research.
So if the Republicans (who presumably saw nothing wrong in the Presidents actions) had the majority votes in the House of Representatives then there would have been no impeachment at all, is that correct?
Because if the impeachment is being used in a non bi-partisan way simply as a means to bring down Trump, then 'coup' is the correct term and clearly many Republicans feel that it is!
That's precisely what happened between Jan 2017 to Jan 2019. There were plenty of emoluments issues during that time, that the Paul Ryan led house ignored.
Impeachment doesn't have to be bi-partisan to be credible. It simply requires the sort of actions and corrupt behavior Trump has exhibited, and the political conditions in each house of Congress to proceed.
It is when both Houses have different majorities and each are voting according to party, which is what seems to be happening now and hence it cannot be seen as being a credible process!
Oh that’s good stuff. I’m using it!
No, it isn’t. That’s not a difficult concept.
It is indeed credible since voters elected each house and senate member, so their actions, however irrational are simply an extension of the democratic process.
Sorry Caroline you lost me with the last response...What 'isn't' and what concept is not difficult??
Even when the process is being used questionably, even when it stirs up partisan ideals, when it doesn't get a result, is seen to vindicate the person charged, almost by default, and costs the tax payers lots of money?
And that' is credible?
Incredible, more like surely?
Source: the Encyclopedia Britannica
“Impeachment, in common law, a proceeding instituted by a legislative body to address serious misconduct by a public official”
“Coup d’état, also called Coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.”
But yeah - they’re basically the same
“Impeachment, in common law, a proceeding instituted by a legislative body to address serious misconduct by a public official”
“Coup d’état, also called Coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.”
But yeah - they’re basically the same
OK clear on 1) sorry Sir!
2)Disagree. If it looks like a coup, the result is the same as a coup, is undertaken like a coup...then its a coup!
can't believe this is still going on..Hey, that’s fine. Words just mean whatever the hell you want them to mean. Good to know.
2 things:
1) The Democrats are following a legal process as set out in the US consitution, a coup, by definition, is an illegal process, hence this is not a coup
2) You argue that the Democrats know the senate won't convict, and so they know the outcome will not be the removal of Trump. If indeed you are correct and they know before they start that it is impossible that the result of their actions will be the removal of Trump, then if can't be coup, which by definition is a change in government.
Credible is not the same as successful, an unsuccessful process can of course be a credible process.
Coup d'etat
"a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, especially by part of an army " - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup
1) it isn't sudden, the Democrats are following the exact process they should be doing, calling witnesses etc and taking their time about it
2) it isn't violent
3) they aren't a military organisation
4) according to you they know before they start it won't result in a change of government as the senate will never convict.
So seeing as it doesn't meet any of the criteria, in what possible way could it be defined as a coup?
One person still believes a legitimate constitutional process is a partisan coup.
Filibustering.
Not according to everyone on here, but my argument was that a Coup (koo) n. is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a successful stroke or move
since this won't be successful stroke or move, then it would be a failed coup.
Thank you to all contributors to the great 'Coup' debate. I have spent a pleasant Monday afternoon on the Caf, off now to make our evening meal.
Thanks once again and a very Merry Christmas to you all... first class posters (well most of you are!)
Thanks once again and a very Merry Christmas to you all... first class posters (well most of you are!)
Nope. Impeachment is quite literally following constitutional law.
There aren't many constitutions that articulate if there is dissatisfaction with a leader the correct process is overthrowing the government by force - an actual coup.
It's been thoroughly enjoyable.
liar.
I choose to define ‘coup’ as “The act of tilting or shooting rubbish from a cart, wheelbarrow” since this definition clearly makes the most sense within the context of this conversation.
From the Oxford dictionary...
5. French phrases frequent in English use. a. coup d'état (ku deta) [F. état state]: a sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
https://www.oed.com/oed2/00052245
what does ruth bader ginsburg define as a sandwich
There’s also the “counting coup” meaning used by Plains Natives when they bashed folks heads in...
But that definition is inherently apolitical and lacks the pejorative slant you seek to lend it. It just means that some surprising objective or other has nevertheless been achieved. Under this definition Ancelotti to Everton would be considered a coup; it would be a failed coup every time Colchester were defeated by Manchester United, or every time the execution of my Christmas dinners failed to live up to the ambition. Politically speaking it would refer to Trump outlasting the Republican field or AOC beating a powerful incumbent to wrest control of Queens from the Democratic establishment. A failed coup in this sense is just the expected outcome, something unworthy of note. That you choose to nevertheless note it demonstrates that it really isn't the definition you're actually using and that what you're really doing is obfuscating between meanings in order to imply Democratic malfeasance.
In 2014 United, possibly supported by the CIA, pulled off a coup in South America - coup
So if its a coup now but when Bill Clinton got impeached, what was that?
'Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.' That's what Lindsey Graham said — in 1999.
The main issue with the question of this being credible due to the partisan or non-partisan nature of it is the behaviour of the Republic members of the House and Senate.
When faced with the overwhelming evidence that has been provided the Republicans have not voted based on the merits of the evidence. The have voted for partisan reasons and so have broken their promise of being a check and balance on the power and activity of the executive.
That is their core function and if they had contrary evidence to prove the President innocent, they would have provided it and given a compelling argument against impeachment. They have failed to do this, and simply closed ranks in a classic case of, ‘The Tyranny of the Majority’ as, because the majority of the Senate will vote against impeachment, the truth of these proceedings will become that Trump was innocent of this wrongdoing.
When faced with the overwhelming evidence that has been provided the Republicans have not voted based on the merits of the evidence. The have voted for partisan reasons and so have broken their promise of being a check and balance on the power and activity of the executive.
That is their core function and if they had contrary evidence to prove the President innocent, they would have provided it and given a compelling argument against impeachment. They have failed to do this, and simply closed ranks in a classic case of, ‘The Tyranny of the Majority’ as, because the majority of the Senate will vote against impeachment, the truth of these proceedings will become that Trump was innocent of this wrongdoing.
If anything it shows that the process should be changed. The outcome is known because the people in the senate will ignore the facts in favor of towing the party line. Surely just giving up and saying well, he's crooked, but feck it, nothing we can do about isn't the way to go?
Mate, I'd leave it. You really don't get it. How are the Democrats impotent?? They've impeached the fecker!
You realise of course that there have been numerous times that the house and senate are split regarding representation re: the President and impeachment hasn't been a serious thought regardless of how the sides hate each other. None of those Presidents committed impeachable acts and so it wasn't used. Trump has committed impeachable acts and so was impeached.
- Status