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

[T.Lex]

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.

Totally agree with this.

But, I have no hope of rational thought from Pelosi.

 

[Birds Away]

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.

No impeachment proceedings would ever be started unless the House was held by the opposition party. It isn't political reality.

 

[BugI02]

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, you're saying in a coup it isn't the people deposing their government?

Is it aliens?

View attachment 80343

 

[jamil]

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.

No. Maybe there’s something we can do. Maybe that’s exactly what we need to do to help break the positive feedback loop. Dilute the hyperbole. Stop taking it seriously. It’s just hyperbole. When they call Trump literally Hitler it doesn’t mean he is actually the embodiment of Hitler. It’s just hyperbole. When Trump says “coup”, it doesn’t mean there’s a literal coup. When he says “assassination” it’s not real. It’s hyperbole.

There’s an emoji that reflects what each side does when the other says something hyperbolic. Stop doing that. Stop it. All they hysterical reaction just helps fuel the other side to ratchet more of their own hyperbole.

I just want to get back to the world we had, where people could disagree with each other, without having to unfriend them. This world society seems to be proposing is not a place that’s habitable. It will tear itself apart.

Stop going ape**** hysterical every time someone says hyperbolic ****.

 

[T.Lex]

I just want to get back to the world we had, where people could disagree with each other, without having to unfriend them. This world society seems to be proposing is not a place that’s habitable. It will tear itself apart.

Here's another idea: use the right words. That's what I want. I want people to use the right words. Or at least defensible words. (My idea has about as much chance of happening as yours does.)

Hyperbole isn't even bad, if people use the right words.

Calling a telephone conversation "perfect" is hyperbole. And awkward. But mostly hyperbole.

A candidate saying that they are starting a "movement" is hyperbole. And often wrong.

Calling the current impeachment effort as a "brazen attack on the presidency" is hyperbolic. But mostly accurate.

Those are all defensible.

Using the wrong word - especially a word with heavy historical implications - is still the wrong word.

 

[KG1]

No impeachment proceedings would ever be started unless the House was held by the opposition party. It isn't political reality.

That's why the grey area aspect in question being fought along partisan lines makes it appear like an unseemly political attempt by the Democrat House to get an upper hand because they are able to invoke impeachment proceedings by themselves as the majority opposition.

 

[T.Lex]

That's why the grey area aspect makes it appear like an unseemly political attempt by the Democrat House because they are able to invoke impeachment proceedings by themselves as the majority opposition.

At least with Clinton, everyone was pretty sure he'd committed perjury, an actual crime.

 

[KG1]

At least with Clinton, everyone was pretty sure he'd committed perjury, an actual crime.

I think there seemed to be enough of a consensus about the Nixon impeachment proceedings to move forward with it as well. As it should be.

 

[T.Lex]

I think there seemed to be a consensus about the Nixon impeachment proceedings to move forward with it as well. As it should be.

Yeah, that's probably true.

ETA:
Now that you mention it, the response to the Watergate incident was probably as close as we've come to a coup in modern USian history. Even then, the efforts were legal.

But, it was a group of political leaders moving against the legitimate government.

Again, they were backed up by actual legal mechanisms, so it still wasn't an ACTUAL coup. And Nixon's resignation removed any need for one.

ETA2:
Or, if we're going to adopt Trump's usage, the impeachment of Clinton was also a coup.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Bernie Sanders, 78, canceled events until further notice after being hospitalized


"Sanders experienced some chest discomfort. Following medical evaluation and testing he was found to have a blockage in one artery and two stents were successfully inserted. Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits"

 

[BugI02]

By your parametrization, impeachment is the wrong word. You argue that words should have meanings and further that the currently accepted meaning or usage should hold sway. But you have also indicated that impeachable offense has no meaning or such an over broad definition as to have no meaning - to whit, the house could impeach a president for anything it desires; high crimes and misdemeanors not required. I don't think that qualifies as the sincere and serious idea that people believe that impeachment should be, the meaning of the word has not morphed into clown show

I think the right word actually is coup, a movement by a dedicated band of true believers intent on regime change by methods that may lead to violence

 

[KLB]

All of this bickering about the use of coup led me to look up the definition. As I read more, I found that the definition is no more agreed upon on the Internet than here. Looks like all of you have at least one definition that fits your view.

Wikipedia

A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ (About this soundlisten); French: [ku deta]), also known as a putsch (German:/pʊtʃ/), a golpe de estado (Spanish/Portuguese), or simply as a coup, means the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.[1]

Freedictionary.com

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

Brittanica.com

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. Unlike a revolution, which is usually achieved by large numbers of people working for basic social, economic, and political change, a coup is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel. A coup rarely alters a nation’s fundamental social and economic policies, nor does it significantly redistribute power among competing political groups.

Dictionary.com

a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Looks like all of you have at least one definition that fits your view.

That's the problem. We'll find the right definitions and links to fit our confirmation biases.

 

[KG1]

Yeah, that's probably true.

ETA:
Now that you mention it, the response to the Watergate incident was probably as close as we've come to a coup in modern USian history. Even then, the efforts were legal.

But, it was a group of political leaders moving against the legitimate government.

Again, they were backed up by actual legal mechanisms, so it still wasn't an ACTUAL coup. And Nixon's resignation removed any need for one.

ETA2:
Or, if we're going to adopt Trump's usage, the impeachment of Clinton was also a coup.

The remedy for all this impeachment/coup verbiage should have been relegated to the ballot box in this case. That's why the chosen impeachment route is so divisive in questionable instances.

It should be a clear cut high standard as intended by the founders.

 

[Ingomike]

The remedy for all this impeachment/coup verbiage should have been relegated to the ballot box in this case. That's why the chosen impeachment route is so divisive in questionable instances.

It should be a clear cut high standard as intended by the founders.

We still do not not have a vote, so impeachment is still just talk.

Keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi hasn't formally pulled the trigger on a full House vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry that her party says it is undertaking, as is the precedent.

By forgoing a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, Mrs. Pelosi has amped up the partisanship. Instead of moving ahead with the full backing of the elected representatives of the American people, she has launched the Trump impeachment by personal ukase. Even more remarkable, it has been greeted with a collective ho-hum. True, the Constitution does not require a House vote. It’s also true, however, that Mrs. Pelosi has no precedent for what she has done, and by eliminating a House vote, she has denied the House minority the opportunity to be heard before Congress begins exercising its most formidable constitutional power short of declaring war the process of removing an elected president.

 

[T.Lex]

The remedy for all this impeachment/coup verbiage should have been relegated to the ballot box in this case. That's why the chosen impeachment route is so divisive in questionable instances.

It should be a clear cut high standard as intended by the founders.

I have long held the position (at least since college) that our election system is a safety valve for things like coups and revolutions. That its structure and process are primarily responsible for the US rarely ever needing to deal with those situations.

Usually, 4 years isn't so long to wait for a chance to re-form government. So, people have been satisfied with waiting for the next election cycle. (Especially with the House going every 2 years.)

I guess people are more impatient now.

 

[printcraft]

Bernie Sanders, 78, canceled events until further notice after being hospitalized
"Sanders experienced some chest discomfort. Following medical evaluation and testing he was found to have a blockage in one artery and two stents were successfully inserted. Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits"

That sucks, hope he recovers.

 

[jamil]

Here's another idea: use the right words. That's what I want. I want people to use the right words. Or at least defensible words. (My idea has about as much chance of happening as yours does.)

Hyperbole isn't even bad, if people use the right words.

Calling a telephone conversation "perfect" is hyperbole. And awkward. But mostly hyperbole.

A candidate saying that they are starting a "movement" is hyperbole. And often wrong.

Calling the current impeachment effort as a "brazen attack on the presidency" is hyperbolic. But mostly accurate.

Those are all defensible.

Using the wrong word - especially a word with heavy historical implications - is still the wrong word.

Jeez, man. That's just like banning "retarded". Grow a thick skin. I'm sure you're smart enough to know when someone's being hyperbolic. Saying it's a "coup" isn't any worse than saying Trump committed treason. We could all get upset at the other for using the wrong words, or, we can recognize that these people are ****ing hysterical and can't use the right words because the right words just don't paint the other with sufficient evil. So do you want to participate or just say **** it, I ain't playing that game anymore.

Spread the word to say **** you, I am not living in the world you propose. (of course "you" is rhetorical)

 

[mmpsteve]

Totally agree with this.

But, I have no hope of rational thought from Pelosi.

Pelosi is displaying rational thought, from HER perspective. She's placating the youngsters in her caucus in order to maintain her crown. I suspect she also realizes the potential long-term negative consequences of the path they're on (or short-term, if you consider the 2020 elections). That's why her, and a whole host of other 'interested parties', will make sure this never reaches the Senate.

ETA: Can't wait to see Jim Jordan's speeches when the hearings get started.

.

 

[jamil]

At least with Clinton, everyone was pretty sure he'd committed perjury, an actual crime.

But, the House would never have drawn up articles of impeachment if it were controlled by Democrats. The appearance of partisanship works both ways. It appears to the right that the House is being partisan, which I think the facts clearly support. But to the left, the Senate will appear to be partisan when it dismisses the charges. And it will be partisan. The only way either side acts bipartisan, at least these days, is if it becomes apparent that they're completely full of **** to their own side. Not as likely to happen with all the hyper-partisan division going on.