Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Impeachment v Coup

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I just showed you a specific criminal activity linked to a specific law. See my previous post
    No you didn't. You used the exact words of a Wikipedia interpretation of law. I suspected this and checked your wording against theirs and found a word for word rationalization. Wikipedia is not a legal source.

    On top of that, abuse of power can be impeached even if it is not related to any crime

    http://congressionalresearch.com/98-...Y+COMMENTATORS
    True. You can impeach based on a subjective, biased, and politically motivated interpretation of abuse of power. But it's unpopular unethical and seldom successful.

    If you want to argue that a president can do whatever he wants as long as he does not violate any criminal law, you are not convincing. Based on such logic, if a president decides to declassify (as he has the power to do so) and provide to the Russians and Chinese (as he has the power to do so) all coordinates of all patrol areas assigned to the US ballistic missile submarine fleet, you would not find any reason to impeach such person for abuse of power. You are free to argue whatever you want, but do not expect reasonable Americans to buy the claim that an abuse of power exist only if it is linked to a specific violation of a criminal statute.
    Argumentum ad absurdum.

    There is still nothing to demonstrate this is anything beyond an extension of The Great Tantrum of 2016-Present
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

      No you didn't. You used the exact words of a Wikipedia interpretation of law. I suspected this and checked your wording against theirs and found a word for word rationalization. Wikipedia is not a legal source.



      True. You can impeach based on a subjective, biased, and politically motivated interpretation of abuse of power. But it's unpopular unethical and seldom successful.



      Argumentum ad absurdum.

      There is still nothing to demonstrate this is anything beyond an extension of The Great Tantrum of 2016-Present
      He asked me to cite the law. He did not try to argue its interpretation. The law has been cited by Mueller too. If somebody wants to argue its interpretation, he is free to do so.

      My example proves that it is unreasonable to argue that abuse of power must be always tied to breaking criminal law. The proper term you want to see is the one of Reductio ad Absurdum which is a perfectly logical way to expose the fallacy of TAG's argument

      https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...io-ad-Absurdum


      Reductio ad Absurdum



      (also known as: reduce to absurdity)

      Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.


      My mode of argumentation showed that the implications of believing that an abuse of power should be always tied to a criminal activity leads to an absurd conclusion that we should not remove a president who decides to declassify and broadcast the nuclear ballistic missiles submarines' patrol areas because that action is within the presidential powers and no law has been violated.
      Last edited by pamak; 06 Oct 19, 01:50.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        He asked me to cite the law. He did not try to argue its interpretation. The law has been cited by Mueller too. If somebody wants to argue its interpretation, he is free to do so.

        My example proves that it is unreasonable to argue that abuse of power must be always tied to breaking criminal law. The proper term you want to see is the one of Reductio ad Absurdum which is a perfectly logical way to expose the fallacy of TAG's argument

        https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...io-ad-Absurdum


        Reductio ad Absurdum



        (also known as: reduce to absurdity)

        Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.


        My mode of argumentation showed that the implications of believing that an abuse of power should be always tied to a criminal activity leads to an absurd conclusion that we should not remove a president who decides to declassify and broadcast the nuclear ballistic missiles submarines' patrol areas because that action is within the presidential powers and no law has been violated.
        From your own source:

        Appeal to extremes: Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

        There is nothing unreasonable in demanding that a crime actually exist should a president be impeached for high crimes. And no one is arguing for the scenario you present. Thus your fallacy.

        The law has been cited by Mueller - in an investigation that delivered nothing.

        And thus this is yet again an extension of The Great Tantrum. Trump is your president, like it or not. If you want him out, vote.
        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

          From your own source:

          Appeal to extremes: Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

          There is nothing unreasonable in demanding that a crime actually exist should a president be impeached for high crimes. And no one is arguing for the scenario you present. Thus your fallacy.

          The law has been cited by Mueller - in an investigation that delivered nothing.

          And thus this is yet again an extension of The Great Tantrum. Trump is your president, like it or not. If you want him out, vote.
          You are not going to choose for me the type of argument I make

          And my argument has nothing to do with appeal to extremes. Such argument is more related to "slippery slope" fallacies.

          My point has nothing to do with such things . Nor do I say that not impeaching Trump now will result in having a president broadcasting the patrol areas of our ballistic missile submarines to the Russians.

          My argument shows that even YOU accept that there IS a scenario of abuse of power that is NOT connected to breaking any criminal law which justifies the removal of a president. The moment you agree about that, you make my point which is that one cannot argue that the mere fact of a presidential conduct not violating criminal law should lead to the conclusion that a president should not be impeached. Thus, I exposed the fallacy in DEMANDING such violation as a necessary requirement for an impeachment. If you can find any absurdity in the point I make, you are free to show it.

          p.s. Notice also that I mentioned Hamilton from the Federalists telling that an impeachment includes political crimes that violate public trust.
          Last edited by pamak; 06 Oct 19, 02:48.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #20
            From the Federalist Papers Number 65. See the second paragraph.

            THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

            A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

            The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

            The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

            What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

            Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              You are not going to choose for me the type of argument I make
              I'm not. You have had the choice to make whatever argument you wish. I'm just pointing out the problems with them.

              And my argument has nothing to do with appeal to extremes.
              You say while appealing to an absurd extreme.

              My point has nothing to do with such things . Nor do I say that not impeaching Trump now will result in having a president broadcasting the patrol areas of our ballistic missile submarines to the Russians.
              And yet you made the argument. Now you are backpedaling.

              My argument shows that even YOU accept that there IS a scenario of abuse of power that is NOT connected to breaking any criminal law which justifies the removal of a president.
              Actually the scenario you provide could be prosecuted as treason under the right circumstances. So, no
              ​​​​​​.

              The moment you agree about that, you make my point which is that one cannot argue that the mere fact of a presidential conduct not violating criminal law should lead to the conclusion that a president should not be impeached. Thus, I exposed the fallacy in DEMANDING such violation as a necessary requirement for an impeachment.
              If you can find any absurdity in the point I make, you are free to show it.

              p.s. Notice also that I mentioned Hamilton from the Federalists telling that an impeachment includes political crimes that violate public trust.
              Your argument has been absurd from the start and is a good case study for WHY impeachment does and should require an actual crime. When a sizable portion of the population can't emotionally come to terms with losing an election and wants to use the impeachment system to overturn an election they reject, the need for stringent qualifications for impeachment proceedings become crystal clear. Impeachment is not the toy you think it is. It is not a cudgel for your discontent. It is a serious tool reserved for serious situations.
              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Massena View Post
                There has been some talk among Republicans in the news as well as Trumpers on this forum that the impeachment inquiry is a coup.

                Nothing could be further from the truth.

                A coup, or more properly a coup d'état, is defined as: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.
                What about- "The attempted disfranchisement of 63 million people."



                {}

                "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

                  I'm not. You have had the choice to make whatever argument you wish. I'm just pointing out the problems with them.
                  And I gave you the type of argument I made. You just did not like it and found the one you wanted



                  You say while appealing to an absurd extreme.
                  You say such things because you do not understand the definition of what it means to appeal to an extreme. The type of argument I used is perfectly valid and its objective is to show that if the opposite proposition is accepted as valid, then absurdity is also accepted as valid. You think that the simple exposure of absurdity is an appeal to absurdity, but this is your misconception..



                  And yet you made the argument. Now you are backpedaling.
                  No, I did not make any of these claims you mentioned. The fact that you insist that I did shows that you put words in my mouth so that you can support your claim regarding the type of fallacious argument that you claim I made.



                  Actually the scenario you provide could be prosecuted as treason under the right circumstances. So, no
                  ​​​​​​.
                  Those "right circumstances" can be created only from a senate and as a result of political and not just criminal considerations . which is exactly the point I made. According to Trump supporters, if a president has the authority to declassify anything he can, there should not be any problem if he broadcasts the coordinates of the US nuclear ballistic missile submarines' patrol areas. And the same supporters ask the opposition to point at the specific statute that Trump has violated. Now, you change the tune and even if you cannot come with any law that prohibits a president doing the thing I described in my scenario, you basically try to argue that there must be some law out there which prohibits such behavior. Now feel free to find the law





                  Your argument has been absurd from the start and is a good case study for WHY impeachment does and should require an actual crime. When a sizable portion of the population can't emotionally come to terms with losing an election and wants to use the impeachment system to overturn an election they reject, the need for stringent qualifications for impeachment proceedings become crystal clear. Impeachment is not the toy you think it is. It is not a cudgel for your discontent. It is a serious tool reserved for serious situations.
                  I made an argument which simply exposed the absurdity of the other sides' proposition that there can be no abuse of power without violating a specific criminal law. I simply exposed the logical implications of such stance. Again, the type of argument I use is called reductio -ad-absurdum which is perfectly logical .

                  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...io-ad-Absurdum

                  Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion

                  So, you need to blame the proposition and not my refutation. If you want to blame the refutation, you need to actually show that the thought process is absurd. And no, the mere presence of an extreme in the refutation does not make the refutation itself absurd or "appeal to extremes" as you want to claim.

                  See next post
                  Last edited by pamak; 07 Oct 19, 19:36.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    From

                    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...al-to-Extremes


                    Here is how one can show appeal to absurdity.

                    Example #1:

                    There is no way those Girl Scouts could have sold all those cases of cookies in one hour. If they did, they would have to make $500 in one hour, which, based on an 8 hour day is over a million dollars a year. That is more than most lawyers, doctors, and successful business people make!

                    Explanation: The Girl Scouts worked just for one hour -- not 40 per week for a year. Suggesting the extreme leads to an absurd conclusion;


                    In the above example, the logic breaks when you take the performance of the Girl Scout in one hour and assume that it can be stressed to an extreme performance of full time job through out a year. So this is appeal to extremes and fallacious

                    However, the next example is perfectly valid even though the refutation uses an "extreme" to expose the absurdity of the proposition


                    From the same link



                    Big Tony: The more you exercise, the stronger you will get!

                    Nerdy Ned: Actually, if you just kept exercising and never stopped, you would eventually drop dead. There is a limit to how much exercise you should get.


                    Here the initial claim is proven false by reducing to the absurd, legitimately. Despite the presence of an "extreme" in the refutation, it is perfectly valid and it is not an "appeal to extremes" fallacy.

                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      It's a Coup...

                      ...because the aim of the Demos since day one has been to remove Trump from office by any means - legal or illegal.
                      {}

                      "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

                      Comment


                      • #26


                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        What specific Constitutional provisions has he violated?
                        .
                        The CollusionNewsNetwork has been ranting about it all week.

                        Oddly nobody can cite a specific constitutional provision violated

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                          What about- "The attempted disfranchisement of 63 million people."


                          Are you talking about those that voted for Trump? If he is impeached, then how is that 'disenfranchisement'? Perhaps it would be a demonstration to be more responsible for whom you vote for. If you elect a corrupt individual and then he or she misbehaves in office as Trump has and is impeached, it looks to me like your voting choice was in error.

                          And then there's this:

                          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

                          A majority of Americans say they endorse the decision by House Democrats to begin an impeachment inquiry of President Trump, and nearly half of all adults also say the House should take the additional step and recommend that the president be removed from office, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll.

                          The findings indicate that public opinion has shifted quickly against the president and in favor of impeachment proceedings in recent weeks as information has been released about Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian government officials to undertake an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden, a potential 2020 campaign rival, and Biden’s son Hunter.

                          Previous Post-Schar School or Post-ABC News polls taken at different points throughout this year found majorities of Americans opposing the start of an impeachment proceeding, with 37 percent to 41 percent saying they favored such a step. The recent revelations appear to have prompted many Americans to rethink their position.
                          Last edited by Massena; 08 Oct 19, 07:31.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Let's just have a rock fight. First, we take a poll. Then, of those polled we take fifty of the most vociferous for their particular 'side' - say, the Democrats against the Republicans...or, better yet, a bunch of college educated (philosophy/liberal arts majors) who espouse the democratic platform against a bunch of not-necessarily college educated but salt-of-the-earth Trump supporters. We then choose a shingle beach (that's a beach where, instead of sand, it's surfaced with smooth, hand-sized, wave-washed stones.)
                            Then we line everybody up. the dems on the left and the Trumpers on the right. Someone squeezes an air horn and voila! Let the best team win.
                            ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
                            IN MARE IN COELO

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                              It's a Coup...

                              ...because the aim of the Demos since day one has been to remove Trump from office by any means - legal or illegal.
                              Ah!! dont worrry guys...after another terrm ( or more ) of your president America will be on the same level as a third world country
                              ...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                And that's where Trump has the US headed. I believe that's what he wants-anything for a monetary profit for himself.
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X