Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Impeachment v Coup

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

  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Unless you can show specific criminal activity linked to that, what you are claiming is simply a political charge against him. That is, you don't like his actions in office. I know the Democrats don't.
    Impeachment is a political action. Usually it's taken against an elected or appointed official for specific actual enumerated crimes they've committed while in office. Typically, the politician being impeached is either already charged with specific criminal activity or in some cases, has been tried and convicted of criminal charges.
    When it is used as a purely political maneuver-- That is, the person being impeached is being done so for specific political reasons-- it rarely works unless both parties (or all parties) have some degree of involvement wanting that person out of office. I gave the example of Arizona's governor, Ev Mecham. He had specific criminal charges pending against him (he was later acquitted of), and both parties, but particularly the Democrats who in part thought he was unfairly elected, wanted him out of office. Without Republican support, Mecham wouldn't have been impeached. As it was, the action cost the Democrats heavily in following elections as voters thought their actions were simply vindictive to a big degree.


    Obama did many things in office that were highly questionable, and every bit as bad as anything Trump's done, like using the IRS to attack political enemies. The difference is his party did everything they could to cover for him, and the MSM was more than obliging in running a cover-up for him as well by downplaying or ignoring stories that were damaging.



    You can say so, but without the Republicans in Congress buying in, and at least reasonable levels of public support outside the Democrat party, the Democrats are headed to a train wreck. History is quite clear on this. Using impeachment as a tool to eliminate your political opposition, no matter how despised, is a losing proposition. You need buy in from the public and other political parties, and the Democrats don't have it.

    Right now, the Democrats are doing this:

    They have decided to impeach Trump.
    Now that they have, they're fishing around for a sufficient reason.
    They're having the MSM try to whip up public support for impeachment.

    That's where they're at. They know they need Republican buy-in to do it. They may be insane but they're not that stupid. So, they move forward on trying to find a reason, any reason, to go forward with their conclusion. It's two parts Kafka, one part Stalin.

    That held true for Mecham, Andrew Johnson, and even Bill Clinton. Mecham got impeached when his own party bought into doing it and the public thought it should be done. Johnson squeaked by by one vote under similar circumstances. Bill Clinton was clearly not going to get impeached because there was marginal public support outside of Republicans, and the Democrats weren't buying in.
    um I need you to do me a favor when coming from the president is specific and an abuse of power. when that request is directed at yoru political opponent.

    And to your point um unless people are stupid they better have buy in on impeachement because when a dem is in office Trumps accepted conduct is going to be the measuring stick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    And that's where Trump has the US headed. I believe that's what he wants-anything for a monetary profit for himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bow
    replied
    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
    ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freebird
    replied


    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

    Leave a comment:


  • BorderRuffian
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BorderRuffian
    replied
    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."



    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X