If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

Kraichgauer wrote:

You're right, of course. Statistically, the plagiarizer's husband hasn't got a realistic chance. The problem is that the scenario assumes that everything goes according to the normal course of events. It excludes the very real possibility of Trump having Hillary assassinated near the end of the campaign (probably by a Hispanic Muslim stooge, for maximum emotional effect). Lapping up the patriotic support he'd get from this terrorist outrage, he'd easily outpace whoever Hill's pick is for the veeperage. That's where a coup might come in later, probably as a coup against Obama in his waning days, but one that actually keeps Trump out and produces new elections.

Trump is going to win, has a clear path to victory

deal with it!

Yes, Presidents have ordered indefensible things - Dubya and Cheney certainly did.
When innocent people are killed by drone strikes, it has more to do with stupid mistakes than something purposeful. What Trump wants to do is seek out and murder the wives, children, and parents of terrorists for extermination, which would make us no better than the very people we're fighting. That, and not only does he want to bring back waterboarding (for which we in fact had executed Japanese military men after WWII for war crimes), but wants to go beyond it with worse torture.
Nietzsche warned, "When fighting monsters, be careful not to become a monster."

Actual refusal? That would be novel.

Trump does not need to assainate Hillary because Hillary is the only reason Trump has a chance. For all the yelling and screaming FBI director Comey did the best thing for his party with his "political indictment" . He damaged her by putting in focus the damaged she caused. He let one of worse candidates in the modern era as far as likabilty stay in the race. He reminded a not exactly united party of a common "enemy" who been above the law and that the Clintons have beaten back all efforts to destroy them for a quarter century. I believe if a Clinton was not the candidate of the other party not nearly as many Republicans would have gotten behind Trump a man they loath because of his beliefs, electibility and a man who just bullied the s**t out of them.

In any case, what the editorial mentions is NOT A COUP and only the most politically ignorant of laughably ignorant would consider it a "coup". Refusal to obey an order or command that the recusant considers "unlawful" might constitute "refusal to obey" or "insubordination", but it is not a coup, and nobody with the slightest bit of intelligence would consider it a coup or an attempt at a coup.

A coup is an active attempt to overthrow and replace the government, not simply refusing to act on its orders.

That's what (admittedly retired) members of the military and intelligence community have stated in interviews.

This all just part of the old 'Madman theory' brought anew, I don't think Trump will do anything different or novel in regards to these issues. It's the same thing when he says he'll slap a 35% tariff on China, it's all part of the negotiation.

You do realize that the US tortures frequently and I don't mean waterboarding, like truly medieval ****. We just outsource it to 'friendly dictators' which we then turn around and use as justification for intervention in those countries.

Quite frankly you can't fight and win a war while keeping your hands clean at the same time, there is no such thing as a humanitarian war. IS needs to be destroyed, I think we all agree about that but doing so will not be pretty and it does not include 'jobs for jihadis'.

Torture is in fact a very unreliable means of gathering intelligence, as the person being tortured will say anything to make it stop. Torture someone long enough, and they'll tell you who really killed JFK, but that doesn't mean a word of it is true.

AsPartOfMe wrote:

No, while Hillary's presence as the Democratic nominee certainly has the potential to reduce the extent of the Democrats margin of victory over a Republican contender, her victory is itself certain unless underhanded tactics are deployed.

It's worth noting that the Secret Service has recently heightened its protection of Hillary and Trump.

As I have expressed myself in the past:

Demographics show that ethnic minority voters are increasing at the rate of about 0.5% per year. Another way to put that is that every 4-year presidential cycle minority voters increase 2%. Demographers expect minorities to become the majority population in the US by the 2040s.

So the Republicans are going to have an increasingly difficult time winning the presidency due to their attitude against minorities and any nominee, even a rational one, will be burdened by that attitude. A good example of how this is functioning in practice is the 2012 presidential election which pundits claimed at the time would be an extremely close race but wound up being 53-47 in Obama's favor. I'm guessing that this time because of the new 2% that it will be 54-46 or 55-45 in favor of the Democrats no matter who the Republicans put up. In 2020 the Democratic nominee's margin should increase further.

The only ways that I see for the Republicans to win the presidency in the future are (a) the Democratic Party fractures internally or (b) the Republicans do a magnificent job of boosting their image with minority voters. Neither option seems likely in the near future, but who knows?

To which I should now add, (c) if the Republicans assassinate Hillary or deploy other vicious, underhanded tactics to secure a victory. I would not have considered that likely earlier, but with the increasing rhetoric of hate and death threats being leveled against Hillary by Trump supporters it is no longer beyond the pale. The only thing is that Trump needs to make it look like someone else is behind it. If Trump and his supporters are recognized as the perps, that would of course demolish their remaining percentage of the vote.

Last edited by thoughtbeast on 21 Jul 2016, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It may be unreliable but it doesn't mean it doesn't work if somebody actually has that information, not everybody they question is innocent obviously and how do you interrogate someone like a fanatical supporter of IS? There is a factor of deterrence too, it's easy way out for these terrorists to die as that is what they want. I don't think most people would have too much sympathy for what happened to the perpetrator of one of these terrorist attacks, these terrorists have no fear of us at all. We all agree that IS needs to wiped from this earth but how do we do it? Francs-tireurs like this have no rights under the Geneva Conventions, these people would of been summary executed in any war we've ever won. That is what we did to German Nazi spies and saboteurs who dressed in American uniforms and infiltrated behind our lines, we bombed civilian targets in Nazi Germany and Japan, this is war you can't win against the forces of barbarity with 1 hand tied behind your back. Fighting wars with no intention of winning is a far far greater evil.

And, for that, you just need to be stronger than them and win. Then you get to write history and settle in your favor and for good the matter of who was the hero and who was the villain.

As torture has a bad track record of getting information, it's results must be suspect in any case.
And while I agree, ISIS fighters and agents hardly deserve any sympathy, the reason why we shouldn't torture them is because of how it would change us for the worse, rather than any concern for their welfare. That, and any kind of interrogation - torture or otherwise - is only meant to extract information, not to hurt an enemy because we think they have it coming. Again, that would be a self-betrayal of everything we Americans believe about ourselves.
As for executing spies and enemy soldiers wearing uniforms of the opposite side - that's hardly anything new; everyone's done it since time immemorial. After all, Major John Andre, head of British intelligence during the Revolutionary War, was hanged by George Washington when caught posing as a civilian after meeting with Benedict Arnold. It's something all soldiers know is a possible fate if they are caught doing such a thing. But that's hardly anything like torture.

Ask John McCain what his view on torture is? He's in a unique position to know since he's been tortured. I'll give you a hint he is fundamentally opposed to it.

For all the talk about how "the winners write history," the truth is, that hasn't proven to always be true. The Indian wars had originally been portrayed as civilization defeating savagery, but today, we know it was genocide. The US annexation of the Philippines had been originally described as bringing liberty to benighted savages, while today we know it was nothing more than imperialism. And we Americans are hardly the only country in history to reconsider the treatment of a vanquished foe. Eventually, the truth will stick it's ugly head out, and we realize how indefensible our actions had been, despite efforts to sugar coat what had happened.

Having Hillary whacked would be counter-productive for Trump, he's only got a chance because she's so awful. The smarter play would be to hire an immigrant Muslim stooge to take a shot at him (who would of course be killed by the secret service in the chaos), that might just get him elected.