Is Trump Wrong In Saying a Coup?

Bobber said:

As long as they'd do what moving ahead?

Click to expand...

They don't have to do anything, moving ahead. They can end the process or continue.

Bobber said:

Well IF he wins a second term and I think he will AND if it's perceived his second term was by and large pretty good (not that it'd be perfect) I'm guessing one of his sons might run. Seen it a few times in history with John Adams & Son and the Bush family so no worries Nithavela....if the Trump family would want to continue seeing the good policies going forth there'd be no need to talk about a coup. Don Jr maybe 8 years? Then Eric for 8? Than maybe Ivanka too? So with Trump another 4 and his offspring 8 each that'll give you perhaps another 28 years but hey maybe then one of their offspring will be ready. Just curious if this is how liberals will handle that--->

Click to expand...

Nothing likes "drain the swamp" like 3 decades of nepotism.

But hey, as long as it triggers the liberals, it must be good for the country. Right?

Nithavela said:

Nothing likes "drain the swamp" like 3 decades of nepotism.

But hey, as long as it triggers the liberals, it must be good for the country. Right?

Click to expand...

I believe that 'nepotism' refers to favoritism granted or shown towards relatives. That would require the office-holder to take a part in it, not just that the relative aspire to follow in someone's footsteps as Hillary Clinton, Aldai Stevenson, Robert Taft, and some others did.

Albion said:

I believe that 'nepotism' refers to favoritism granted or shown towards relatives. That would require the office-holder to take a part in it, not just that the relative aspire to follow in someone's footsteps as Hillary Clinton, Aldai Stevenson, Robert Taft, and some others did.

Click to expand...

Normally, I would say that the children of President Trump would probably not run for president themselves, but lately it seems that anyone who has made it as far up the electoral ladder as mayor of a city or even the loser for some office feels qualified, so who knows? I still think it's unlikely with the Trump children, however.

Albion said:

I believe that 'nepotism' refers to favoritism granted or shown towards relatives. That would require the office-holder to take a part in it, not just that the relative aspire to follow in someone's footsteps as Hillary Clinton, Aldai Stevenson, Robert Taft, and some others did.

Click to expand...

True -- the correct term here would be "dynasty" -- the sort of thing the Right was against in the dark days before Donald.

"Nepotism" would refer to Ivanka's and Jared Kushner's jobs now, not so much their future political ambitions.

TLK Valentine said:

True -- the correct term here would be "dynasty" -- the sort of thing the Right was against in the dark days before Donald.

Click to expand...

But there is nothing illegal or immoral about there being a so-called dynasty. The voters are free to hold the family ties against the person if they so choose. In any case, if there is a dynasty, it's entirely because the voters approved of it.

"Nepotism" would refer to Ivanka's and Jared Kushner's jobs now, not so much their future political ambitions.

Click to expand...

Could be. But the question here was about relatives running for president.

Albion said:

But there is nothing illegal or immoral about there being a so-called dynasty.

Click to expand...

True -- but until very recently, the American Right was vocally against them.

The voters are free to hold the family ties against the person if they so choose. In any case, if there is a dynasty, it's entirely because the voters approved of it.

Click to expand...

Indeed -- So if they approve of the Trump dynasty,then we can safely say that their rejection of previous "dynasties" because they disapproved of "dynasties" in general was pure bunk.

Could be. But the question here was about relatives running for president.

Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why it's important we keep our terms straight -- "nepotism" is what's happening now; "dynasty" is what may happen in the future.

Bobber said:

Just curious if this is how liberals will handle that--->

Click to expand...

How liberals will handle crazy conservative fantasies? Online I just ignore it. Out in public I give these people a wide berth, since in my experience conservatives tend to be aggressive and prone to fits...

Bobber said:

As for me I'm not a great fan of a dynasty concept but it most certainly is every citizens right to pursue a political campaign even for the White House. It does however create a feeling of a monarch family ruling over a nation.

Click to expand...

Which goes a long way in explaining why some would support a Trump dynasty.

TLK Valentine said:

True -- but until very recently, the American Right was vocally against them.



Indeed -- So if they approve of the Trump dynasty,then we can safely say that their rejection of previous "dynasties" because they disapproved of "dynasties" in general was pure bunk.



Agreed, which is why it's important we keep our terms straight -- "nepotism" is what's happening now; "dynasty" is what may happen in the future.

Click to expand...

Nepotism is also what may happen in the future.

Calling a legitimate exercise of Constitutional power a "coup" establishes a dangerous precedent, and is intended to delegitimize the rule of law. The goal of the pro-Trump establishment is to undermine the Republic itself. Want to call something a coup, then call THAT a coup.

-CryptoLutheran

Speedwell said:

You don't ever stop to wonder why Democrats are working so hard to replace Trump with Pence--who would be more effective in pursuing conservative policy than Trump ever was?

Click to expand...

The house democrats are working very hard to come up with one bogus failed claim after another, because they are terrified of the truth about them and their heinous crimes coming to the surface...but nothing they try is going to work and in fact what they have done already makes them look guilty....and their latest stunt makes them look ridiculous on the world stage. Everyone can read the transcript and see for themselves there is no quid pro quo...or anything else...and we all heard what the Prime Minister himself stated about their conversation...nor has anyone actually on the call said there was anything wrong. The only ones saying anything were never on the call at all. Facts matter...opinions don't...nor do presumptions.

Zanting said:

The house democrats are working very hard to come up with one bogus failed claim after another, because they are terrified of the truth about them and their heinous crimes coming to the surface...but nothing they try is going to work and in fact what they have done already makes them look guilty....and their latest stunt makes them look ridiculous on the world stage. Everyone can read the transcript and see for themselves there is no quid pro quo...or anything else...and we all heard what the Prime Minister himself stated about their conversation...nor has anyone actually on the call said there was anything wrong. The only ones saying anything were never on the call at all. Facts matter...opinions don't...nor do presumptions.

Click to expand...

Well, the public impeachment inquiry begins next week, so we all will hear testimony publicly.

I relish how that is spun.

Zanting said:

The house democrats are working very hard to come up with one bogus failed claim after another, because they are terrified of the truth about them and their heinous crimes coming to the surface...but nothing they try is going to work and in fact what they have done already makes them look guilty....and their latest stunt makes them look ridiculous on the world stage. Everyone can read the transcript and see for themselves there is no quid pro quo...or anything else...and we all heard what the Prime Minister himself stated about their conversation...nor has anyone actually on the call said there was anything wrong. The only ones saying anything were never on the call at all. Facts matter...opinions don't...nor do presumptions.

Click to expand...

What about events that happened aside from the call? Multiple people have testified to a quid pro quo. More importantly, Rudy Giuliani has stated that he was working as Trump’s personal attorney, not as a representative for the government, when pressuring people to get Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Sparagmos said:

What about events that happened aside from the call? Multiple people have testified to a quid pro quo. More importantly, Rudy Giuliani has stated that he was working as Trump’s personal attorney, not as a representative for the government, when pressuring people to get Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Click to expand...

Pressure??? Asking a Prime Minister who ran for office to clean up corruption in government to cooperate with the US doing the same is not pressure in any stretch of the imagination...and the Prime Minister himself said no pressure furthermore...both governments want the whole Bidden thing dealt with and for that matter the world that is watching wants to know just exactly what happened...and not just with the Biddens...but Clinton, Obama and other names have come up as well.

And the witnesses they have chosen, whether regarding the phone call or other claims of misconduct in Ukraine by the POTUS or his attorney, all are without any direct knowledge...all of whom are POTUS haters...their bias obvious...some already caught in lies...testifying about their thoughts, opinions and presumptions won't amount to a hill of beans. It won't fly and more significant is that the world isn't buying into their narrative anymore.

House demos and their cohort MSM have been outed for too many falsehoods to be even remotely believable anymore by and far by a much larger majority than anyone on the left will admit. They want people to believe that they have majority consensus...but they don't...not even close...not anymore..and they know it. That's why they appear so desperate in setting up one bogus scenario after another.

Carry on house demos and keep paving the way for an easy victory for President Trump in 2020.