My wife made that observation this morning as we heard the news. They are seriously trying to overthrow the government and much more likely to succeed than the pathetic American Communist Part ever could have imagined.
At this point, Obama’s latest proposal is far to the right of what any Democrat or most Republicans, for that matter, would agree with. Still the party of intransigence parties on and seem perfectly content to bring the entire economy down with them. And the rest of the Republicans seem to go along with that.
In any other democracy, the government would have fallen after last November and the Republicans would now have the responsibility to do what they will. I don’t think it would include bringing down the whole economy, causing interest rates to rise and the rest of it. In fact, it was only a decade ago that the Republicans decided to end the large surplus bequeathed to them by Clinton. The debt was going down (slowly, but steadily) and they had to end that.
No other democracy that I am aware allows its business to be hijacked by unlimited debates or the threat of them. Well, maybe the Tea Party will succeed and a new constitution will emerge. It must have occurred to many that there must be a reason that no other country allows a government that has lost the confidence of the legislature to survive, crippled. And almost no other country has a genuine bicameral legislature. In England the Lords and in Canada the senate mostly just go along with commons, since they know they are unelected.
How, exactly, are they trying to “overthrow” the government? The got elected, and they are pursuing their political beliefs within the system of government we have.
And treason? The OP sounds like left wing version of some of the nuttiness that comes out of… The Tea Partiers.
Let’s not have another 5 page debate where people create their own definition of treason when it is clearly outlined in the constitution.
Fine. Do you prefer “enemies of humanity” instead? They’re trying to wreck the world economy.
A definition so narrow you could deliberately destroy the country without legally being guilty of treason, as long as you did it the right way. This is a case where law and reality don’t match up.
Some other important countries do operate under a bicameral system, but I’m not sure how many of them suffer from the unjustified level of reverence for the constitution that is drummed into Americans from a young age. The US system has been a great success for 200+ years. It is very hard for people to accept that it may be flawed.
The sad part is we won’t learn anything as a collective electorate after it is all over. People have voted anti-incumbent the last 3 elections. I don’t know what people are going to do in 2012, there are no more ‘anti-incumbents’ to vote for in my view if you are going by party line. People had their anti-incumbent movements in 2006, 2008 and 2010.
If people vote anti-tea party in 2012 they will vote pro-tea party (or something like it) in 2014 and the beat will go on.
I don’t feel they’re treasonous by any reasonable definition.
I think they’re wrong and their policies are foolish but I see no evidence they are trying to overthrow the government or destroy the nation.
I feel the problem of the Tea Party will be resolved by normal democratic means. They are now demonstrating that they are incapable of running the government and the majority of them will probably be voted out of office in the next election.
Will Obama be committing “treason” if the Republicans manage to get a bill through that raises the debt limit in two steps (once now and once again before the next election), and he vetoes it, as he has promised to do?
Did Obama commit “treason” when he voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006?
Pretty much. This whole spectacle is showing up the American system of government as much as it is the political subdivisions in America. Unable to get a supply bill passed? What a fucking joke.
If he vetoes that bill, it will have the exact same effect as Congress not raising the debt limit. So, if one is trying to crash the world economy, then the other is, too.
That’s a subjective question, depending on what your definition of “harm” is.
This gets back to the old debate of “do what I say, or I shoot the hostages”. The Republican insistence on going through this whole debacle again in six months isn’t an attempt to solve the problem; it’s an attempt to make sure the problem continues so they can continue to threaten their hostage. Obama would be woefully negligent to not veto such a threat.
Lots of politicians have done votes to make points knowing full well the motion was going to pass. Obama was not stopping the business of the nation. The baggers ,right now, are. Obama’s vote did not matter. I am sure if you put a little thought behind it, you will be able to see the difference.
Obama’s vote did no harm and did not threaten the country. I suppose you can see through the right wing prism in your glasses that that is different now. Real harm may result from this vote.
That’s what we in the business call a “bad analogy”. A better analogy would be the SWAT team deliberately shooting the hostages so they could end the hostage situation.
So they should all be rounded up and sent to detention camps? I mean, re-education camps? Should the people the FBI has determined to be the movement’s leaders be quietly rounded up and charged with treason? Should those participating in the tea party movement be stripped of their citizenship and ordered to leave the country?
*Article III Section III of the Constitution of the United States of America:
*
**Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.**
How does the tea party fit that definition? They aren’t engaged in armed revolt, and they are not allied with or aiding any military enemy of the United States.
What are you proposing to actually do about their supposed treason? Or does calling them traitors simply making it easier to hate them?