# Assassinating the President of the United States, the Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207 "2017-12-01T01:38:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/81 "2017-12-01T15:28:25Z")
We still have enough checks and balances in place in our country that are working quite well without having to consider assassination. A lot of if’s, but you asked for hypotheticals. In our country the right to bear arms helps protect to a certain degree against tyranny. If that was taken away, along with quenching the free press and it going to state run news, voices across the spectrum are no longer expressed, major voter fraud was rampant and the president actually started having his rivals dissappear time and time again under mysterious circumstances, then, I’d have to say it’s not too early to shoot the bastard, and yes, it would be a just and moral choice. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/82 "2017-12-01T15:32:58Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Really? You think they’d shoot a duly elected POTUS? They fought to _defend_ this country, not shoot its president! > [@ExTank](#): > > Well, we _are_ talking about Zombie Hitler. > > _Hitler._ > > So, given that hypothetical, I think that I can safely say yes, those old boys (survivors of D-Day, Bastogne, etc.) wouldn’t bat an eye at putting a 30-06 FMJ through the brain pan of even _that_ duly elected President. ISTM that the guys from the VFW would have taken care of the matter during the Republican clown car stage of the festivities. Certainly before Super Tuesday. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/83 "2017-12-01T15:52:21Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > \When is assassinating the president the just and moral choice?\ When the president is holed up in the White House with private security preventing legal means from removing him from office. Not that that would be assassination, It would be a police action. While it may seem to be a just and moral choice to remove a very, very, very bad president by any means possible, IMHO, it would cause even greater problems because of the people that support him and put him there in the first place. The old adage, “Be careful what you wish for” comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/84 "2017-12-01T17:02:36Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The key point in there, though, is that _you have to satisfy a reasonable percentile of the population in this regard_. You and your buds in the Minuteman Watch Guard are not a sufficient jury to make this decision. > > When the American Revolution was begun, about 1/3rd of the total population were satisfied that the British government had no justifiable basis for governing them. Another 1/3rd couldn’t be bothered, and the last 1/3rd thought that the British government was the legal and justifiable governing body. > > Given that I would have to be a traitor to argue against the American Revolution, I basically have to accept that 1/3rd support is sufficient to get the ball rolling. If you don’t have at least that much support then, in my personal opinion, you simply don’t have enough evidence that the government has ceased to be supported by Humanist theory. (Granted, the people who supported the Monarchy may not have been thinking in those terms, so this number might be too low. But I can’t think of any other number that would have a better argument and also not make me wonder if it’s even possible to get that much support. People might vote against something simply because they’re too lazy or they’re more worried about change than they are about the question being asked - i.e., whether the government has mechanisms in place to represent their interests.) The problem with this is a subtle implication that disenfranchisement or oppression of a small underclass is “okay” unless it meets some threshold of people. It’s easy to stick to “violence is never okay” arguments when all government is is minor policy changes that may make your life marginally easier or harder, but political violence is still violence. I think violence against public officials, those acting on their behalf, and those putting them in power or lobbying for their policies is morally justifiable and understandable if it’s actively enabling harm towards you. I don’t like pretending that just because something is done by congress or EO or reinforced by the way we’ve organized something instead of with a sword or gun it’s not “violence”. They’re both violence, and one can be a moral and just response to the other. I don’t know where that line is, but I think it’s well before “they’re sending us to camps”. This is why I can’t get worked up about antifa, more radical splinters of BLM etc, etc. Yeah, some people who identify with those movements go off half cocked towards people who didn’t do anything and don’t intend to, and that’s absolutely wrong! But in principle, fighting people who want to harm you, even if the avenue of harm and violence is on its face “peaceful”, is understandable and I’d argue can be seen as just. Essentially what I’m saying is, there is no such thing as [“peacefully advocating for genocide”](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKGt8JAWkAAUCaB.jpg:large) as that tweet that’s been spreading around goes. Now, we can have consequentialist arguments about whether it’s effective to fight legal or systemic violence with physical violence, and we can have arguments about exactly what degree of legal or systemic violence warrants what kinds of physical violence (at what point disenfranchisement warrants beating vs murder vs whatever), but I think it takes a privileged position to dismiss all violence as inherently immoral unless someone tries to North Korea mode the country. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/85 "2017-12-01T17:41:05Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > Then let’s up the ante. Is it good and moral to make an end to a president who has begun that process, but who hasn’t yet completed it? There was some moderator push-back against this question, but I think I can answer it within the valid confines of the discussion, because the answer is “no.” If a bad President has started breaking the law and amassing power, there is still time to address this by legitimate means. (Besides, one might argue that every U.S. President has “begun that process!” Washington used troops against rebellious citizens; FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court; Reagan ignored treaties; Obama tried to exempt some people from deportation. All Presidents have pushed at the boundaries of the law.) ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/86 "2017-12-01T17:45:54Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Here is the thing: the act of assassination results in outrage. The effect of that outrage is to stoke sympathy toward the victim, strengthening the position of his supporters. Hence, removing the “immediate threat” almost always establishes a worse situation than what was addressing. Assassination is simply a bad idea because it creates backlash. It is like trying to fix a stuttering engine by whacking the head with a sledgehammer. You end up worse off than you were. Yeah, seriously. Has no one read _Julius Caesar_? ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/87 "2017-12-01T18:12:31Z")
> [@Fretful\_Porpentine](#): > > Yeah, seriously. Has no one read _Julius Caesar_? heh. Brutus is an honourable man, [Reminded me of these anniversary monologues](https://www.theguardian.com/stage/series/shakespeare-solos) and in particular [Damian Lewis as Anthony](https://www.theguardian.com/stage/video/2016/may/03/damian-lewis-antony-julius-caesar-friends-romans-countrymen-shakespeare-video). Fwiw, Chomsky said something interesting today: > [@](#): > > “The way to understand Trump, I think, is pretty simple,” Chomsky said. “Apart from the pathological megalomania, he is an astute enough politician to understand that his only hope for power is to keep his adoring base in line, and they relish the fact that he is lashing out at those they see as their enemies and persecutors: Muslims, elites, foreigners …\*\* Not unknown in history, and not with welcome outcomes\*\*.” ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/88 "2017-12-01T18:15:22Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > When the American Revolution was begun, about 1/3rd of the total population were satisfied that the British government had no justifiable basis for governing them. Another 1/3rd couldn’t be bothered, and the last 1/3rd thought that the British government was the legal and justifiable governing body. > > Given that I would have to be a traitor to argue against the American Revolution, I basically have to accept that 1/3rd support is sufficient to get the ball rolling. Those figures are based on John Adams’ estimate of the French Revolution, not, as is commonly supposed, the American Revolution. I think historians estimate Loyalists comprised about 20% of the population when the war began. Most Americans were undecided. In any case, had the Patriots not won the support of the majority of the colonists, the military victory–had there been one under those circumstances–would have been a hollow one that could not stand. While I’m firmly opposed to the assassination of a U.S. President under any circumstances, one-third of the population would be an insufficient basis for any decision on an issue of national importance. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/89 "2017-12-01T18:18:30Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > ISTM that the guys from the VFW would have taken care of the matter during the Republican clown car stage of the festivities. Certainly before Super Tuesday. But their numbers are dwindling, they get out voted. On a practical rather than a moral level, killing Zombie Hitler probably won’t accomplish much. Whatever vision of America someone thinks they are promoting by shooting the POTUS, that vision has certainly already failed by the time Zombie Hitler is calling the shots from the White House. Say you succeed in taking him out. What then? After all, he ran on a platform of, " I may be Zombie Hitler, but my opponent is a LIBERAL!" You still have a country full of Zombie Hitler voters, and Zombie Goering is next in line to run the Hitler administration. Zombie Hitler is just a figurehead representing something in the population at large. A bullet won’t fix that; it will only accelerate the rate at which suspected liberals are processed through the camps. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/90 "2017-12-01T18:44:09Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > So, if impeachment and conviction of a bad president is not possible because of politics, is it the moral and just choice to kill the president? It’d be completely pointless, if the political structure is such that legal removal is impossible. The people politically supporting and protecting the president aren’t going to die when he does (unless the scope of this assassination broadens significantly, becoming a full-blown purge) so they’ll end up influencing his replacement _and_ reacting (probably negatively) at the assassination, making the country’s situation worse. At a guess, it might become morally acceptable if the president is holding onto power through raw force, i.e. he’s using the FBI and the military to threaten and intimidate opponents and has declared future elections postponed indefinitely with national guard units activated to quell protests. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/91 "2017-12-01T19:12:50Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Point of order: neither Stauffenberg nor Rommel were ever members of the Nazi Party. Nor was this guy: [Georg Elser - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Elser) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/92 "2017-12-01T21:05:18Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Those figures are based on John Adams’ estimate of the French Revolution, not, as is commonly supposed, the American Revolution. I think historians estimate Loyalists comprised about 20% of the population when the war began. Most Americans were undecided. In any case, had the Patriots not won the support of the majority of the colonists, the military victory–had there been one under those circumstances–would have been a hollow one that could not stand. While I’m firmly opposed to the assassination of a U.S. President under any circumstances, one-third of the population would be an insufficient basis for any decision on an issue of national importance. It does seem unreasonable, but even with your 20% number, it still seems likely that just such a decision was made - and we now celebrate yearly - on the basis of the decision of a group that was probably less than half of the population by a fair amount. Either we have to say that the Revolution was an unsupportable venture, reasonably speaking, and shouldn’t be accepted as moral, or that this is in fact sufficient - if that team ends up winning in the end. It seems likely that you’re probably never going to get more than 1/3rd or 3/5ths or however many people to logically run through the question of whether the government is operating in a philosophically justifiable fashion. Realistically, probably less than 5 in 100 of all people could be expected to actually understand the question and form a reasoned opinion on the matter. But so if that group - the 5% - are against a revolution or an assassination, but the other 95% are all for it, because they think that there’s this great guy named Caesar who would be a much better Emperor than the lawfully elected President, and Caesar is telling them to kill the President, that fact that 95% of everyone is backing Caesar still sort of doesn’t mean that you’ve got a sufficient majority. In a sense (despite my statement that you need a third of the country), the only real determinant is that your side wins and that they have a justification their actions that is accepted by succeeding generations. Regrettably, that’s not much of a standard. The real Caesar had that much. Whether the Soviet revolution did or not, I’m not certain (I feel like the succeeding generations probably figured out pretty quickly that they’d done the dumb) but it’s hard to argue that they weren’t nearly as justified in their beliefs that Socialism was the only justifiable form of government as the early Americans were about Humanism. But in terms of what you want to tell a loan wolf nut that wants to kill the President, I think that saying that you need 1/3rd of the country to back you is, at least, a wiser argument to make than “you need to expect that you’ll go down in history as a hero”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/93 "2017-12-01T23:33:48Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > a loan wolf nut that wants to kill the President … is living on… ( •_•) ( •_•)\>⌐■-■ (⌐■\_■) _borrowed time._ ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/94 "2017-12-01T23:57:29Z")
Isn’t this the point of the 2nd amendment? (I was going to write how if you are a gun owner it is pretty much your obligation to overthrow tyrannical governments, but I have no desire to be on some crazy watchlist). ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/95 "2017-12-02T00:02:19Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > Haven been given the go-ahead to start this thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=843424), I’d like to start a frank and (mostly) open discussion. > > Seriously, go back and read that thread, **Bone’s** statements in particular. We’ll wait. > When is assassinating the president the just and moral choice?\*\* Simple answer: NEVER! Here, let’s rephrase the question: When is assassinating anybody the just and moral choice? And let’s take one historical incident as an example. In 1969, Joan Robinson Hill died under mysterious circumstances in Houston, TX (Read Tommy Thompson’s book[Blood and Money](https://smile.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Classic-Murder-Passion-ebook/dp/B01NBJYHPW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512172753&sr=8-1&keywords=blood+and+money) for the full story). Her husband, Dr. John Hill, was indicted for her death. His first trial ended in a mistrial. While he was awaiting retrial, he was shot to death. Joan’s stepfather, Ash Robinson, paid for the hit on John Hill because he wasn’t happy about the mistrial. Was he right to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/96 "2017-12-02T01:10:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > [A loan wolf nut]… is living on… > > ( •_•) > ( •_•)\>⌐■-■ > (⌐■\_■) > > _borrowed time._ [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJSqkwyL1Zo) ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/97 "2017-12-02T01:42:49Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > On the other hand, our democracy has survived all the previous assassinations… Only because they remain rare events, because the vast majority of Americans reject the idea of assassinating our leaders, even when we think those leaders are godawful. **To give a less extreme example:** You might argue, “What’s the harm in refusing to pay my taxes? The amount I would pay is an utterly trivial fraction of the government’s total revenue.” But imagine what would happen if _everyone_ felt that way. And then explain what makes you so special that you should be the one who doesn’t have to follow the rule. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/98 "2017-12-02T02:22:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > … is living on… > > ( •_•) > ( •_•)\>⌐■-■ > (⌐■\_■) > > _borrowed time._ I’m presuming that the specific phrasing I used just tickled your fancy? ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/99 "2017-12-02T02:57:23Z")
That would be the lone/loan thing. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207/100 "2017-12-02T03:31:50Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > ISTM that the guys from the VFW would have taken care of the matter during the Republican clown car stage of the festivities. Certainly before Super Tuesday. 😃 You’re probably right, but they’re old. And slow. Takes 'em a while to get some momentum going. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-the-president-of-the-united-states-the-debate/803207.md?page=6)