Not gonna do it. Tom busted into the thread making wildly unfounded accusations. I’m in no way trying to get others to “agree to assassination”, and those accusations are exceedingly unmoderatorlike.
Now Tom, buddy, pal… do you have anything to actually add to this discussion? Or just more shooting from the hip?
I don’t see this ending well.
Trinopus is the one who brought up that chain of events. My asking if assassination would be justified during that string of events is not an escalation.
This is where you are wrong. “I don’t have the votes to get what I want” is not nearly the same thing as “not possible”
ETA: It was barely 20 years ago that we impeached a sitting president.
Yes.
The only time I could see it being justified would be if the president ceases being a president and becomes a legit no-joking dictator (as in “no more elections and I just had all nine SCOTUS justices arrested. I’m the captain now”, not your typical liberals-hyperventilating-that-he’s-authoritarian variety)
See above.
I think I’m going to pop some popcorn.
Okay.
Whoops.
In this forum and thread, you are required to follow moderators instructions. Tom gave you instructions. Follow them.
If you have a question about moderation, ATMB is where to go. Do not question moderators’ instructions any further in this thread.
And please no further comments about pulling up lawn chairs or getting popcorn.
[/moderating]
That’s a valid opinion, and thanks for sharing. How would you morally square assassination in that case if impeachment by the congress is still a possibility, or would that have to go, as well?
Being snide fails to make your point.
Do you actually have a point that you were making that differed from my interpretation? I offered you the opportunity to restate it and you have done nothing but bluster in response.
You can make this a civil discussion or you can lose the opportunity to discuss it.
Your choice.
[ /Moderating ]
Okay… can I reply here? Is that against the rules?
You may respond with comments on the topic, here.
In fact, I would encourage you to do so.
If you want to take issue with the Moderating, open a thread (or return to the original thread) in ATMB.
[ /Moderating ]
I thought “no more elections” was pretty clear that Congress had been cancelled in that hypothetical. Yes, if Congress is still in session and has the option to impeach the President, but is choosing not to because they have a different view on what constitutes “evil, self-serving, or insane”, it would be deeply immoral to try to assassinate the president.
My point is in my OP. Read the plain text of it. Anything like “getting people to agree with assassination” or “playing games to get a rise out of other posters” is crap you made up.
Discuss any realistic situations where assassination may be a good or moral choice. Or discuss why there’s never a good or moral reason for it.
I consider nuclear war, court stacking, and dissolution of protective agencies to be realistic. Going full-on dictator is also realistic-ish, since it has happened in other governments. A president coming to my house to shoot me, personally, wouldn’t be very realistic.
So to re-state: if you think that assassination could be a good and moral choice, what is the least thing that would make it justifiable? If you think that it could not be good and moral, discuss that and the reasons why.
Okay, that’s a good answer. Thanks again!
In order for our democracy to continue to be such, we all have to abide by certain rules. One of those rules is, “Don’t use bullets to overrule the outcome of elections.”
So no, you should never assassinate the President.
I’d say that the only time it would be acceptable to assassinate the leader of a democratic country is when he’s so perverted the political and judicial system that the country is no longer democratic.
So, effectively, never - because at that point, he’s not the leader of a democratic country anymore.
On the other hand, our democracy has survived all the previous assassinations. I do think, though, that suffering through even an “evil” administration is preferable to assassination simply because it will (hopefully) teach people that voting is important and that elections have consequences.
Four, eight, ten years of villainy might be a living hell, but with luck, a whole generation of voters might take elections more seriously.
Not to mention that if Congress had become so thoroughly corrupt that they allowed the President to go that far unchecked, eliminating the President would not eliminate the problem.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: It’s as easy to assassinate a good President as it is to assassinate a bad President. So assassination is not a discriminating tool for removing Presidents from power. We should stick to the methods which do discriminate: elections and impeachments.
I get more pessimistic with each passing day that Trump remains in office. I feel all his Presidency will accomplish is to lower the bar for what’s acceptable.