Removing Trump by Force?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Dude go read the news out of NK right now not going to happen...

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: SRPrime


Any military first strike attack on North Korea...will bring an imminent war confrontation between North an South Korea.

And any retaliatory strike will already be after a much bigger body count. Do you see the dilemma yet? Maybe, just maybe -- if we overthrew Noko BEFORE they had nukes and artillery aimed at Soko, we could have avoided this entire situation.

Inaction is what got us here and waiting for a real strike to respond is way far below and beyond measurable intelligence. I'm not saying strike Noko now, I'm saying strike them if the threat is credible.

If the threat is credible, and they attack first, say -- they launch an ICBM on Seattle [because they literally already called this target], they still have Soko at gun point and we'll end up losing Soko and Seattle. Get it? At that point in time Soko is done, Seattle is done, and then we're back at square 1, where as if we strike first -- Soko might fall, but it might not and Noko is liberated or totally destroyed.

Which has the better outcome? First Strike. It's really a no-brainer. The outcome will be disastrous no matter which you do, there seems to be no avoiding it if the threat is credible. It's not the current administrations fault the situation has been fostered over the past 40 years to be what it is -- we should have pulled the trigger in the 70's, if not, then the 80's, if not, then the 90's, if not, you get the point. The problem should have been dealt with properly before they had the means, now they have the means -- and our prior policy with NoKo funded the means. We paid them BILLIONS to NOT research nuclear weapons -- in which case, they used those billions to research nuclear weapons in secret.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Umm, this is not the Philippines and I'm pretty sure Trump didn't order anybody to shoot up a pizza shop. You guys are pathetic

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: JBurns

Imho All of conservatism is based on slippery slope arguments no one is even saying..

How long have republicans acting like democrats want to ban all the guns, and elect them so they can protect the second amendment?? Decades..

Now try and find an elected democrat ANYWHERE in history saying that...

You won’t be able to, because none ever have... it would be political suicide..

Plus no law enforcement body would enforce it.. aka the army and police would all refuse..



So that means all of that rhetoric has just been propaganda about something no one was even saying..


Same with Shiria law coming to America, remember that??

Gay marriage will lead to invest and people marrying animals!!

Show me a quote of any elected democrat supporting that????

Again you couldn’t.. it’s crazy..


They take individual cases of idiots who have zero authority or a following and pretend it applies to the intangible “left”..

You might wanna check yourself and do a little research. How about the hot mic scandal where a N.J. Democrat said "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" in which another Democrat N.J. Rep responded "They don't care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them."

N.J. Lawmaker's Hotmic Gun Control Scandal

Obama said he was going to attempt to force gun control under the radar.

Obama "Gun control, stealth and under the radar"

Both of these have videos where you can hear it for yourself. I saw Obama say that on T.V. in the oval.

Like -- what are you even talking about? The Democratic National Committee legitimately doesn't believe in gun ownership or the second amendment and have been staging operations and false flag gun assaults to force the public into a change of opinion -- lucky for us, the public is very stubborn when it comes to their second amendment right.

They won't say it during an election as part of their platform because it's a secret agenda, but I can link -- link after link -- of democrats getting caught telling the truth about their ambitions of gun confiscations. We're not talking about what if's or maybes, but caught red handed on a record.


Conservatism isn't based on slipper slope arguments, legitimately the democratic national committee is engaged in very literally using slippery slopes as their platform. You can see it in that quote -- "They don't care about the bad guys, they just want their little guns" like -- we want our "little guns" BECAUSE we care about bad guys, and they keep trying to force through new gun control restrictions, one new restriction at a time.

The most latest proposal was "Common sense gun laws" in which case, it was proposed that we are still allowed to own our guns, but we were not allowed to keep them, we would have to check them into 3rd party storage lockers with sign out sheets -- you'd have to be signing it out under the purpose of sport with a license with a check in date, like checking out a library book. Miss the date, and now you're a criminal.

That's called soft confiscation, and will turn into the 3rd party storage turning your guns in when the government demands it. Literally "slippery slope" in action.

This isn't going to happen, but it's not because the DNC isn't trying -- because they are, and have been openly for decades now.


This isn't a left vs right issue here and I'm not partisan. Just like Democrats have absolutely and completely destructive policies and blatant disregard for the constitution, republicans also have their blemishes. I.E. Their entire stance on abortion and their heavy reliance on religion and scripture. RNC doesn't believe in separation of church and state, but at least their financial policies are sound.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ketsuko
Now just a hypothetical ...

The PM of the UK has decided they they don't like Trump so much that they are getting ready to start WWIII. Do you think removing that person by force would be justified?

Yes.

definitely, depending on the situation.

But if it was just a straight up personality issue, May hates Trump so instructs the military to nuke D.C then yes I would support the military removing her by force if necessary.

Don’t lump us all into the pile.

I am British and happen to love you guys!

a reply to: fusiondoe


We love our brothers and sisters across the pond too fusion Especially considering we are of the same ancestry (Great Britain/United States = English)

I highly doubt PM May would instruct the military to nuke DC though. Although I must admit it would be one way to go about draining that swamp

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Hear that noise? It's the Secret Service knocking on your door for posting this "Take Trump Out" thread.

a reply to: underpass61

Trump (well really a lot of his top advisors) told them there was a pedophile ring there...

I think it’s fair to say that bum rushing the place with a gun is a reasonable reaction assuming you believed Flynn, Alex jones and otherS..

Hell I might be wrong and trump has been pushing it too..

a reply to: SRPrime

None of the top quotes are even remotely accurate...

They claim “well he didn’t actually say that , but we know what they really mean..”

It’s retarded and would get you laughed out of a high school debate ..


THE ONLY ACTUAL POLICY PROPOSED has been a ban on the NEW SALE of assault rifles with the millions in circulation still perfectly legal..

Not exactly what the debate has ever about now is it.

I started a thread here requesting quotes of elected officials saying such things but excluding supposed innuendo and there are none..


The closest thing in existence is Diane Fienstien saying she would not have grandfathered in the assault weapons in the 90’s but she admits she didn’t remotely have the votes..


It would be political suicide to even say that once.. Americans wouldn’t have it, the police and military wouldn’t do it.. it would cause a civil war, except no one would fight on the confiscation side at all..

It is bs propaganda that has NEVER BEEN A REALISTIC THREAT. Yet has been the primary motivation when voting for millions..

Still reading and will reply to the bottom
3/4

a reply to: SRPrime

The rest was just you repeating the first BS..

It’s not they don’t say that during election.. they don’t say that ever..

Please, without using innuendo find me a couple quotes of elected democrats saying they would ban guns and confiscatate them??

You couldn’t... they take the comments of random nobodies and apply it to the intangible left..

oh come on!
would usa drop a nuc on a civilian city?
oh! they Did ! hiroshima nagasaki.

could a nuclear standoff work?
um! russia.

should some one try to take over trump?
um! hilery IS trying...

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Agreed, attributing such statements by a few fringe activists to mainstream Democrats is a mistake I've made often in the past. Truth is, most elected officials aren't interested in confiscating every firearm but would rather engage in semantic and arbitrary restrictions on weapons based on their appearance and function.

Some of the actions they've taken in jurisdictions they control have been largely symbolic, but have all reduced the capacity of the weapon preventing Citizens from effectively utilizing them in their defense/defense of State. For example, reducing magazine capacity does not significantly increase the time it takes to go through x amount of rounds. However, in a life or death attack, every second counts and even a slight increase can be the difference between you taking bullets or the bad guy being stopped.

As a gun owner/second amendment defender, a huge mistake I've made in the past is feeling the need to justify my support of the second and decision to carry a firearm for personal defense. Truth is, the main reason I carry is because I live in a country where people have died to protect my right to have firearms (and the other components of the BOR) and I want to exercise that right. To dissect the BOR or Constitution would be counter to everything it stands for - especially on the count of illegal acts carried out by a small minority of individuals.

In reality, there are many more lethal weapons out there that criminals/terrorists can use to cause harm. Citizens pick guns because they are the most effective tool available (next to a rifle) for stopping a violent attack by stopping the attacker.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It would depend entirely on the scenario. If the other side was just as crazy and ready to use nukes, then we would have no choice but to let loose, if the problem can't be solved through diplomatic or conventional warfare channels.

But if he was trying to launch a nuke strike in any other scenario, where the doomsday clock wasn't at 11:59:59? Then yes, it would be the duty of those near him, and our government, to remove him by force, before his decision escalates to the point of no return. Nukes should only be the absolute, last ditch option, when we have no other choices, and the enemy is going to attack, or is attacking already.

a reply to: JBurns

Point 1:

Fair enough on the arbitrary restrictions but your forgetting the GRANDFATHER CLAUSE that has been included in any such proposals...

Even when they had the votes for the assault rifle ban on the 90’s. They didn’t even remotely have the votes without a grandfather clause.. it projects too close to confiscation.

So since that is the real dynamic , and how much of a change is it if all the millions in circulation, still circulate??

It would take 200 years for those to all break or degrade..

That’s not even remotely the debate had though..

HAVE YOU EVER HAD THAT DEBATE THOUGH???

Doubtful..

Any discussion on the actual proposal devolves into some ridiculous debate about HYPOTHETICALLY :

“if there was a geni who made all the guns disappear, would we be safer???”

Well ain’t no F’n genies...

So that discussion and all those similar confiscation/ban conversations are what’s know in the buisness as MENTAL MASTERBATION...


—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—

Point 2:

A) I would be surprised if anyone in modern history has been in a situation where a assault rife and high capacity magazine saved someone’s life.. well in a situation where a handgun or rifle wouldn’t have worked..

By all measurable stats justified homicides are by far the least amount of gun deaths..

Meaning the chance you will actually defend your family against someone trying to kill you is almost nothing..

Hell, even out of justifiable homicides, how many was the shooter not even in danger??? Your average burglar wants no part of a murder charge..

80% of burglaries are the idiot kids next door doing something stupid because they are board..

And 80+% of murders are by a friend or family..

I saw a documentary that claimed that’s Americans problem, not guns.. it’s that the media has us thinking there is a rapes serial killer around every cornor. When in reality the vast majority of people will never be put in anything resembling the situation we are discussing....

B) I hope you don’t mean defending against the US military, because those are US service members you would be killing.. well attempting to kill as they droned your butt from 3 states away..

We let our military get just ridiculously too big for the citizenry to revolt..

That ship sailed by the 50’s probably..


—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—

Part 3:

There are not more lethal weapons for terrorists to use.. not realistically..

If that were the case you wouldn’t be carrying a gun you would be carrying whatever else..

The military would arm our soldiers with whatever else..

The police would use whatever else..


Period a gun is the easiest , most accessible , smallest learning curb way to kill someone..

Sure there are always exceptions, but every terrorist can’t run a plane into a building.. you only get away with that kinda stuff once..

AINT NO REMOVING all the GUNS, but if not for them every single terrorist attack requires some brand new , brilliant McGyver type plan..


—�-_________

See even though I know better I still fall for a little mental masterbation lol.

Double post, sorry.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He won. Get over it and stop wasting time with hypothetical scenarios. That's half of what's wrong with the world these days. People wastng time thinking of ways to solve realities that just are as they are. Work harder. Fly higher. Think about what you'll be doing when he's out in 3-7 years. Not come up with ILLEGAL amoral ways to circumvent your constitution and democratic process. Sheesh.

To answer what would probably happen though, if you tried to remove the president by force, and he wasn't impeached first you would probably be shot dead almost immediately. There is an agency of your government whose job is solely to prevent you from
doing this,, lol. The secret service. Your training is probably superior though in your mind. Anyhow, if you survive being # at by the secret service, then you'll have some nasty felonies on your name and you'll likely find yourself in prison for a lengthy stay. President's are untouchable until impeached and are legally immune until impeached. And good luck passing a background check or flying anywhere after that stunt. You could probably literally hear the doors of opportunity slamming shut on your life.

You and anyone else that tried to remove him would quickly understand the problems with your thought experiment.

Imagine if the bleeding heart liberals had removed the president for going into WW2. Sometimes wars are necessary to stir a pot of a messed up world and to spur change. Just because your beloved Democrats have you so fooled with their wars you don't even comprehend the attrocities you think Trump is the only one that can goto war for a bad reason?

Wake up bro. You're part of the sheep and the problems that keep the world under an oppressive finger.

a reply to: hombero

No one from either political side has ANY chance of removing a president by force (except a very lucky assassination) without empeachmemt..

Including the gop if he was empeached and they tried to reinstall him..

That is such an alien concept to Americans that WAY to few would be willing to risk their comfy lives over it..

Hell, according to hillary, and I believe her. There is no mechanism to invalidate a presidental election..

For example say Putin came out and confirmed his deal with trump and provided ironclad proof. Well even though that would morally invalidate the whole election, pence still takes office..

Because there is no mechanism to undo an election..

It’s a hole that shouldn’t be there.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: underpass61

Trump (well really a lot of his top advisors) told them there was a pedophile ring there...

I think it’s fair to say that bum rushing the place with a gun is a reasonable reaction assuming you believed Flynn, Alex jones and otherS..

Hell I might be wrong and trump has been pushing it too..

LOL. Well, if we've learned anything it's that you guys have no idea what the word "totalitarian" means.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So just a quick thread (i hope).

I mean this to be entirely hypothetical, I am not, saying I support this, I am only wanting to open up a discussion about this possibility.

So….

Lets pretend for a moment that Trump is on the verge of starting WW3, he is instructing his military chiefs to ready the nukes, millions of Americans and other nationals are going to die and its all because Trump has got a itchy trigger figure.

His Chiefs of Staff and Military Heads can decide that the order is unlawful and refuse to follow it.
His cabinet can decide to remove trump from office under the 25th amendment.

Plenty of options, none of which requires "force".