Removing Trump by Force?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Since this is hypothetical, hypothetically, in this scenario I'd have super powers like Professor X and could save the world and be around hot babes and live in a cool fortress with helicopters and stuff.

I'd have a "hypothetical" lair/death ray installation...inside an extinct volcano, served by an army of sexy amazon fembots...and (THIS is important)...they will all have THREE large breasts.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Oh, well then why not bring this hypothetical up with just a "world leader"? Why aim it at Trump specifically? If you real question is if people think a coup d'etat on a leader about to begin WWIII, any leader, is a justified action to prevent said war, that's a different issue.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Since this is hypothetical, hypothetically, in this scenario I'd have super powers like Professor X and could save the world and be around hot babes and live in a cool fortress with helicopters and stuff.

I would be your man servant/sidekick and wear one of those banging tuxedo t-shirts with some tighty whities.

We're talking hypothetically, not about next Wednesday.

a reply to: loam Hmm very true. In your words why did that happen and what do you think would be different if anyhing today?

originally posted by: dashen
so you hypothetically want to destabilize a nuclear superpower at the verge of a tense WW3 scenario?

I would say it's more of a hypothetical stabilization of an unstable person at the helm of a superpower at the verge of a hypothetically tense WW3 scenario.

But hey, this is all just brain candy, right?

Oh man, I feel bad for you.

You started what I consider a thought provoking thread. However, all you're going to get is Trump supporters bashing your brains out. Unless you speak his name with praise, glory and admiration, you will suffer their wrath. Good luck bud.

OT:

If someone is clearly (and I mean beyond any doubt) going full on out of control then something must be done. But if it's against an arguably hostile enemy, then we'd have to look at the circumstances leading up to the event. But let's say, for example, he just up and decides to bomb Canada. That would obviously be a case that something is unhinged.

That being said, I don't believe an organized coup is the answer. Congress would have to intervene or in a case of imminent "button pushing" perhaps the secret service could be ordered to restrain him. (Although I don't believe there's a literal "launch all nukes" button). But I see what you're saying, and can imagine a circumstance where a leader would need to be removed from office in the interest of national safety and security. But, again, it would have to follow some legal challenge and not just be an overthrow.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin I will play along with ya. My answer is NO. That is not how we do things in America. I am no supporter of Trump but he is my president. The legal route is the way to go. If congress wants to go their way or his cab wants to go there's then sure. But a coup.....NO

You are one of those people who would stop at a traffic light at 3:00 a.m. when there is not another car in sight, and you have a very sick parent in the back seat who you are taking to the emergency room. Because, you know. It's bad to not follow every law.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: loam
...people who say they believe in democratic free society, until they don't.

Is fascism something else if you have the 'right' reason for it?

It raises a really interesting question though.

How far do we support democracy and freedom, do we continue to support it even if it brings about the deaths of millions in a catastrophic war or do we look to set in and stop that happening by force.

Ummm...it all really boils down to...where do you want those millions to die...

It's like growing pot...never on your own land...




YouSir

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Oh, well then why not bring this hypothetical up with just a "world leader"? Why aim it at Trump specifically? If you real question is if people think a coup d'etat on a leader about to begin WWIII, any leader, is a justified action to prevent said war, that's a different issue.

I think I mention any world leader twice in the OP.

I am thinking specifically however about Trump, was kind of wanting to see where his supporters stood on this.

Unsurprisingly even when he is on the verge of starting WW3 it seems they would be sticking with him.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Since this is hypothetical, hypothetically, in this scenario I'd have super powers like Professor X and could save the world and be around hot babes and live in a cool fortress with helicopters and stuff.

I'd have a "hypothetical" lair/death ray installation...inside an extinct volcano, served by an army of sexy amazon fembots...and (THIS is important)...they will all have THREE large breasts.

It's goals like this that'll make America Great Again!

a reply to: IAMTAT





Personally, I think the fembots are a good choice. They totally would have kept that volcano lair from being invaded by the ninjas.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

the day that happens will be the end of the USA. to circumvent the laws and remove him by force would im sure start a huge civil war, if ww3 was about to strike because of him it would still happen as we have our civil war. either way we would be screwed.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: dashen
so you hypothetically want to destabilize a nuclear superpower at the verge of a tense WW3 scenario?

I would say it's more of a hypothetical stabilization of an unstable person at the helm of a superpower at the verge of a hypothetically tense WW3 scenario.

But hey, this is all just brain candy, right?

We see that in North Korea. They aren't a superpower, but they check off all your other boxes.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That's you assumption.

See, the problem you made was addressing this specifically, making assumptions, and assuming we are close enough to WWIII.

We aren't no matter how scared you are.

a reply to: Eshel

Oh man, I feel bad for you.

Dont be, I am well used to this by now

You started what I consider a thought provoking thread. However, all you're going to get is Trump supporters bashing your brains out. Unless you speak his name with praise, glory and admiration, you will suffer their wrath. Good luck bud.

Pretty much I raise what I think is just a interesting "what if" question and they all lose their minds as if I am calling for the deployment of tanks on the lawn of the White House and Trump facing a firing squad.

if someone is clearly (and I mean beyond any doubt) going full on out of control then something must be done. But if it's against an arguably hostile enemy, then we'd have to look at the circumstances leading up to the event. But let's say, for example, he just up and decides to bomb Canada. That would obviously be a case that something is unhinged.

That being said, I don't believe an organized coup is the answer. Congress would have to intervene or in a case of imminent "button pushing" perhaps the secret service could be ordered to restrain him. (Although I don't believe there's a literal "launch all nukes" button). But I see what you're saying, and can imagine a circumstance where a leader would need to be removed from office in the interest of national safety and security. But, again, it would have to follow some legal challenge and not just be an overthrow.

Thanks for that thoughtful response, I agree, I do think that it would probably fall to congress and the cabinet to remove him before it got to a stage where a coup was the only option.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
We're talking hypothetically, not about next Wednesday.

Is this like that time you hypothetically asked me to shave your back?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: angeldoll

Your premise is that those who knew about it opposed it. They didn't.

And you support nuclear war, then? And if one person decided he wanted it, you would go along with that because, trump??

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I see wars taking place all over the world being put perpetrated by so-called democratically elected strongmen. Why aren't your British troops preventing that loss of life?

How many have died because your country failed to act?

Ummm...a better question would be...How many have died because your country...chose...to act...There's a long and bloody history that drags behind British asses...


YouSir

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The prez alone can't launch, he need his order to be okayed by another designated person.

You have to trust the will of the people in electing the leader of the country (As long as its a proper election like in the US, UK etc, and not some banana republic type lash up job).

Say you had a president absolutely opposed to launching those missiles in the face of a similar existential threat? Would you then say its ok for the military to usurp that one and launch the nukes themselves?

a reply to: angeldoll A red light is a red light. Besides that being super funny I may very well run it after checking all the sidewalks and exits from the surrounding stores. Thank you for making my morning.