Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Start with their top one, Obama and Hillary, and work your way down. A great argument can be made they are not as neocon as past ones, but they have engaged, foreign policy wise, in all the hallmarks that defines a neocon.
Neocon (short for Neoconservative) was a term used for a certain types of Republicans in the 90's such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan. No one in their right mind would lump Clinton or Obama with them and expect to be taken seriously. Come on.
"A coup d'état ... is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus."*
Note the two components:
1. It is illegal, meaning that it does not have to abide by constitutional law or other precepts of governance.
2. It can be initiated by the military itself, or by "other elites" (not necessarily the president) within the state apparatus.
Start with their top one, Obama and Hillary, and work your way down. A great argument can be made they are not as neocon as past ones, but they have engaged, foreign policy wise, in all the hallmarks that defines a neocon.
I see no streak in the parties. Having a few people is not a "streak.' both parties are interventionists; having some senator that is not does no constitute a streak.
Show me this streak, show me the party members who not just talk, but have voted or even brought to the floor isolationist policies.
1st highlight: How do you define streak?
2ns highlight: You've got that backwards. First you bring to the floor, then you vote. Pat Buchanan in the R party comes to mind. I made no similar claim about the D's.
Neocon (short for Neoconservative) was a term used for a certain types of Republicans in the 90's such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan. No one in their right mind would lump Clinton or Obama with them and expect to be taken seriously. Come on.
Pat Buchanan is the opposite of a neocon (paleocon). Neocon is used for conservatives who are especially in favor of military intervention abroad.
"A coup d'état ... is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus."*
Note the two components:
1. It is illegal, meaning that it does not have to abide by constitutional law or other precepts of governance.
2. It can be initiated by the military itself, or by "other elites" (not necessarily the president) within the state apparatus.
This at best could result in a civil war IF it got that far. There is no way anyone could get the entire military to agree to overthrow the government. The top people in the military are in the presidents cabinet and can be removed by the president which would take away their access to the high ranking officials below them. This would require unifying the entire military which would be next to impossible. You would have to somehow get the Army, Navy, Air force and Marines to agree to overthrow their government. The National Guard, while under the states jurisdiction, can be called up in reserve by the president if need be so they too would have to somehow share the same brain. Even in the military, power is separated and balanced just for this reason so yes, in theory, an illegal military coup is possible but in reality it is very improbable due to the widely, almost fragmented separation of powers which are only unified by the commander in chief.
You don't seem to understand the distinction between impossible and unlikely, and English is your native language I assume?
This is what you said:
"I never claimed [that a coup in the USA] was impossible, just unlikely, and certainly a lot more unlikely than in the UK."
This is still the tu quoque fallacy, even if you reduce your statement to probabilistic terms. The relative likelihood of a coup d'etat in the UK does not make the statements in this post any less true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
This at best could result in a civil war IF it got that far. There is no way anyone could get the entire military to agree to overthrow the government. The top people in the military are in the presidents cabinet and can be removed by the president which would take away their access to the high ranking officials below them. This would require unifying the entire military which would be next to impossible. You would have to somehow get the Army, Navy, Air force and Marines to agree to overthrow their government. The National Guard, while under the states jurisdiction, can be called up in reserve by the president if need be so they too would have to somehow share the same brain. Even in the military, power is separated and balanced just for this reason so yes, in theory, an illegal military coup is possible but in reality it is very improbable due to the widely, almost fragmented separation of powers which are only unified by the commander in chief.
I know it's fanciful. It's the anti-Trump author of that article proposing that a Trump presidency be overthrown militarily if the people vote him in. In other words, you agree with me.
Neocon (short for Neoconservative) was a term used for a certain types of Republicans in the 90's such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan. No one in their right mind would lump Clinton or Obama with them and expect to be taken seriously. Come on.
The term is from the 60's for some Democrats. It is an ideology that goes beyond party lines. The most important element of this ideology is the belief of interventionist policies, such as those of Obama and Hillary. The term is fluid, but I do not think anyone can claim Obama and Hillary are not for intervening in almost every little global issue there is, following the line of the neocon ideology.
Buchanan is far, far away from being a neocon, he is a paleoconservative.
Clinton (both of them) and Obama are lumped together with neocons. You are thinking party lines only for some reason. Foreign policy wise, there are no differences between them, even domestically there are few differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBMD
1st highlight: How do you define streak?
2ns highlight: You've got that backwards. First you bring to the floor, then you vote. Pat Buchanan in the R party comes to mind. I made no similar claim about the D's.
I am not the one who mentioned streak, the definitions provided to me did not satisfy the requirement of their being a streak of isolationists.
I know what comes first, I do not understand why you stated this, is it implied I thought a vote would come before the floor? How would that even make sense?
Buchanan is not a neocon, he is far from it, he is a paleoconservative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
