NIKV69 wrote:

Again there was absolutely no grounds or any evidence of this but this General felt the need to make these calls? He is an embarrassment to the uniform.

Interesting, can you provide a source confirming Cabinet members’ concerns were unfounded? Also
with all the reporting now out confirming these calls involved substantial numbers of OSD and NSC staff, as well as the CIA Director, there is zero explanation for still being focused on the General.

Perhaps you need a refresher on the timeline:

https://youtu.be/p-TplaqTvro

Definitely should be charged, may have saved the world from a nuclear disaster. Whoever could be in favor of that.

extender wrote:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has certainly created a stir over the last two months. But this weeks bombshell is the icing on the cake for which he should face disciplinary action. He also shares responsibility for the botched exit from Afghanistan whereby the Taliban was left with lots of weapons, equipment, ammunition etc. That he circumvented the chain of command is unprecedented. It doesn't matter if it was to Trump, Biden or Obama; it is flat out wrong. My other question, why did Milley also give this information to Bob Woodward? The military command should have zero political bias.

Top general Milley reassured China, others in secret calls as Trump pushed election lies, spokesman says

Alexander Vindman Says Gen. Milley ‘Must Resign’ If Report of His Calls to China Is True: ‘He Usurped Civilian Authority’

General Milley Should Be Fired for Holding Secret, Personal Talks with China

Wow! All of a sudden guys like you care about the constitution, norms and precedence. Not so long ago you were quite dismissive of an attempted coup that resulted in people being killed in the US Capital, all instigated by Trump. If he had been successful, tens of millions of voters would have been disenfranchised. Would do you think would have happened then? That's much more dangerous that the Chairman of the JCS calling his Chinese counterpart assuring him we were not going to do anything rash.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1457149&p=22650565&hilit=trump#p22650565
To quote you:
Get over it already. He'll be back in 2024. He will have plenty to compare his previous achievements with those of Biden/Harris.

Haters gotta hate. You can spin it any way you want to, but at least for the next four years, your putzes will be under the microscopes. But he can have fun now and poke the White House now. He was acquitted. You can come up with all the explanations you want, the Russians, whatever. What a waste of money, money that could have got to better uses. The democrats failed, again

When you say things like this that it should be obvious that you are more upset that he made Trump look bad. And that it has little to do with chain of command, precedence, norms etc.

NIKV69 wrote:

Here is a poor attempt to bash the US political system by inventing to falsehoods about it.

No and no falsehood. It is a reaction to the blinded: "America is the best and America has the best system, America is the best democracy" rhetoric. Clearly and objectively, it is not. The USA is ranked 25th in the Democratic index this year, classified as a 'Flawed democracies'.

If one isn't prepared to look objectively to your own system, than yeah, I understand one would see it at 'bashing' and 'inventing falshoods'.

NIKV69 wrote:

You are clearly inferring that by it's design it is responsible for dividing the nation.

No, not by design, but as a consequence. There is a clear difference. An election system with a district system will divide and lead to a two-party system because it is always a case of 'we against them' rhetoric. It is always 'the winner takes all', with no room for other ideas. And as I look to it from a distance, without having strong emotions about it, having a President with its own democratic mandate and have a congress with its own democratic mandate but could be from opposite parties isn't helping either. Since, by design, it is winner takes all, it isn't a system that promotes cooperation but instead promotes clashes.

NIKV69 wrote:

Where if you looked at it from an objective point of view it's designed (along with the electoral college) to be the fairest and keep the most people represented.

I would put this quote in the box 'fanboy'. How can you pretend to say anything objectively when you realize that the popular vote can be overruled and has been overruled by the electoral college. By design, it isn't the fairest and keeps the most people represented. It is designed to keep most people happy at the time of its invention. That is realism to get things done in the historical context.

NIKV69 wrote:

Does it work perfect? No but the polarization and such is a result of the toxic propaganda recited hourly on the MSM.

[/quote]

As explained, not really, and just blaming the media is not helping to solve a problem within the system design.

Please keep this thread on topic, thanks.

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Joint Chiefs decided the former occupant would go rogue and do whatever he wanted. Military leaders saw dear leader as a threat to national security. Simply calling another nation and saying "we think our guy does not know what he is doing and will wait until someone competent comes in" is not treason or leaking information.

Should they not contact the vice president and other elected officials to get an impeachment in such cases?

Impeachment, as we saw twice with the former occupant, starts with investigations in the House. If they believe what happened rises to the level of charges being brought, that is where the case moves to the full House chamber to decide if there should be a trial to convict or acquit of impeachment charges. If the House votes to send the articles on to the Senate, the president is then impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. Plenty of elected officials get a say in impeachment.

For military strategies, not so much.

I think that the idea of the president being mentally so unstable that the military fears he could start an unprovoked nuclear war, should be something that needs to be dealt with within the US government and not by the Chinese.

seahawk wrote:

I think that the idea of the president being mentally so unstable that the military fears he could start an unprovoked nuclear war, should be something that needs to be dealt with within the US government and not by the Chinese.

I recall Reagan saying they were going to nuke the Soviet Union, what happened then, what changes were made?

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Should they not contact the vice president and other elected officials to get an impeachment in such cases?

Impeachment, as we saw twice with the former occupant, starts with investigations in the House. If they believe what happened rises to the level of charges being brought, that is where the case moves to the full House chamber to decide if there should be a trial to convict or acquit of impeachment charges. If the House votes to send the articles on to the Senate, the president is then impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. Plenty of elected officials get a say in impeachment.

For military strategies, not so much.

I think that the idea of the president being mentally so unstable that the military fears he could start an unprovoked nuclear war, should be something that needs to be dealt with within the US government and not by the Chinese.

It wasn't dealt with by the Chinese though...doesn't really make sense at all.

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Impeachment, as we saw twice with the former occupant, starts with investigations in the House. If they believe what happened rises to the level of charges being brought, that is where the case moves to the full House chamber to decide if there should be a trial to convict or acquit of impeachment charges. If the House votes to send the articles on to the Senate, the president is then impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. Plenty of elected officials get a say in impeachment.

For military strategies, not so much.

I think that the idea of the president being mentally so unstable that the military fears he could start an unprovoked nuclear war, should be something that needs to be dealt with within the US government and not by the Chinese.

It wasn't dealt with by the Chinese though...doesn't really make sense at all.

Actually it is, but you have to give it context.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/27/news/e ... index.html

So in the past 30+ years, it was Americans who made China big. As far as the American economy was doing well, you didn't care what China was doing elsewhere. There was, of course, the rhetoric, but it remained a rhetoric as trade was much more essential than human rights and everything. After all, the past 30-35 years of cheap imports had made the American economy pretty stable. In fact, things have become so much worse that now even Hollywood is under their control.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arc ... na/620021/

Realistically speaking, if you look at any of the Pentagon or even military research which is available for the public to see and learn, even in the most optimistic scenario of wanting to attack China, they say they cannot attack them in South China Sea where it has become too strong. The only way the Americans think they can win is in a scenario where the Chinese are thin and logistics becomes an issue. The Chinese already identified it, and BRI is in part to dull that. It just does not have just trade, but even security considerations. But those who have entered it are sovereign states, so they know what they are signing. Part of the reason that they do not need to have ideology or conditions while taking loans from ADB, while U.S, with IMF and World Bank pandered more to American interests.

Also, we must not forget that it was actually Trump who did the drawdown

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... e-taliban/

The idea was to get out of both places without informing anybody, including their allies, when they pulled out. Biden did the same thing, only instead of January, he did in August.

pune wrote:

The idea was to get out of both places without informing anybody, including their allies, when they pulled out. Biden did the same thing, only instead of January, he did in August.

But our allies WERE informed we were withdrawing from Afghanistan

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-04-14/

They knew when the plan was drawn up with the Taliban leadership under the previous administration. They knew.

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Should they not contact the vice president and other elected officials to get an impeachment in such cases?

Impeachment, as we saw twice with the former occupant, starts with investigations in the House. If they believe what happened rises to the level of charges being brought, that is where the case moves to the full House chamber to decide if there should be a trial to convict or acquit of impeachment charges. If the House votes to send the articles on to the Senate, the president is then impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. Plenty of elected officials get a say in impeachment.

For military strategies, not so much.

I think that the idea of the president being mentally so unstable that the military fears he could start an unprovoked nuclear war, should be something that needs to be dealt with within the US government and not by the Chinese.

So are you for or against Milley talking to Chinese military leaders to avoid a nuclear war because the previous administration was considering it? That is why this is a topic: The previous administration actually considered going to war with China. It had not been on the table under Obama or Bush or Clinton. But, for some reason, American military leaders had to intervene and talk with China.

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Impeachment, as we saw twice with the former occupant, starts with investigations in the House. If they believe what happened rises to the level of charges being brought, that is where the case moves to the full House chamber to decide if there should be a trial to convict or acquit of impeachment charges. If the House votes to send the articles on to the Senate, the president is then impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. Plenty of elected officials get a say in impeachment.

For military strategies, not so much.

I think that the idea of the president being mentally so unstable that the military fears he could start an unprovoked nuclear war, should be something that needs to be dealt with within the US government and not by the Chinese.

So are you for or against Milley talking to Chinese military leaders to avoid a nuclear war because the previous administration was considering it? That is why this is a topic: The previous administration actually considered going to war with China. It had not been on the table under Obama or Bush or Clinton. But, for some reason, American military leaders had to intervene and talk with China.

I am against the military talking to the Chinese, I am also against leaving such an unstable US government in power.

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think that the idea of the president being mentally so unstable that the military fears he could start an unprovoked nuclear war, should be something that needs to be dealt with within the US government and not by the Chinese.

So are you for or against Milley talking to Chinese military leaders to avoid a nuclear war because the previous administration was considering it? That is why this is a topic: The previous administration actually considered going to war with China. It had not been on the table under Obama or Bush or Clinton. But, for some reason, American military leaders had to intervene and talk with China.

I am against the military talking to the Chinese, I am also against leaving such an unstable US government in power.

OUR AMERICAN military decided to talk to the Chinese before the previous administration could do anything. OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided there was enough of a legitimate threat coming from the White House that they, again OUR AMERICAN military leaders, felt they had to intervene and talk to the Chinese military leaders. The Chinese did not decide this OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided this.

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So are you for or against Milley talking to Chinese military leaders to avoid a nuclear war because the previous administration was considering it? That is why this is a topic: The previous administration actually considered going to war with China. It had not been on the table under Obama or Bush or Clinton. But, for some reason, American military leaders had to intervene and talk with China.

I am against the military talking to the Chinese, I am also against leaving such an unstable US government in power.

OUR AMERICAN military decided to talk to the Chinese before the previous administration could do anything. OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided there was enough of a legitimate threat coming from the White House that they, again OUR AMERICAN military leaders, felt they had to intervene and talk to the Chinese military leaders. The Chinese did not decide this OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided this.

I think it is very wrong that your American military leaders had to talk about their concerns to the Chinese and not to US political leaders in a position to remedy the perceived threat to American security.

seahawk wrote:

I think it is very wrong that your American military leaders had to talk about their concerns to the Chinese and not to US political leaders in a position to remedy the perceived threat to American security.

A major point that is being ignored, military leaders also swear allegiance to the constitution, so they believed that the political infrastructure in the USA could not be trusted, the executive, legislature and judicial branches, only option was to go outside the USA?

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think it is very wrong that your American military leaders had to talk about their concerns to the Chinese and not to US political leaders in a position to remedy the perceived threat to American security.

A major point that is being ignored, military leaders also swear allegiance to the constitution, so they believed that the political infrastructure in the USA could not be trusted, the executive, legislature and judicial branches, only option was to go outside the USA?

Way way off base there.

seb146 wrote:

pune wrote:

The idea was to get out of both places without informing anybody, including their allies, when they pulled out. Biden did the same thing, only instead of January, he did in August.

But our allies WERE informed we were withdrawing from Afghanistan

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-04-14/

They knew when the plan was drawn up with the Taliban leadership under the previous administration. They knew.

I just read what has been shared in the UK/British press, and they were complaining that they were not told hence when the Americans left, they had no choice but to go along and reverse. Now, of course, one could speculate a lot. One part of it is that it is a face-saving gesture for the UK public as after Brexit, they have been talking about 'Global Britain' and having to escape sends the message opposite to that.

The other is they were not informed as US needed boots on the ground till the last moment. That could also be a strategy of the Americans. If you look at it, for the Americans, despite whatever they might say, their effort would be to see that Americans, both military and civilian reach home safely, that would be the primary responsibility and that is what any responsible Govt. would do. There is no denying this could have been done in a much better way, why they needed to do in such a hurry, would only be known when they declassify whatever happened, probably a decade or longer which might give more of an accurate timeline and reasons for the American Govt. to act they way it did.

pune wrote:

There is no denying this could have been done in a much better way

Absolutely, like getting out after failing to nab OBL at Tora Bora.

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I am against the military talking to the Chinese, I am also against leaving such an unstable US government in power.

OUR AMERICAN military decided to talk to the Chinese before the previous administration could do anything. OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided there was enough of a legitimate threat coming from the White House that they, again OUR AMERICAN military leaders, felt they had to intervene and talk to the Chinese military leaders. The Chinese did not decide this OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided this.

I think it is very wrong that your American military leaders had to talk about their concerns to the Chinese and not to US political leaders in a position to remedy the perceived threat to American security.

Political leaders under the previous administration were "yes men" in that they could not say anything to defy their leader. The highest ranking official that could have done anything was Pelosi.

Being serious for just a moment, to both follow the letter of the law and be fair at the same time:

1.) Milley should be court-martialed, found guilty of something, sentenced to something ridiculous and then have that sentence overturned on appeal.
2.) Trump should be ridiculed, found guilty of treason and then shot. On appeal, he should be shot again.

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

OUR AMERICAN military decided to talk to the Chinese before the previous administration could do anything. OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided there was enough of a legitimate threat coming from the White House that they, again OUR AMERICAN military leaders, felt they had to intervene and talk to the Chinese military leaders. The Chinese did not decide this OUR AMERICAN military leaders decided this.

I think it is very wrong that your American military leaders had to talk about their concerns to the Chinese and not to US political leaders in a position to remedy the perceived threat to American security.

Political leaders under the previous administration were "yes men" in that they could not say anything to defy their leader. The highest ranking official that could have done anything was Pelosi.

Yes, but that is a huge problem imho. If the political system becomes so partisan, that it is unable to control a president that is seen as a danger to the country by the armed forces, intelligence services as well national security advisers, the system has failed. In the end the question has to be asked, what happens if or when a mentally unfit president pushes the button? Does the military ignore the order, do we hope the Chinese or Russians will not respond to atomic warheads heading for their cities?

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think it is very wrong that your American military leaders had to talk about their concerns to the Chinese and not to US political leaders in a position to remedy the perceived threat to American security.

Political leaders under the previous administration were "yes men" in that they could not say anything to defy their leader. The highest ranking official that could have done anything was Pelosi.

Yes, but that is a huge problem imho. If the political system becomes so partisan, that it is unable to control a president that is seen as a danger to the country by the armed forces, intelligence services as well national security advisers, the system has failed. In the end the question has to be asked, what happens if or when a mentally unfit president pushes the button? Does the military ignore the order, do we hope the Chinese or Russians will not respond to atomic warheads heading for their cities?

Yes, the military would ignore the order. That is kind of what this thread is about.

The US has rule of law and we generally use our laws. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and honestly, other than a professional military clique, there is no assurance as to how they will be used. The US has lasted quite well, compared to (for example) European states other than Great Britain, few of whose regimes are pre 1945. The US has greater stability.

What if Xi Jinping goes crazy? His government was formed only in 1949. The civil war there could break out again. We are safer than other nuclear players.

And which law says that the armed forces can ignore a direct order by the president?

seahawk wrote:

And which law says that the armed forces can ignore a direct order by the president?

Rule 916(d) in the Manual for Courts Martial

...It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

https://mcm.mil/

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And the longest continues running democracy? Interesting, based on what exactly?

We can very easily conclude that the American democratic system, isn't the best political system, not by a long shot. Just look at the way it is manipulated and contributes to dividing a nation, instead of unifying one. Be careful with such claims, especially on an international forum or you get reactions like this.

(I am going to be a hypocrite and reply in this thread anyway....)
In my opinion, The Netherlands is "more democratic" than the US, as it is based on equal representation. The fact that this leads to a plurality of parties that are then forced to compromise is all the better. There is also less of a chance of "oligarchs seizing control" as it is much more difficult to bribe multiple parties than just one or two parties.

The US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Representative Republic.

bpatus297 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And the longest continues running democracy? Interesting, based on what exactly?

We can very easily conclude that the American democratic system, isn't the best political system, not by a long shot. Just look at the way it is manipulated and contributes to dividing a nation, instead of unifying one. Be careful with such claims, especially on an international forum or you get reactions like this.

(I am going to be a hypocrite and reply in this thread anyway....)
In my opinion, The Netherlands is "more democratic" than the US, as it is based on equal representation. The fact that this leads to a plurality of parties that are then forced to compromise is all the better. There is also less of a chance of "oligarchs seizing control" as it is much more difficult to bribe multiple parties than just one or two parties.

The US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Representative Republic.

I have never understood why some people make that distinction.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

(I am going to be a hypocrite and reply in this thread anyway....)
In my opinion, The Netherlands is "more democratic" than the US, as it is based on equal representation. The fact that this leads to a plurality of parties that are then forced to compromise is all the better. There is also less of a chance of "oligarchs seizing control" as it is much more difficult to bribe multiple parties than just one or two parties.

The US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Representative Republic.

I have never understood why some people make that distinction.

People make that distinction because they are different. Pretty easy to understand.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing ... f3bbc.html

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Representative Republic.

I have never understood why some people make that distinction.

People make that distinction because they are different. Pretty easy to understand.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing ... f3bbc.html

can't access it, because the EU is protecting my privicy.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I have never understood why some people make that distinction.

People make that distinction because they are different. Pretty easy to understand.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing ... f3bbc.html

can't access it, because the EU is protecting my privicy.

It's just a link talking about the difference between a democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. Should be easy to search for if that link doesn't work.

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

People make that distinction because they are different. Pretty easy to understand.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing ... f3bbc.html

can't access it, because the EU is protecting my privicy.

It's just a link talking about the difference between a democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. Should be easy to search for if that link doesn't work.

Perhaps you should talk to AirWorthy99, he is claiming America is the longest continues running democracy, and therefore it must be a democracy.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And the longest continues running democracy? Interesting, based on what exactly?

There are opinions and then there are facts:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped ... mocracies/

Anyhow, will try to see if I can find a site.

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

People make that distinction because they are different. Pretty easy to understand.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing ... f3bbc.html

can't access it, because the EU is protecting my privicy.

It's just a link talking about the difference between a democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. Should be easy to search for if that link doesn't work.

America is both a Republic and a Democracy, those terms aren't mutually exclusive. Such be Constitutional Representative Republic Democracy. The Washington Post opinion piece. Although a "flawed democracy", unfortunately.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

can't access it, because the EU is protecting my privicy.

It's just a link talking about the difference between a democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. Should be easy to search for if that link doesn't work.

America is both a Republic and a Democracy, those terms aren't mutually exclusive. Such be Constitutional Representative Republic Democracy. The Washington Post opinion piece. Although a "flawed democracy", unfortunately.

You quoted an opinion piece. We are a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, the majority of people rule based on votes. We do not vote on a vast majority of our laws (some states and local municipalities have small exceptions). We elect people who represent us and they make the laws within the confines of our constitution. That is a republic.

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

It's just a link talking about the difference between a democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. Should be easy to search for if that link doesn't work.

America is both a Republic and a Democracy, those terms aren't mutually exclusive. Such be Constitutional Representative Republic Democracy. The Washington Post opinion piece. Although a "flawed democracy", unfortunately.

You quoted an opinion piece. We are a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, the majority of people rule based on votes. We do not vote on a vast majority of our laws (some states and local municipalities have small exceptions). We elect people who represent us and they make the laws within the confines of our constitution. That is a republic.

Here is a quote straight from a Department of States Embassy website:

"While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power."

https://ar.usembassy.gov/education-cult ... overnment/

bpatus297 wrote:

We elect people who represent us and they make the laws within the confines of our constitution. That is a republic.

By that definition, the Netherlands is also a republic

The meaning of democracy in English, according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves

Link

Strange discussion, why don't you want to live in a democracy? Representative democracy that is.

I believe that Gen. Milley basically made a phone call that is consistent with normal actions of other arrivers ho havre held that position. I also believe it is important to understand that these calls have gone out to multiple countries around the world, from allies to the bad actors. Maybe Colin Powell can give the country some background briefings on this - we can probably believe him and the Trumpers might shut up for a while.

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And which law says that the armed forces can ignore a direct order by the president?

Rule 916(d) in the Manual for Courts Martial

...It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

https://mcm.mil/

That seems a bit weak, as the lawfulness of the order will only be assessed after the deed. So in a worst case the members of the military ignoring the order could face charges, if the order is found lawful. I think the crisis showed a huge problem, as the government and the democratic institutions were not working. The 25th was not used, which is (imho) concerning.

seahawk wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And which law says that the armed forces can ignore a direct order by the president?

Rule 916(d) in the Manual for Courts Martial

...It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

https://mcm.mil/

That seems a bit weak, as the lawfulness of the order will only be assessed after the deed. So in a worst case the members of the military ignoring the order could face charges, if the order is found lawful. I think the crisis showed a huge problem, as the government and the democratic institutions were not working. The 25th was not used, which is (imho) concerning.

Oh it's absolutely concerning, I agree - the Constitution/standing federal law do not address a Cabinet setup where everyone knows POTUS has compromised temperament but only some are willing to say so. As I said earlier in the thread, the complicating factor here is how close many were to exiting the WH and they had to calculate how their next role would be affected by showing loyalty or not.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We elect people who represent us and they make the laws within the confines of our constitution. That is a republic.

By that definition, the Netherlands is also a republic

The meaning of democracy in English, according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves

Link

Strange discussion, why don't you want to live in a democracy? Representative democracy that is.

I don't want to live in a true democracy since a simple majority makes the rules for everyone and it is easy to overlook the minorities. Current day politics aside, the US system is supposed to include minority representation and give them an equal vote at the table. Of course our current politicians are so corrupt they only care about appeasing lobbyist and their political masters, not their constituents.

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Rule 916(d) in the Manual for Courts Martial

...It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

https://mcm.mil/

That seems a bit weak, as the lawfulness of the order will only be assessed after the deed. So in a worst case the members of the military ignoring the order could face charges, if the order is found lawful. I think the crisis showed a huge problem, as the government and the democratic institutions were not working. The 25th was not used, which is (imho) concerning.

Oh it's absolutely concerning, I agree - the Constitution/standing federal law do not address a Cabinet setup where everyone knows POTUS has compromised temperament but only some are willing to say so. As I said earlier in the thread, the complicating factor here is how close many were to exiting the WH and they had to calculate how their next role would be affected by showing loyalty or not.

Do you have any proof of this or is it just conjuncture?

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That seems a bit weak, as the lawfulness of the order will only be assessed after the deed. So in a worst case the members of the military ignoring the order could face charges, if the order is found lawful. I think the crisis showed a huge problem, as the government and the democratic institutions were not working. The 25th was not used, which is (imho) concerning.

Oh it's absolutely concerning, I agree - the Constitution/standing federal law do not address a Cabinet setup where everyone knows POTUS has compromised temperament but only some are willing to say so. As I said earlier in the thread, the complicating factor here is how close many were to exiting the WH and they had to calculate how their next role would be affected by showing loyalty or not.

Do you have any proof of this or is it just conjuncture?

We know three Cabinet members were concerned - the others have stayed mum and Pence has backtracked on all his criticisms regarding the non-confirmation attempts on 1/6. As for what the mum ones thought, we probably have to wait years for it all to come out.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Oh it's absolutely concerning, I agree - the Constitution/standing federal law do not address a Cabinet setup where everyone knows POTUS has compromised temperament but only some are willing to say so. As I said earlier in the thread, the complicating factor here is how close many were to exiting the WH and they had to calculate how their next role would be affected by showing loyalty or not.

Do you have any proof of this or is it just conjuncture?

We know three Cabinet members were concerned - the others have stayed mum and Pence has backtracked on all his criticisms regarding the non-confirmation attempts on 1/6. As for what the mum ones thought, we probably have to wait years for it all to come out.

So conjecture.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Do you have any proof of this or is it just conjuncture?

We know three Cabinet members were concerned - the others have stayed mum and Pence has backtracked on all his criticisms regarding the non-confirmation attempts on 1/6. As for what the mum ones thought, we probably have to wait years for it all to come out.

So conjecture.

Only in lieu of non confirmation. Since all members of the Cabinet are reasonably intelligent individuals, we can make the educated guess that they found the attempts to invite outside parties with wild fraud claims alarming at best, yet chose to remain quiet. Especially with what has come out in the last week about what POTUS’s outside counsel wanted Pence to do, the departures from norms were unprecedented. Unless you call this normal?

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/14 ... 92480?s=21

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We elect people who represent us and they make the laws within the confines of our constitution. That is a republic.

By that definition, the Netherlands is also a republic

The meaning of democracy in English, according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves

Link

Strange discussion, why don't you want to live in a democracy? Representative democracy that is.

I don't want to live in a true democracy since a simple majority makes the rules for everyone and it is easy to overlook the minorities. Current day politics aside, the US system is supposed to include minority representation and give them an equal vote at the table. Of course our current politicians are so corrupt they only care about appeasing lobbyist and their political masters, not their constituents.

You're talking about a direct democracy as a 'true' democracy. Kind of the set-up for Switzerland, but even Switzerland isn't a direct democracy, the Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy.

I do not want to live in a direct democracy either. Current society is by far too complex for direct democracy. The rights of minorities should be covered within the rule of law. And in a good functioning representative democracy, the interests of minorities should be taken into considiration with every decision taken. But minority representation can't have an equal vote at the table, they are not equal in size, by definition.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

By that definition, the Netherlands is also a republic

The meaning of democracy in English, according to the Cambridge Dictionary:



Link

Strange discussion, why don't you want to live in a democracy? Representative democracy that is.

I don't want to live in a true democracy since a simple majority makes the rules for everyone and it is easy to overlook the minorities. Current day politics aside, the US system is supposed to include minority representation and give them an equal vote at the table. Of course our current politicians are so corrupt they only care about appeasing lobbyist and their political masters, not their constituents.

You're talking about a direct democracy as a 'true' democracy. Kind of the set-up for Switzerland, but even Switzerland isn't a direct democracy, the Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy.

Regardless, the United States is s Constitutional Representative Republic. Even the US DOS states that via the link I already posted.

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I don't want to live in a true democracy since a simple majority makes the rules for everyone and it is easy to overlook the minorities. Current day politics aside, the US system is supposed to include minority representation and give them an equal vote at the table. Of course our current politicians are so corrupt they only care about appeasing lobbyist and their political masters, not their constituents.

You're talking about a direct democracy as a 'true' democracy. Kind of the set-up for Switzerland, but even Switzerland isn't a direct democracy, the Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy.

Regardless, the United States is s Constitutional Representative Republic. Even the US DOS states that via the link I already posted.

Fine, but I still can't see the artificial distinction between democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. It is so artificial and not a definition that is widely accepted in academia. But if it makes you happy, whom am I to say otherwise.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You're talking about a direct democracy as a 'true' democracy. Kind of the set-up for Switzerland, but even Switzerland isn't a direct democracy, the Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy.

Regardless, the United States is s Constitutional Representative Republic. Even the US DOS states that via the link I already posted.

Fine, but I still can't see the artificial distinction between democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. It is so artificial and not a definition that is widely accepted in academia. But if it makes you happy, whom am I to say otherwise.

Well as someone who is a citizen of said Republic, yes I care to make the distinction.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You're talking about a direct democracy as a 'true' democracy. Kind of the set-up for Switzerland, but even Switzerland isn't a direct democracy, the Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy.

Regardless, the United States is s Constitutional Representative Republic. Even the US DOS states that via the link I already posted.

Fine, but I still can't see the artificial distinction between democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. It is so artificial and not a definition that is widely accepted in academia. But if it makes you happy, whom am I to say otherwise.

He simply does not understand the difference between how a government is elected (democracy) and how a state is structured (Representative Republic).

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Regardless, the United States is s Constitutional Representative Republic. Even the US DOS states that via the link I already posted.

Fine, but I still can't see the artificial distinction between democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. It is so artificial and not a definition that is widely accepted in academia. But if it makes you happy, whom am I to say otherwise.

He simply does not understand the difference between how a government is elected (democracy) and how a state is structured (Representative Republic).

Say what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the US is a Constitutionally Represented Republic. We elect Representative (sure democratically) who pass legislation and make Governmental decisions. I don't recall voting on Federal laws or treaties, which would indicate a democracy.

bpatus297 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, but I still can't see the artificial distinction between democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. It is so artificial and not a definition that is widely accepted in academia. But if it makes you happy, whom am I to say otherwise.

He simply does not understand the difference between how a government is elected (democracy) and how a state is structured (Representative Republic).

Say what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the US is a Constitutionally Represented Republic. We elect Representative (sure democratically) who pass legislation and make Governmental decisions. I don't recall voting on Federal laws or treaties, which would indicate a democracy.

The fact that you elect representatives (like practically every other democratic state) just means that you are representative or indirect democracy in addition to being a presidential republic, as the executive president is elected separately from the legislature.

bpatus297 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, but I still can't see the artificial distinction between democracy and Constitutional Representative Republic. It is so artificial and not a definition that is widely accepted in academia. But if it makes you happy, whom am I to say otherwise.

He simply does not understand the difference between how a government is elected (democracy) and how a state is structured (Representative Republic).

Say what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the US is a Constitutionally Represented Republic. We elect Representative (sure democratically) who pass legislation and make Governmental decisions. I don't recall voting on Federal laws or treaties, which would indicate a democracy.

Again, fine if you don't see yourself living in a democracy, all is good man, I do not know why you would be so principle in just taking the narrow definition of direct democracy as the only form of democracy, why not, no harm done.
But know that electing officials = a form of democracy. That's just the commonly accepted definition. I am perfectly fine knowing I live in a democracy, in which I elect someone to represent me in the daily business of governing the land.

So we can agree that the US doesn't fit the narrow definition of a direct democracy or true democracy if you will. All is good, let's just finish this discussion because it is not terribly interesting and a bit strange to be honest. People fight for democracy in their country, see Hong Kong and this is just a bit too academic.

What is interesting is how General Milley fits all into this. Because he should be overseen by elected officials, his political overlords if you will.