Lindsey Graham: how the GOP fails to understand the nuances of the constitution, exh. #209

[Keith&Co.]

I understand the difference between a true threat and a false, bombastic one.

The fact that people like him are cowards who are nothing but talk is why I don't go out and buy a gun.

But the reason he says things like that is because he thinks it will get him votes. And the fact that people would vote for someone who says things like that shows that there are people, lots of them, who want to overthrow our democracy. We'd be fools to ignore that.

So you are walking back the treason charge?

I can't find any place before this post where Sarpedon uses the word 'treason.' Only in reply to this where he specifies that the act WOULD BE treason, while nowhere does he charge the promise to carry it out as treasonous.
Can you point to this 'treason charge' you made up?

 

[bilby]

So Graham is planning to order the military to act unlawfully to force a reduction in the budget for the military. What could possibly go wrong?

When you say "Guards, arrest this man!", it is wise to remember that the guards are the ones who have to choose to whom the phrase 'this man' refers.

When staging a coup, one must secure the army first, and the TV stations second. All else is of lesser importance. And if there is to be a coup, military men have a habit of wondering what purpose is served by a usurper who isn't one of them; Which is why so many dictators are called 'General' or 'Colonel'. If the US is to become a military dictatorship, then their elected 'Commander in Chief' may well discover that the men are more loyal to their permanent and un-elected commanders, than to some upstart who shits all over the constitution that is the only reason he holds his post.

 

[Cobalt]

So Graham is planning to order the military to act unlawfully to force a reduction in the budget for the military. What could possibly go wrong?

I don't disagree, but I think I should point out that he was suggesting the use of the military to increase the defense budget, not decrease it.

 

[dismal]

I think you should point out he's not planning on ordering the military to do anything.

 

[fromderinside]

Show me your point out.

 

[Sarpedon]

If someone is running for president, and outlines a policy, should one not think that they are 'planning' to do it?

Politicians do not always fulfill their promises, but it would be irresponsible of voters to ignore such statements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So Graham is planning to order the military to act unlawfully to force a reduction in the budget for the military. What could possibly go wrong?

When you say "Guards, arrest this man!", it is wise to remember that the guards are the ones who have to choose to whom the phrase 'this man' refers.

When staging a coup, one must secure the army first, and the TV stations second. All else is of lesser importance. And if there is to be a coup, military men have a habit of wondering what purpose is served by a usurper who isn't one of them; Which is why so many dictators are called 'General' or 'Colonel'. If the US is to become a military dictatorship, then their elected 'Commander in Chief' may well discover that the men are more loyal to their permanent and un-elected commanders, than to some upstart who shits all over the constitution that is the only reason he holds his post.

And these days you need to secure the internet also--something that's awfully hard to do other than just shutting it down.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone is running for president, and outlines a policy, should one not think that they are 'planning' to do it?

Politicians do not always fulfill their promises, but it would be irresponsible of voters to ignore such statements.

Exactly.

He hasn't committed treason. He's indicated that he plans to commit treason if elected.