Is Jindal Serious Right Now?!

[GoodSarmatian]

Its funny, he whines about liberals being intolerant but when they are democratically elected and doing things he doesnt want to tolerate, its time to violently rebel.

Its funny how the republicans dont get it. Democrats are by no means popular, but the republicans constant attempts to pander to the religious and radical wings of their part mean the average voters keep going democrat just enough to keep the republicans out of power.

There seems to be a disturbingly large portion of the Republican party and their following that seems to believe any election they lose is illegitimate (voter fraud, birth certificate etc.). Is this a new phenomenon connected to Obama's race or has this been going on for a while ? I remember reading that Clinton had it prety rough, but I didn't follow American politics at that time and only rememer Blowghazi.

 

[Tarquelne]

Is this a new phenomenon ...

I think it's a new phenomena. I'm not sure what the exact trigger is, but I do think it's the direct result of people actually listening to the rhetoric of the GOP's more extreme members and supporters and following it to its logical conclusion: liberals/furriners are dishonest, bad people actively working to destroy the country, often via massive conspiracies.

Once you accept that, even just in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" sense, what's not off the table?

 

[Phrossack]

Andrew Breitbart told a Teahadist crowd that they outnumbered the liberals and they had all the guns. Ted Nungent told Obama, "Suck on my machine gun," amongst other choice words that prevent me from linking the sites. Sharron Angle and Joyce Kaufman said that "if ballots don't work, bullets will," and Angle added that "Second Amendment remedies" could be used if Harry Reid won in Nevada (he did). Glenn Beck said that "you're going to have to shoot them [Democratic leaders] in the head." Sen. Tom Coburn said it was a good thing he wasn't allowed to bring a gun to the Senate. These are just a few. I haven't forgotten, and I haven't forgiven.

Listening to these wannabe terrorists, you'd think that Obama was literally Hitler and that only violence could save America. If they weren't a bunch of lazy, often overweight cowards, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried starting a civil war. As it is, they're all bark and no bite.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Can you imagine what would occur if a Muslim dared to make any comment like those?

 

[Phrossack]

That's not to mention the occasion in which a terrorist fatally flew a plane into a government building. No, not that time. This time.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yep, last I checked Castro was more popular in America than Congress.

Thus giving Ted Cruz some traction.

 

[Commodore]

They'd have to arrest half the population if that were the case. Lots of people hate Washington and would like to burn it down.

Jindal is just making Presidential candidate noises.

The difference between Jindal and the average citizen though is that he is an actual elected official. If an elected official starts making threats against the government then he/she should at the very least be immediately removed from office.

 

[Traitorfish]

I can't actually see what in Jindal's comments can be construed as a "criminal threat" against the Federal Government. The closest thing I can see is the term "hostile takeover", but that's a business term, isn't it? It suggests an attempt to present himself as a business-minded entrepreneur as opposed to the career-politico that you'd discover from reading his CV. He's just trying to sound like the sort of person who uses the term "hostile takeover", is all.

 

[onejayhawk]

The difference between Jindal and the average citizen though is that he is an actual elected official. If an elected official starts making threats against the government then he/she should at the very least be immediately removed from office.

Re-elected and looking for higher office.

Those that consider GW Bush right wing should consider that demographically he's a centrist. 30+% of the voting population is further right. This clown car elects more than half the Presidents.

J

 

[Commodore]

I can't actually see what in Jindal's comments can be construed as a "criminal threat" against the Federal Government. The closest thing I can see is the term "hostile takeover", but that's a business term, isn't it? It suggests an attempt to present himself as a business-minded entrepreneur as opposed to the career-politico that you'd discover from reading his CV. He's just trying to sound like the sort of person who uses the term "hostile takeover", is all.

"Hostile takeover" is not being used in a business context when it is preceded by the statement "I can sense a rebellion brewing". Were I the President I would exercise ever ounce of my authority to remove any elected official that started even implying the idea of violent revolt against the federal government.

Plus even if he did mean it in a business context, I am perfectly okay with spinning his comments to make it seem like he is advocating a violent overthrow of the government; since that would mean we could legitimately rid ourselves of one more far-right politician and make their voice in our society that much quieter.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Hostile takeover" is not being used in a business context when it is preceded by the statement "I can sense a rebellion brewing". Were I the President I would exercise ever ounce of my authority to remove any elected official that started even implying the idea of violent revolt against the federal government.

"Rebellion" doesn't necessarily imply armed uprising, either. It certainly has those connotations, and doubtless Jindal is playing on them insofar as this sort of rhetoric invokes the mythology of the War of Independence (or to the right audience, the Civil War), but that doesn't actually constitute a threat.

It's a lot of huffing and puffing, is all. Bringing out the iron fist in response to that is going to do the Federal Government more harm than good.

 

[Commodore]

"Rebellion" doesn't necessarily imply armed uprising, either. It certainly has those connotations, and doubtless Jindal is playing on them insofar as this sort of rhetoric invokes the mythology of the War of Independence (or to the right audience, the Civil War), but that doesn't actually constitute a threat.

It's a lot of huffing and puffing, is all. Bringing out the iron fist in response to that is going to do the Federal Government more harm than good.

This huffing and puffing has been going on for quite some time now though and it is gradually intensifying. How long before the not-so-reasonable people in the far-right actually start trying to act on the statements people like Jindal are making? No, I say deal with the problem before it becomes a problem.

 

[kramerfan86]

The radical right are the ones who truly hate America at the end of the day.

 

[Commodore]

The radical right are the ones who truly hate America at the end of the day.

Exactly why I have no problem trying to silence them and keep them out of government.

 

[Traitorfish]

Does the POTUS actually have the power to boot out elected representatives? A governor like Jindal I can see, because that's an executive position and he is after all chief executive, but does his authority actually extend to the legislative balance? The principle of division of power would seem to suggest that's outside of his remit.

 

[Light Cleric]

Does the POTUS actually have the power to boot out elected representatives? A governor like Jindal I can see, because that's an executive position and he is after all chief executive, but does his authority actually extend to the legislative balance? The principle of division of power would seem to suggest that's outside of his remit.

Thank God, no, Presidents cannot remove governors or anything of that sort. He's the chief executive of the federal government and nothing more.

That sounded more clear in my head.

 

[Commodore]

Does the POTUS actually have the power to boot out elected representatives? A governor like Jindal I can see, because that's an executive position and he is after all chief executive, but does his authority actually extend to the legislative balance? The principle of division of power would seem to suggest that's outside of his remit.

I would assume that would depend on how much military support the president has at the time. Rumor has it Nixon was considering using the army to disband Congress but Kissinger convinced him resignation was the better option.

Remember: He who commands the loyalty of the army, rules the nation. That is true for any nation no matter how democratic it claims to be.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thank God, no, Presidents cannot remove governors or anything of that sort. He's the chief executive of the federal government and nothing more.

That sounded more clear in my head.

No, it makes sense. I wasn't sure if the POTUS had the power to oust governors- "state's rights" may be a buzzword, but it is also a very real part of the American constitutional system- but it is not as immediately obvious that he wouldn't, while legislators sit in altogether different branch of government. A more centralised system might allow the executive to boot governors, but I can't imagine any meaningfully democratic system actually allowing them to boot representatives. (Certainly the British executive can't; that's why they have to resort to murdering them.)

 

[Goodfella]

I'd say governors aren't in the same branch as the president either. The president is in the federal executive branch while each state has it's own state-wide separation of powers: governors, state legislatures, state courts.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's a good point. I sorta forget that the American federal system is built bottom-up rather than top-down like most European ones.