Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator from New York? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (938)	8/11/1999 9:35:00 PM
From: C Kahn	Respond to of 3389

chalu2, very interesting perspective. I'm waiting for somebody to reply. C Kahn

To: chalu2 who wrote (938)	8/11/1999 10:39:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3389

Your scenario is extremely unlikely. Anyone who attains the rank of general (actually, anybody above colonel) is just another pol. Also, the various branches could never get it together to coordinate such a thing. The elite units such as Special Forces would never go along. If there was some kind of intra-military struggle, whoever prevailed would have to deal with an array of agencies and institutions that could muster their own army. Gee, with the militarization of federal law enforcement coupled with the gutting of the military, maybe a military coup would be a good thing, before its too late.

To: chalu2 who wrote (938)	8/11/1999 11:03:00 PM
From: nuke44	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3389

"Cynical, power hungry, self proclaimed saviour"? Are you being facetious or are you really unaware you just described William Jefferson Clinton to a T? I suppose you could have added sociopath if you wanted to be precise. As an obvious neophyte with little or no experience in the real world you should refrain from telling me what I should remember as a career military man, because judging from your post you really don't have a clue.

To: chalu2 who wrote (938)	8/12/1999 12:18:00 AM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 3389

In Amerika, your proposed scenario of a military takeover is highly unlikely. What is more likely is a President who is unwilling to give up power. The peaceful transfer of power is the primary distinguishing factor in any democracy. Without free elections and a peaceful transfer of power, then democracy does not exist. It has been reported that Bruce Lindsey has been studying the law regarding succession for some time. Clinton has stated more than once that he would like to run again. So obviously, he does not want to give up the Presidency. As President, his skill in manipulating the law and the media has served him well. Once his power base is gone, he loses some of his ability to "squash" the opposition. Think about this scenario: So what happens if marshal law is declared during the y2k "crisis"? FEMA's emergency powers would be activated, and they would become the "policeman" of the country. He could suspend the constitution and postpone elections. Clinton now becomes the permanent President. Oh, we would have elections again, but the process would be so contaminated, fair elections would no longer be possible (this is already happening). The process would be rigged to maintain the power of these Socialists. Now, you have already stated that it could happen here. I agree, but the election of a thoroughly corrupt President, and the transfer of the country to a Socialist State is far more likely to happen than the scenario you painted. Btw, EO13083 circumvents the checks and balances of the republic and consolidates more unchecked power into the hands of a President.