South Korean President Impeached(khnews.kheraldm.com)
khnews.kheraldm.com
South Korean President Impeached
http://khnews.kheraldm.com/view.php?ud=20170310000352&md=20170310112254_BL
129 comments
My cousin is a historian of Korea, and well, Korean herself. She says this president is like Korea's GWB. Shamelessly very right wing, a lot of gaffes related to speech and behavior. There are going to be a lot of happy people tonight.
> She says this president is like Korea's GWB.
If she were like GWB we wouldn't have gone this far. She is more like Nixon, but worse.
If she were like GWB we wouldn't have gone this far. She is more like Nixon, but worse.
I'm not a US history expert, but I think Nixon had very firm ideas about how to run a country. In the end, people did not approve of these ideas, but at least there was an internally coherent world view.
The problem with Park is not that she had wrong ideas, but that she did not have any idea at all. Instead she let her close friend take care of the boring chore of running a country. During the past four years the country was essentially on auto-pilot, progressively worsening while bureaucrats were awaiting for leadership that never materialized.
I'd say she's more like Nikolai II, complete with Rasputin.
The problem with Park is not that she had wrong ideas, but that she did not have any idea at all. Instead she let her close friend take care of the boring chore of running a country. During the past four years the country was essentially on auto-pilot, progressively worsening while bureaucrats were awaiting for leadership that never materialized.
I'd say she's more like Nikolai II, complete with Rasputin.
I agree. The point is that there is no US president comparable to Park, and probably the closest match is Nixon.
New precedents (presidents, heh) can and are always being set in the United States.
More Reagan who was just a front for Bush Sr. Or Bush Jr, who didn't care neither.
Not Trump?
Trump appears to know what he wants, and has surrounded with people who believe in his vision of America. There might be some disagreement on the specifics of implementation, but in general they're all keeping the same goal.
Remember Trump supposedly offered Kasich the VP post, telling him that as VP he can run all the policy, to which Kasich asked "then what will you do?" and rejected the offer. I think a lot of Trump decisions we're seeing are Pence decisions, especially when he does things that get praise from establishment republicans. And we've seen he's delegated quite a bit to folks like Bannon and Miller, to the point where those two are writing executive orders and Trump has complained about being improperly briefed on them after signing.
He has to delegate somethings. In a typical company you hire separately for different roles. In the executive branch, there's only one hiring decision---President.
All power derives from the President, and thus cabinet, department heads, and various appointed positions exist only to accept delegated powers.
Additionally, due to the way many laws are written, the President has wide latitude to determine policy at various government branches, but obviously cannot actually do all of those jobs personally.
I think Trump is acting as the analogous 'visionary' CEO---he decides policy but is largely hands-off as to implementation. However if your actions blow up in his face, he'll fire you instantly. Some leaders are far more hands-on and even in large companies they cherry pick certain segments and micromanage them on occasion. Trump isn't that way. It's not good or bad, it's just his management style.
In a way, due to his life as a public figure and businessman, we knew what Trump's management style was going to be long before he entered office. Obama on the other-hand was a dark horse candidate, and no one really knew how he was going to make the jump from teaching students to setting policy for a massive number of governmental departments.
All power derives from the President, and thus cabinet, department heads, and various appointed positions exist only to accept delegated powers.
Additionally, due to the way many laws are written, the President has wide latitude to determine policy at various government branches, but obviously cannot actually do all of those jobs personally.
I think Trump is acting as the analogous 'visionary' CEO---he decides policy but is largely hands-off as to implementation. However if your actions blow up in his face, he'll fire you instantly. Some leaders are far more hands-on and even in large companies they cherry pick certain segments and micromanage them on occasion. Trump isn't that way. It's not good or bad, it's just his management style.
In a way, due to his life as a public figure and businessman, we knew what Trump's management style was going to be long before he entered office. Obama on the other-hand was a dark horse candidate, and no one really knew how he was going to make the jump from teaching students to setting policy for a massive number of governmental departments.
Nixon is "the worst" because he was the one forced from office. But he wasn't actually removed through legal process. They started the process, but he left on his own before it came to anything. Clinton was actually impeached, but did not leave. I dont think the US has ever removed a president legally. They have quit, which isn't the same thing. Korea is ahead in that regard. Im not sure how/if the american system might handle a legal forced removal.
In nixon's defense: read his wikipedia article. He wasnt a monster. Many good things came from his presidency.
In nixon's defense: read his wikipedia article. He wasnt a monster. Many good things came from his presidency.
Except that time he intentionally sabotaged the 1968 peace talks to end the Vietnam War because he thought it might help him win an election. For reference, the war continued until late 1975. He is directly responsible for each and every casualty and atrocity committed in those 7 years, as well as the thousands upon thousands of irreparably mentally and emotionally damaged veterans that survived.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-t...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-t...
7 years. Iraq and/or afganistan were/are far longer. Every US president has their war. More often than not those wars have ties to domestic politics. That a president uses a war for political gain is expected. It is for the people to hold that in check... which they did with nixon. If not for vietnam he probably would have stayed in office. He spent all his political capital and, when the inevitable scandle hit, he had to go. Other presidents stayed on after far worse.
[deleted]
sorry, but what's GWB stands for?
Not really huge, very expected for anyone that's been keeping tabs on the situation there.
What is surprisingly here is that the reality conformed to reasonable expectations. For a country that has witness too many violations of the democratic process, this is huge.
Some good discussion and perspectives on Reddit's main thread on the news, as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/5yjign/president...
This is indeed huge. I left Korea right after Park Jung-hee was assassinated by one of his officers. Predictably, this was followed by a military coup and martial law. Park Jung-hee himself seized the reign by means of his own military coup against the previous president. His daughter, Park guen-hye, is now outed by the Supreme court, peacefully. In the old south Korea I remember, the same court had ruled in favor of the military regime to condemn Kim dae-jung to death sentence. Kim dae-jung later was elected president after the democratization of south Korea. I remember the heavily armed soldiers everywhere as I was leaving the country, after the assassination. That is my last memory of Korea. I have not been back since 1979. Perhaps now it is time for me to go back and visit. Congratulations to the Korean people.
Some says the October "Restoration" [1] has been finally put down today. I hearily agree.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Restoration
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Restoration
You should definitely go back. I've been visiting Korea for 16 years, it's an amazing, dynamic country that seems to literally transform itself every few years. Even with only a couple years in between trips, I can hardly recognize it.
It's not perfect, but no place is, but I have a strong sense that it's changing for the better.
It's not perfect, but no place is, but I have a strong sense that it's changing for the better.
Really? All my girl friends who've been to Korea (even the Korean ones) can't stand it at all. I wonder if it's different for white American men vs minority (incl. Korean) American women.
Yeah, absolutely. It's a fun, lively, very modern country with an astonishing amount to do, experience and see. Lots of friendly people who are eager to share their country and culture.
There's some social pressures and responsibilities for people who live there that can make it difficult if you can't get into the groove of the place, lots of Koreans will complain about them in various ways -- but they are what they are.
Admittedly, white foreigners (men and women) get treated fairly well. I've only ever had a couple of incidents where I didn't feel welcome as a foreigner. Non-white foreigners have various observations on their own treatment.
Here's some examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRdhJEl5FTc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTPpgjdl4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGxrW_PB8gI
Same question to white people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9PscUvu_Dk
There's some social pressures and responsibilities for people who live there that can make it difficult if you can't get into the groove of the place, lots of Koreans will complain about them in various ways -- but they are what they are.
Admittedly, white foreigners (men and women) get treated fairly well. I've only ever had a couple of incidents where I didn't feel welcome as a foreigner. Non-white foreigners have various observations on their own treatment.
Here's some examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRdhJEl5FTc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTPpgjdl4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGxrW_PB8gI
Same question to white people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9PscUvu_Dk
This is obviously a bit pedantic but technically she was already impeached. This article is about her being convicted in the impeachment trial. The post title also doesn't match with the article title which more correctly states that she's been ousted.
Technically, she wasn't impeached.
But the way impeachment process works in SK, once the process begins, you are no longer able to function as president.
So 'effectively', she was already impeached.
Obviously I'm the one being pedantic. lol.
But the way impeachment process works in SK, once the process begins, you are no longer able to function as president.
So 'effectively', she was already impeached.
Obviously I'm the one being pedantic. lol.
More accurately speaking, in South Korea both the congress and the president is elected by direct nationwide voting, therefore it takes a separate process for the congress to fully impeach the president: the congress votes to impeach and the constitutional court decides whether to approve it. Therefore she has not been impeached, but merely has been suspended til the decision (Roh Moo-hyun [1] is currently a sole example to survive this process). This is quite different to how the impeachment works in USA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roh_Moo-hyun
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roh_Moo-hyun
Impeachment is the bringing of charges.
As a legal processes, the definition and order or procedures vary wildly between different countries.
Some countries for example charge you with a crime, but don't actually arrest you until they're bringing it to trial. Some countries don't have a prosecution, or a defence but a system where multiple government officials advocate for the truth.
You can set up a legal system anyway you want, and define the terms however you like---it'll be legal and valid in your country.
Some countries for example charge you with a crime, but don't actually arrest you until they're bringing it to trial. Some countries don't have a prosecution, or a defence but a system where multiple government officials advocate for the truth.
You can set up a legal system anyway you want, and define the terms however you like---it'll be legal and valid in your country.
It's certainly the case that procedures, their order, and attendant consequences of any given step will vary. Those have no bearing at all on what was said - it would still be the case that impeachment was the bringing of charges, and would not depend upon conviction and removal from office.
It is also possible that Korea may have explicitly defined this particular English word differently than the rest of the world. If that's the case, it seems worth calling out explicitly.
It is also possible that Korea may have explicitly defined this particular English word differently than the rest of the world. If that's the case, it seems worth calling out explicitly.
As a Korean, I feel bittersweet for my mother country. It's embarrassing that this is happening, yet I feel relieved now that people of Korea can move forward - here's hoping for electing a more qualified president next.
Why is it embarrassing for YOU personally?
Don't feel embarrassed. It's better that a country can actually fix its problems peacefully rather than outright denying it has a problem and trying to go on with business as usual. Peaceful resolution - for the better - is something to be proud of in a democracy.
You should feel more proud than embarrassed that this is happening. Occasionally, an unqualified candidate will be elected. The ability to remove that person from power is much more important than the difficult problem of making sure the person is never elected in the first place. On the other hand, I do feel empathy for your feeling of embarrassment, as I am an American (yes I'm referring to the Trump election).
Koreans have absolutely nothing to feel embarrassed about. I - and I'm sure many others - have actually gained a huge amount of respect for SK over this as it confirms the strength of your democracy and justice system.
As a fellow Korean, please don't feel embarrassed.
Unnecessary embarrassment at the sight of anything that could possibly cast a negative light on our country is one of the major causes of the trouble that we've been in. It makes us prone to hide our problems and pretend that everything is all right. It makes us blind to the shortcomings of our preferred political leaders. It makes us resent the few brave journalists and activists who dare to bring these problems to light. All of this hampers progress.
The same misguided sense of pride and embarrassment is at the root of Japan's constant refusal to admit their war crimes. They feel embarrassed that they are grandchildren of war criminals. But if they keep thinking that way, they will never be free of embarrassment. The only way forward is to do admit that something bad happened and to take pride in your passion to fix it. I truly hope that all Asian cultures can learn this, including Koreans and Japanese.
Unnecessary embarrassment at the sight of anything that could possibly cast a negative light on our country is one of the major causes of the trouble that we've been in. It makes us prone to hide our problems and pretend that everything is all right. It makes us blind to the shortcomings of our preferred political leaders. It makes us resent the few brave journalists and activists who dare to bring these problems to light. All of this hampers progress.
The same misguided sense of pride and embarrassment is at the root of Japan's constant refusal to admit their war crimes. They feel embarrassed that they are grandchildren of war criminals. But if they keep thinking that way, they will never be free of embarrassment. The only way forward is to do admit that something bad happened and to take pride in your passion to fix it. I truly hope that all Asian cultures can learn this, including Koreans and Japanese.
I'm not Korean, but overall this whole series of events gave me new respect for the nation. It's unfortunate that everyone had to suffer through her leadership, but it also really says something that democratic rule of law is so well established there that a malfunctioning leader could be peacefully removed.
The South Korean presidential scandal is one of the odder bits of contemporary political history. Imagine an alternate-history US President Hillary Clinton being impeached over PizzaGate and it starts to get close. Besides the actual corruption mentioned in the article, there are credible reports swirling of a "8 Goddesses" cabal and various occult practices.
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-irrational-downfa...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/29/499864915/...
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/76...
https://medium.com/@thepenningtonlens/the-south-korean-puppe...
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-irrational-downfa...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/29/499864915/...
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/76...
https://medium.com/@thepenningtonlens/the-south-korean-puppe...
Imagine that Americans elected Tom Cruise to the White House and it turns out that the Church of Scientology was pulling his strings. That would be an apt analogy.
The 4chan summary is the best I've read: http://i.imgur.com/86Z3ea6l.jpg
How much of that... is accurate?
The "Eight heavenly ladies" part didn't pan out. So far, it seems there was only Choi Soonsil; I dunno, there might be seven stupid ladies who believed they were important just because they were Choi's friends.
Yeah, but others are more or less factual. And that doesn't even begin to address the more odd bits, like Choi's friend Ko Young-Tae, who is a former Asian Game medalist who became a gigolo, made friends with Choi, and then reportedly had a fallout with Choi over a puppy owned by Choi's daughter...
Yeah, but others are more or less factual. And that doesn't even begin to address the more odd bits, like Choi's friend Ko Young-Tae, who is a former Asian Game medalist who became a gigolo, made friends with Choi, and then reportedly had a fallout with Choi over a puppy owned by Choi's daughter...
At least her ending is not the same as her father.
Don't say that until she dies, KCIA could still assassinate her
KCIA is currently run by clowns who roll in the same bed as Park's people, so probably not. (One of the first thing the next president needs to do is to purge it of all the criminals who've meddled with domestic politics.)
...Unless someone has the craziest idea of killing her so that she could be a martyr. But I doubt they have someone who is that evil and that competent at the same time.
...Unless someone has the craziest idea of killing her so that she could be a martyr. But I doubt they have someone who is that evil and that competent at the same time.
that won't happen. But this could be traumatizing enough that she might end her own life.
This is somehow connected to geopolitics in the area and the THAAD project, since the US government is worried the next administration may not be so in favour of it (left leaning parties tend towards disarmament, as crazy as that sound with an insane neighbour north of the border)
>as crazy as that sound with an insane neighbour north of the border
Not every country sees international relations as a form of game theory, with mutual assured destruction as an important component. Korean reunification can be a preferable option instead of threatening the people that used to be part of your community, but had the bad luck to be at the wrong side of the ideological fight between the US and the USSR.
Not every country sees international relations as a form of game theory, with mutual assured destruction as an important component. Korean reunification can be a preferable option instead of threatening the people that used to be part of your community, but had the bad luck to be at the wrong side of the ideological fight between the US and the USSR.
[deleted]
> left leaning parties tend towards disarmament, ...
That's what conservatives say, but doesn't match reality. Under the liberal president Roh Moo-Hyun, military budget increased by 8.8% per year on average. Under his conservative successor Lee Myung-Bak, 5.2% [1].
Roh also made an agreement with the US to finally take back wartime military command. It's an inconvenient secret that if war breaks out in Korea, South Korea's military command automatically transfers to the US. We don't have authority to command our own military. What kind of independent country does that? And then all the conservatives, including active and retired generals, blamed Roh for weakening our military. (According to them, having the authority to command our own military makes us less dependent on the US. But we can always trust the US: only a North Korean sympathizer would doubt that the US will be there to protect us. Therefore it's a communist plot. Or something like that.)
Incidentally, these generals' argument prompted Roh to utter the now famous phrase, "부끄러운 줄 알아야지!" (Know your shame!)
His successor Lee asked US to please take back the command. Wartime military command is still in the hands of the US.
[1] http://ppss.kr/archives/9256 (in Korean, sorry)
That's what conservatives say, but doesn't match reality. Under the liberal president Roh Moo-Hyun, military budget increased by 8.8% per year on average. Under his conservative successor Lee Myung-Bak, 5.2% [1].
Roh also made an agreement with the US to finally take back wartime military command. It's an inconvenient secret that if war breaks out in Korea, South Korea's military command automatically transfers to the US. We don't have authority to command our own military. What kind of independent country does that? And then all the conservatives, including active and retired generals, blamed Roh for weakening our military. (According to them, having the authority to command our own military makes us less dependent on the US. But we can always trust the US: only a North Korean sympathizer would doubt that the US will be there to protect us. Therefore it's a communist plot. Or something like that.)
Incidentally, these generals' argument prompted Roh to utter the now famous phrase, "부끄러운 줄 알아야지!" (Know your shame!)
His successor Lee asked US to please take back the command. Wartime military command is still in the hands of the US.
[1] http://ppss.kr/archives/9256 (in Korean, sorry)
Aren't most missiles fired at Japan?
Let's hope Russia is next and USA is following ;)
> The nation now must hold a presidential election within 60 days, making it likely to fall on May 9.
This is different from how it works in USG where Congress elects a new President themselves from within Congress. At least that's what my understanding is from googling around, no President has been convicted in an impeachment trial.
Edit: As later comments have pointed out I'm wrong here, instead the normal line of succession applies.
This is different from how it works in USG where Congress elects a new President themselves from within Congress. At least that's what my understanding is from googling around, no President has been convicted in an impeachment trial.
Edit: As later comments have pointed out I'm wrong here, instead the normal line of succession applies.
No, if the sitting President is impeached, succession proceeds as if the President had resigned, and the Vice President assumes the office.
The US Congress does not choose a new president if the current president is removed. The normal line of succession applies: Vice President, then Speaker of the House, then President Pro Tem of the Senate, etc. This was clarified in the 25th amendment.
No US president has been convicted in an impeachment trial, but when Nixon resigned, the normal rules of succession applied. Congress did appoint Gerald Ford as VP before Nixon resigned, but they were only able to do that because Nixon's previous VP had himself resigned, because he was a crook too. That is probably a source of confusion for a lot of people.
No US president has been convicted in an impeachment trial, but when Nixon resigned, the normal rules of succession applied. Congress did appoint Gerald Ford as VP before Nixon resigned, but they were only able to do that because Nixon's previous VP had himself resigned, because he was a crook too. That is probably a source of confusion for a lot of people.
I was basing my previous comment off of this (which might not be reliable):
http://fsmsupremecourt.org/fsm/code/title02/T02_Ch01.htm
But it includes the line:
> If both the President and Vice President die, resign, or are impeached, the Speaker of the Congress shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the President as Acting President, and the Congress shall within thirty days of the last vacancy elect a President and Vice President, convening for that purpose if not in session, and declare vacancies in the Congress. If the Office of the Speaker is vacant, or if the Speaker dies or resigns from Congress during said thirty-day period, the Vice Speaker shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the President as Acting President.
Which seems to suggest that if VP is also impeached then the Speaker of the House is only temporarily President and Congress convenes a special election.
http://fsmsupremecourt.org/fsm/code/title02/T02_Ch01.htm
But it includes the line:
> If both the President and Vice President die, resign, or are impeached, the Speaker of the Congress shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the President as Acting President, and the Congress shall within thirty days of the last vacancy elect a President and Vice President, convening for that purpose if not in session, and declare vacancies in the Congress. If the Office of the Speaker is vacant, or if the Speaker dies or resigns from Congress during said thirty-day period, the Vice Speaker shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the President as Acting President.
Which seems to suggest that if VP is also impeached then the Speaker of the House is only temporarily President and Congress convenes a special election.
Short, interesting, and relevant: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_line_of_...
This is indeed very huge. Does anyone see this happening with trump?
Hopefully a certain other President is next.
What's the minimum bar for convicting a sitting president again?
...asking for a friend.
...asking for a friend.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well done S.Korea. Any tips for US?
67726e(1)
Educate your electorate.
Since the 80's it's been quite the opposite. Whether by design or happy coincidence (for populists) education has been gutted.
Major flaw with democracy, 50% of electorate has below average IQ.
So? Below average IQ doesn't mean that your opinions are valueless and shouldn't be taken into account.
We all have to live with one another, and to make a system of government work with peaceful transitions of power, everyone must feel as if they have a voice.
High IQ, high education, high wealth, and other social advantages can be leveraged into making side-channels in the political system (e.g. lobbying), or by shaping the discussion the general electorate sees (e.g. overton window) in order to direct it towards ones goals.
Democracies have all been implemented with specific factors to make them viable in today's society, not some idealised society.
We all have to live with one another, and to make a system of government work with peaceful transitions of power, everyone must feel as if they have a voice.
High IQ, high education, high wealth, and other social advantages can be leveraged into making side-channels in the political system (e.g. lobbying), or by shaping the discussion the general electorate sees (e.g. overton window) in order to direct it towards ones goals.
Democracies have all been implemented with specific factors to make them viable in today's society, not some idealised society.
I was being a little flip of course, IQ is generally accepted to be a Gaussian distribution which is symmetrical, the mean and average are at 50 percentile so it is a little bit of a math joke that of course then, 50% of the people in a large enough sample will be below the 50 percentile.
Actually, 50% of electorate has below median IQ.
I don't like the Mode of your speech. I think you are Mean and this falls well below the Average expected on Hacker News.
Specifically for the IQ, isn't the average designed to be the median? It's a normal distribution after all.
Can't actually have a normal distribution that has a bound on one end...
There's no reason an IQ couldn't be negative. Granted, I don't think the IQ test is properly calibrated for this and I don't think real world data perfectly fits the bell curve as designed, so it's kind of moot point.
So back to only educated people or people owning property again; are we proposing education testing before casting a vote? Besides, it's not like smart people don't have biases.
That does not seem like an alternative most people -even educated or above median IQ would favor.
That does not seem like an alternative most people -even educated or above median IQ would favor.
> are we proposing education testing before casting a vote?
I'm curious, have there been any known attempts to condition the right to vote on passing some kind of IQ, education, or rational thinking test? If so, how did they work out?
I'm curious, have there been any known attempts to condition the right to vote on passing some kind of IQ, education, or rational thinking test? If so, how did they work out?
Thanks, that's some useful history to know. Any data points from other countries?
Not off the top of my head - IANAH :-P
If you think certain group of people participating in democracy is a problem, you're advocating for something other than a democracy.
Should children vote?
Crazy thought: would it really be that bad?
If the votes end up being noise, it comes out in the wash. And we already have protections against compelling people to vote one way or another, so carrot-sticking children for votes would (continue to be) a serious crime.
It might even grow our children into a less apathetic public.
If the votes end up being noise, it comes out in the wash. And we already have protections against compelling people to vote one way or another, so carrot-sticking children for votes would (continue to be) a serious crime.
It might even grow our children into a less apathetic public.
I agree, and not a crazy thought. The reasons for voting of the median adult in both parties -- described as charitably as possible -- are suboptimal. The fact that children might be slightly less informed doesn't excuse the disenfranchisement. If anything, children's relative lack of bias might offset their propensity to be less informed.
Our laws and attitude towards "age discrimination" in this country are bizarre and flagrantly hypocritical. The ADEA forbids age discrimination, but only for those 40 or older. This would be analogous to forbidding racial discrimination, but only against some one particular race. Kind of takes away the moral high ground.
Our laws and attitude towards "age discrimination" in this country are bizarre and flagrantly hypocritical. The ADEA forbids age discrimination, but only for those 40 or older. This would be analogous to forbidding racial discrimination, but only against some one particular race. Kind of takes away the moral high ground.
1) Get a media figure* that commands the utmost respect of the population to report on corruption.
2) Get 2% of the population participating in a peaceful protest & demonstration to put pressure on congress.
3) ???
4) profit!!
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohn_Suk-hee
2) Get 2% of the population participating in a peaceful protest & demonstration to put pressure on congress.
3) ???
4) profit!!
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohn_Suk-hee
Media figure with utmost respect... in the US... scratches head
We're hooped.
We're hooped.
I think this may be why the US has a strange fascination with electing actors to high political offices - they may cross a lot more partisan lines than any other celebrities that are actually professional policy makers or journalists.
I also think the other cultural difference is that education and science is still highly respected as institutions while confidence in these institutions has been attacked and subsequently declined for decades. This makes a lot of national discourse for what should be otherwise simple discussions much, much harder. This, at the moment Obama's commentary as he exited office is about right - emotion has triumphed over reason and facts.
I also think the other cultural difference is that education and science is still highly respected as institutions while confidence in these institutions has been attacked and subsequently declined for decades. This makes a lot of national discourse for what should be otherwise simple discussions much, much harder. This, at the moment Obama's commentary as he exited office is about right - emotion has triumphed over reason and facts.
I think the US likes electing actors because actors are better able to appeal to them emotionally, and because their celebrity status makes them appear more trustworthy.
Any successful politician has the traits of a good actor, but actors can claim they're not "really" politicians, even while running for political office, and using the same political tricks as their rivals. It's a weird "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" complex that Americans seem to fall prey to constantly.
Given the nature of the last few Presidential elections in the US, it doesn't seem as if voters want partisan lines crossed, rather, they want those lines maintained and defended with razor wire and snipers.
Any successful politician has the traits of a good actor, but actors can claim they're not "really" politicians, even while running for political office, and using the same political tricks as their rivals. It's a weird "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" complex that Americans seem to fall prey to constantly.
Given the nature of the last few Presidential elections in the US, it doesn't seem as if voters want partisan lines crossed, rather, they want those lines maintained and defended with razor wire and snipers.
It's too bad Hilary wasn't president. We could have had a double impeachment!
What offenses do you think she would she have committed while president that she would have been impeached for?
literally anything, assuming the congressional votes were the same and we ended up with a Republican house and senate. The would try to impeach her from day 1
I asked what they thought she would do, not what congress would have thrown at her.
Reading the description of the political climate upthread, the majority in parliament in SK is opposition, split between two parties. Here, the R's have a majority in the House which impeaches, so our chances are unfortunately not that great.
Even the two major opposition parties could not have pulled off a supermajority (67% required for the impeachment) on their own. It helped that the ruling party was split into two factions, one of which sided with the opposition at the last minute.
Now we have four major parties, one minor party, and a bunch of independents who all hate one another. It's going to be fun! At least I hope this will bring some much-needed diversity to Korean politics. Two parties are boring and too easily devolve into an ideological staredown.
Now we have four major parties, one minor party, and a bunch of independents who all hate one another. It's going to be fun! At least I hope this will bring some much-needed diversity to Korean politics. Two parties are boring and too easily devolve into an ideological staredown.
>Two parties are boring and too easily devolve into an ideological staredown.
Hell, just look at the US[0].
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/purple-america-has-all-...
Hell, just look at the US[0].
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/purple-america-has-all-...
[deleted]
Try and elect a more impeachable president - like Clinton.
jdjebc82747(2)
At each stage of the very complex process, the government figured out what to do without too much fuss, even operating as a temporary parliamentary democracy.
It wasn't too long ago that this could have gone very differently: seizure of power, military occupation, coups, violence and corruption.
This is Korea's Nixon moment.
edit There's some very serious discussion regarding criminal charges they may now be brought now that she's freed from Presidential immunity.
edit2 For folks who want more background on what this is all about, "Ask a Korean" has done a magnificent job of writing the charges up.
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-ultimate-choi-soo...
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-ultimate-choi-soo...