Keith_McClary wrote:How about if OWS had actually occupied gubmint buildings, kicked out Obama, and installed a new regime. Would you be OK with all that?
False equivalency.
Ukraine had two rebellions. In the first one, Yanukovich would have liked to use the military / Berkut to squash it. He tried that a bit. But the masses staying at home watching TV did not support him using that power. It made even more people angry, and more take to the streets.
Ultimately, he fled in a helicopter that took off from his Disneyland dacha. No Maidan person or right sector or anybody stepped foot on those grounds to force him. There was no military coup. But he had lost support of everyone -- the people, many in his own party went over to the opposition, and the rest weren't showing up to parliament anymore, and finally his military. A president can't exercise authority if he has lost everyone's support. Example: Richard Nixon, and he left in a helicopter too.
Then Ukraine had a second rebellion, in the east. In the midst of that elections were held and every region in the country voted Poroshenko. He campaigned on tackling corruption (THE thing most Ukrainians are up in arms about to start with, and secondarily it's EU ties and improving the economy).
In this case, the people *supported* the president when he moved to squash the rebellion.
So there's the differences -- two constitutional presidents, one had the support of the people and one did not.
In the US: we've had times like this. Like the Vietnam protests in the 60s. National Guard got called out at Kent State and students were shot. As in Ukraine, the American people sitting at home watching TV were appalled at the government crackdown. So that wasn't done again. And eventually the anti-war movement won.
Same with the civil riots protests and riots in the 60s. Government tried to crack down at first, with water hoses and dogs and throwing people in jail. But the broad mass of American people were appalled, government had no popular support to do that, and so it stopped and federal gov stepped in and eventually it culminated in the Civil Rights Act, etc.
That's the difference with America, just that government listens when the people get seriously up in arms and upset. Happened in the Great Depression, too -- gov never really listened then, but veterans marched and camped out on the mall "ows" style. And the people voted FDR in.
We don't have revolutions because either gov listens when the people are getting really upset, or, voters clean house in the next election. In Ukraine, the parliament tried doing some measures to appease the people. Yanu did some halfhearted things but mostly told them "just vote me out next election if you don't want me." (pretty much verbatim quote)
So I don't know why exactly, but in Ukraine the people just couldn't wait for that next election. Probably a lesson for all governments everywhere -- pay attention if there's a movement in the streets that also has majority support of the folks watching TV at home.
EDIT: legally, the end of Yanukovych was the same as the end of Nixon: impeachment. Nixon resigned to avoid it, while Yanu fled and was removed from office by parliament in absentia.
So yes, Keith, if Congress impeached and removed the president then it would all be normal constiutitonal procedure and VP takes the oath. You can bet a US president would get impeached for sure, if he had as little support in Congress as Yanu had in his parliament, and among the people.
Yanu could have avoided it, maybe, if he'd listened to the people and not Putin and given them what they wanted -- the EU deal, that he promised, in his campaign. (I say maybe because by then the people were so pissed off at that point and wanted him gone no matter what, if he'd just signed the deal in the first place though then there never would have been a maidan)
Ukraine's constitutional vice (their pm or something?) took office, and the difference from the US system is that yeah Ukraine was a bit of a revolution so they just called new elections. But I think even that was constitutional, under their system.
So there was never a coup here anyhow. Not anymore than impending impeachment and senate conviction of Nixon was a coup.
Bottom line of it all: if a president in any country loses support of the people, and his parliament, and his military, then he can't govern and stay in office. You see it over and over with revolutions: same thing with Mubarak in Egypt, etc.