• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To Standard For Impeachment

Or you could.... while public opinion can be shaped the proof will be in the full implementation. I don't know what some are basing the increase on.... seems like highly biased opinion and a good smattering of fear mongering.
I think many are basing their conclusions on the already announced increases in the 20% to 40% range. Fear mongering? That's a part of politics, and I have no doubt there's some of that in the mix as well.


But back on topic... nobody is going to start impeachment on the President. IF the House was going to jump they would have already done so.... Sen. Coburn is just snarling because he knows that dawg won't hunt...
I agree. There's no virtue or political hay to made impeaching a very lame duck, and they know it.
 
As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
I'm no lawyer either, but imho Coburn is spot on and I agree with you, he should've been impeached long ago.

How does he get away with everything he does? To me, that's simple; those who like him refuse to hold him accountable.
 
Any impeachment should occur at the ballot box. This stuff Obama has done, egregious though it may be to some, just doesn't rise to that level. Furthermore, it's a dangerous precedent that we should reserve for only the most constitutionally and morally offensive behavior. That Obama's politics are "in your face" in style, and sometimes substance, shouldn't be a surprise. He announced as much. The scandals are just that - scandals. Stop whining, and politically defeat the guy.
 
It takes me a lot longer to research and debunk every itemized list that you just copy/paste from someone else.
you mean you don't even have anything on file? who the hell are you to tell me to do research when you don't have any yourself?

So no. I am not going to do that. I will put as much effort into this as you do, but not more.
Great. where's your link?
 
I think he was answering a question about the NSA program or the IRS scandal. Pundit on tv stated that Coburn is normally grounded and sane, but this crazy talk shows that he's in trouble politically because of some votes he's made. (Of course, Obama had nothing to do with the IRS scandal...and it is now known that the IRS targeted both right and left organizations, and it was grounded in the fact that a lot of orgs filed after Citizens United decision). The NSA program has existed since before this administration, but whether it expanded, I don't know. But impeachment for nothing is crazy talk. Taking us to war based on false information? That would be impeachable, but even then, I recognized that that talk about impeaching Bush was wasted time and costly, and hard to prove. Not good for the country. Coburn is scared, apparently. The Republican Party is in trouble. Fearing the extreme right.
 
I am going to have to completely disagree with this. If Obama were a white democrat many Republican lawmakers and pundits would be calling for his impeachment as they are now, and the majority of Democrats would stand by their president as they are now. I don't think his race changes the minds of more than a slight percentage of people across the country about whether or not they support impeachment.

I think the point was that if the president was White the impeachment procedings would have been filed instead of just talking about them.
 
Great post! Probably since man walked the earth, there have always been those who feel they deserve more than they have. Until recently, they usually buckled down and tried to change their circumstances as a matter of personal pride. Now it seems they expect the government to do the job for them, and since they still don't feel they have everything they feel they "deserve," they constantly demand more. What a crock! I guess that's their justification for stealing? Don't they ever stop to think that maybe most of us don't have everything we want either? This is total :bs: and it's disgusting!

What these people have forgetten is that it is better to want than to have.
 
As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
This would be a great way to raise Obama's job approval ratings and MSNBC's ratings. :thumbs:
 
It takes me a lot longer to research and debunk every itemized list that you just copy/paste from someone else.

So no. I am not going to do that. I will put as much effort into this as you do, but not more.

I'm interested in this research as well. if you won't do it for him, how about for me?
 
I'm no lawyer either, but imho Coburn is spot on and I agree with you, he should've been impeached long ago.

How does he get away with everything he does? To me, that's simple; those who like him refuse to hold him accountable.

Haven't we Heard for the last 5 years that if you have a problem with something Obama did, it was because of his race?

If Obama did something another President did, you don't have the right to be against it because you will be called a racist.

Why should we discount the color of his skin in this discussion then?
 
So why not a white republican? To hear the Cons talk everyone hates a con....

That's completely false. We all know who whines endlessly about their terrible victim status and it's not Conservatives. Conservatives just want Liberals and the government to leave them alone and stay out of their lives. Even such a simple thing is apparently too much to ask for however.
 
How does that saying go??? Something about those who forget history... they are usually covering their political lean's crap like a cat in a litter box!

It doesn't matter what you or I think qualifies as 'lawlessness'.... You can bet your Willard/Wonk in 2012 bumper sticker if there was ANY hint of an impeachable offense the 'Cants would be all over it like flies on poop.

It is just wolf whistling.

(FYI there is a wide gap between laws I'd like to see walked back and 'lawlessness' )

I agree in part. right now, it is just wolf whistling. But there is and has been way more than just "hints" of impeachable offense's committed by Obama.

Thing is he knows, as everybody else knows, Democrats don't care about the law. And as long as the Democrats control the Senate, he can go ahead and break as many laws as he wants and they will let him get away with it. As they have proven they will in the past. The law and/or the constitution mean nothing to anybody in that party except when it is handy. Past that, it's any thing goes.

Having said all that, should the GOP take the Senate in the fall, a much different Obama would emerge as President. And I think a couple of rapid (at least one for sure) changes in members of the cabinet that have proven themselves highly controversial would happen as well. This would all happen because at this point, his corrupt political party couldn't save him, he would have to toe the line like other Presidents, not cross it.
 
I think the point was that if the president was White the impeachment procedings would have been filed instead of just talking about them.

I disagree. There's no point in filing impeachment procedings unless there is a chance for it to work, which there isn't for this senate. Otherwise it's a huge public relations problem that could lead to the incumbent's party to gain seats in year 6.
 
What these people have forgetten is that it is better to want than to have.

Good afternoon, Mason66. :2wave:

:agree: Wanting means you still have something to strive for. :thumbs: How boring life would be otherwise, to have no more daydreams!
 
you mean you don't even have anything on file? who the hell are you to tell me to do research when you don't have any yourself?

Great. where's your link?

What link? You haven't presented anything of your own for me to disprove. Any idiot can google "reasons to impeach obama" or whatever and blindly copy/paste whatever right-wing nonsense it spits out. You put some effort into this supposed impeachment-worthy activity and I'll put some effort into proving you wrong.

Pick an action, get some sources that talk about what happened, and explain in your own words why you think that's impeachment worthy.
 
I'm interested in this research as well. if you won't do it for him, how about for me?

Why should I put effort into this when you didn't? I could spend an hour or two proving some pasted list wrong, then you'd just copy/paste a different one from some different whackos. Have some conviction, man. Don't just let random bloggers tell you what to think. If you can't even be arsed to explain in your own words why a president should be impeached, why should anyone care what your opinion is?
 
Last edited:
As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....

It's getting more interesting.

The President's Increasing Lawlessness - Ed Rogers, Washington Post:peace
 
Very interesting article! :thanks: for providing. Some of the comments made at the conclusion of this article are, if true, frightening! :eek:

The supposed waiving of welfare work requirements was completely false. In fact, what happened was giving more freedom to states than they had before, a request made by several "red" states in the first place. Ask Democrats for something, attack them for giving it to you, typical right-wing.
 
The supposed waiving of welfare work requirements was completely false. In fact, what happened was giving more freedom to states than they had before, a request made by several "red" states in the first place. Ask Democrats for something, attack them for giving it to you, typical right-wing.

The requirement certainly was waived. The question is not who asked for it, but whether granting it was legal.:peace
 
The requirement certainly was waived. The question is not who asked for it, but whether granting it was legal.:peace

No, not at all accurate. You were straight-up lied to.

A state could apply for a waiver from the work requirement to test out their own substitution for that requirement. The state would then have to show improved work outcomes or they'd lose their waiver. A 20% improvement in work outcomes was required.

And yes, it's legal.
 
Last edited:
Meh, I see the "impeachment" talk the last act of a desperate party. Republicans see the writing on the wall. They know there is a very real division in their ranks, a division which has turned off many people in this country. They know the economy is getting better, unemployment is going down and the deficit is decreasing. All of the scare tactics they've used for the last five years could likely ring hollow very soon, regardless of whether Obama deserves credit or not.

And if those things do come true, AND if Hilary decides to run, Republicans know they might as well concede the election before it starts. Right now, "impeachment" may be their best chance to undermine the Democrat who is President, and by association, the next Democrat, much like they did to Clinton and Gore.
Pointing your finger and calling me names isn't helping your defense. That list gives good reason to suspect violations. In light of what's below, one should be suspicious every word or action taken by Barack Obama.

President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations | The Daily Caller
:lamo

When the very first thing on your list is a joke, you should not use that list as a source.

1. The individual mandate
No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term.


Ignoring for a moment the Supreme Court already decided it wasn't a Constitutional violation, if you would read your Constitution you'd know the President is not capable of creating laws. Thus, it would be a violation of the powers of Congress (which the Supreme Court said it wasn't) and not a Constitutional violation by President Obama.


What an absolutely asinine list. And I didn't even read #2.
The supposed waiving of welfare work requirements was completely false. In fact, what happened was giving more freedom to states than they had before, a request made by several "red" states in the first place. Ask Democrats for something, attack them for giving it to you, typical right-wing.
It really does suck people can be so uneducated on the issues and yet have their vote count as much as yours, doesn't it?
 
No, not at all accurate. You were straight-up lied to.

A state could apply for a waiver from the work requirement to test out their own substitution for that requirement. The state would then have to show improved work outcomes or they'd lose their waiver.

And yes, it's legal.

Well, now that you've pronounced on the legal question I guess there's no need for further discussion.:lamo

The difference of course is that states have been relieved of the requirement to show improved outcomes.:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom