• 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!

Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense' [W:406]

Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Nothing prevented Democrats from trying to impeach President Reagan, if they believed his actions on immigration violated the public trust.

Exactly--Democrats and Tip O'Neill cut Reagan a huge amount of slack with Iran/Contra don't you think?
Just as Obama did with Cheney on Iraq-2!
And what thanks did Obama get--Fast and Furious shoved up his ass as fast and furiously as GOPs could !
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Are you aware of the pardon powers of the President?
Dems are still pissed at their own Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich.
While Bush-43 refused to pardon Cheney's buddy Scooter Libby--to his credit .
As I've pointed out, he can't pardon illegal aliens.
 
Last edited:
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Whether or not Obama's action is legal may be a matter for debate. As we've gone over before, he can undoubtedly issue a pardon. Completely within his Constitutional power as President. How far he goes, or tried to go will determine the legality. WE don't know what that will be yet.

I suspect, personally, that this will be another empty threat from Obama.

I do not think it will be an empty threat.
The President will keep every illegal who is related to an American citizen.
Who is in good graces with the law--who has a job and can pay taxes.
The word means-testing comes to mind--as it normally does for me on issues like public pensions .
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Are you aware of the pardon powers of the President?
Dems are still pissed at their own Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich.
While Bush-43 refused to pardon Cheney's buddy Scooter Libby--to his credit .

I understand that a pardon isn't citizenship.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Let's see what happens in court on that one.
wonder why you don't hear your GOP threatening to go to court ?

I understand that a pardon isn't citizenship.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Let's see what happens in court on that one.
wonder why you don't hear your GOP threatening to go to court ?

That one won't have to go to court. Even Obama knows that won't fly.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Exactly--Democrats and Tip O'Neill cut Reagan a huge amount of slack with Iran/Contra don't you think?
Just as Obama did with Cheney on Iraq-2!
And what thanks did Obama get--Fast and Furious shoved up his ass as fast and furiously as GOPs could !

If you are trying to make a point, I don't know what it is.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Let's see what happens in court on that one.
wonder why you don't hear your GOP threatening to go to court ?

Please explain what ordinary courts have to do with impeachment.
 
Re: Just how Leftist are you? Nore than you claim.

I said I believe you are more left that you believe you are or you claim to be. How does one prove that? Do I go find every utterance you have ever made and run a statistical analysis of the leftist phrases among them and compare them with the neutral and rightist phrases? Or do I go with my intuition?

Well you could easily prove that if you found comments made by me supporting most of Obama's policies as well as the Dems. Too bad there doesn't exist any because I never voted for the guy in 2012 or supported most of his policies. That is why your comments are proven lies, because you can't back anything up with them.

Bashing dems is like destroying ISIS by occasionally killing a fighter or two. It is ineffective. I think you know it. You are still more left than you claim.

According to you I was an Obama supporter. Hmmm, I am FOR 2A rights, against the ACA, against his foreign policy, against most of his economics policies. Sounds like your comments again are proven lies.

Nor will I. It is a fools errand which you are better suited to do. Let's take just the first one to see how much you bash Obama

Of course you won't because you can't back up your comments with actual facts and instead have to resort to using lying comments as a basis for your ideology. A dishonest Con, go figure.

Right that is real powerful bashing. LOL. I see no reason to go any further given that you chose this to prove how hard you are on Obama. You cannot see just how leftist you are. Peas in a pod...

Again, that was a simple search and that was what I came up with in 5 min. In that same time you have provided ZERO proof and ZERO quotes from me supporting your claims. Your comments are lies and everyone can see what dishonest comments you make. I am not trying to convince you of anything more so proving to everyone how dishonest your posts really are. It shows you have ZERO credibility now as you cannot back up ANYTHING you say with actual facts and instead resort to lying comments.

I have proved my point about your dishonest comments and everyone can now see that.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I was an intelligence officer for most of my 20 year career...

Sure you were. I was a Heisman trophy winner back in college. This is before I became a Nuclear Physicists. :lamo
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Reagan got Grubered by the usual suspects in the Democratic party

You admit then that Reagan was a simpleton. I've always known Reagan was a piece of ****, but it's refreshing to see you admit it.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Adding a statute of limitations to law is changing that law. To say that X is still a crime but that those committing X before 2007 are no longer subject to being charged with X now is illegal. That creates future immunity rather than merely granting amnesty for past acts.

If you're still hung up on the actions the Obama Administration took on implementing or removing certain aspects of the PPACA, all I can say is "get over it". If Congress really believed the President acted in ways that were not in the best interest of the people or the country in his capacity as the Chief Executive in "faithfully executing laws", they would have brought about impeachment proceedings immediately as it happened. They didn't. So, clearly it's all just a whole lot of blustering by the GOP to make this President seem like a tyrant when, in fact, he hasn't done anything outside of his legal authority as the nation's Chief Executive that any other president before him hasn't done. With that, let's get the nuts and bolts of what the video in the OP is really about (assuming that no one else has since I haven't taken the time to read through the thread in its entirety): Immigration!

Clearly, the concept the GOP is trying to convey to the American people is "President Obama isn't adhering to constitutional or Congressional procedure, towit, allowing Congress to write laws that are "necessary and proper". Specifically, writing the rules on immigration and nationalization per Art I, Sect. 8, clause 4:

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...

Thing is, Congress has failed to act since 1986 when our current Immigration and Naturalization Act was enacted. Since then, at least four different U.S. Presidents have tried to change INA law; Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 42 and Obama. Now, here's the irony for the GOP...ready for it? Here it comes!

According to both historical facts and as outlined in this article (local news source as published by the AP), both Reagan and GHW Bush did more to usher in "amnesty" for illegal Mexican immigrants than President Obama is attempting to do currently. Moreover, neither of the aforementioned Presidents place ANY responsibility on the newly amnestied immigrants when both signed current INA law (Reagan, 1986) or signed EO's that expanded immigration policy (GHW Bush, 1990).

So, why all the fuss from the GOP over immigration policy now? IMHO, there are three reasons for it:

1) Saving face! The GOP knows that this immigration mess was started by two of their own in the White House and they don't want to be "remembered" or further blamed for escalating the problem. They claim they want to fix it through increased boarder security (i.e., putting up a fence), but the truth is unless you're willing to build a wall AND patrol it, you're never going to keep illegal Mexicans out. Nonetheless, the truth of the matter here is people are starting to understand that this immigration mess began under not one, but TWO Republican presidents and the GOP knows it.

2) The Politics of it all. The GOP doesn't want a Democratic President to win the immigration issue for one very important reason: VOTES!!! It is estimated that America will become more Brown (and Black) than White over the next decade or so. Thus, whomever wins this immigration "image" issue (because that's what it boils down to...which Party can do more for immigrants than the other) that's who will win over the "Brown voting block" in future elections.

3) Labor. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hispanics today are yesterday's slaves. When so many are hiding in the shadows performing arduous labor and being poorly compensated for it, it's almost akin to slavery only illegal immigrants aren't baring the brutality of the lash, yet they are being paid for their labor (though unfairly). So, when you hear GOP pundits make the pay wage argument that "poor Blacks can't find jobs due to illegal Mexicans," understand that this is a fringe issue indented to persuade people from looking at immigration policy and instead shift their focus on economic policy and unemployment issues. Put another way: It's intended to stir folks emotions to anger and why wouldn't it in todays unemployment, low wage, part-time work environment?

When you peel back the layers on this immigration issue, what you'll find is those who are screaming the loudest about "executive over-reach" and "unfairness" for those who don't get to the back of the line before the "pay taxes", are really terrified of being blamed for exacerbating the problem - a problem they caused in the first place.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I came across this article from Fox News explaining how illegal and unconstitutional President Obama's EO on immigration is (considering the man hasn't even outlined what his proposal is, I find it hard to say what's unconstitutional about it) and one thing caught my attention.

In section 3, 2nd paragraph, the author mentions a 1996 immigration law (or revisions thereto) enacted under former President Clinton. I did some research and found the law here. You'll have to go down to Division C, but it's clear the minors brought to this country by their parents are at no fault for their parent's actions. Moreover, the 1996 makes clear that deportations will only take place in instances where obvious violations of the social disorder takes place.

Bottom Line: Unless the President authorizes something something outlandish, from my brief reading of INA law as a whole and Division C of the 1996 law, the President would be "faithfully executing the law".
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I came across this article from Fox News explaining how illegal and unconstitutional President Obama's EO on immigration is (considering the man hasn't even outlined what his proposal is, I find it hard to say what's unconstitutional about it) and one thing caught my attention.

In section 3, 2nd paragraph, the author mentions a 1996 immigration law (or revisions thereto) enacted under former President Clinton. I did some research and found the law here. You'll have to go down to Division C, but it's clear the minors brought to this country by their parents are at no fault for their parent's actions. Moreover, the 1996 makes clear that deportations will only take place in instances where obvious violations of the social disorder takes place.

Bottom Line: Unless the President authorizes something something outlandish, from my brief reading of INA law as a whole and Division C of the 1996 law, the President would be "faithfully executing the law".



He's been faithfully ignoring our Federal Immigration laws for the last 6 years.

Our system isn't "broken ", our laws are being ignored.

NOW he wants to via FIAT to " faithfully execute the laws " he swore to uphold ?

Bull ****.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

"Reagan got Grubered by the usual suspects in the Democratic party"
You admit then that Reagan was a simpleton. I've always known Reagan was a piece of ****, but it's refreshing to see you admit it.
In a way you are correct. Reagan believed that the democrats were honorable men. He was a simpleton. No one, under any circumstance should ever believe what a liberal, a Progressive, a national socialist, and international socialist or any other Democrat ever says. I believe this is why he moved on to "Trust but verify".
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

"Reagan got Grubered by the usual suspects in the Democratic party"

In a way you are correct. Reagan believed that the democrats were honorable men. He was a simpleton. No one, under any circumstance should ever believe what a liberal, a Progressive, a national socialist, and international socialist or any other Democrat ever says. I believe this is why he moved on to "Trust but verify".

Will you join me in welcoming the millions of new Americans into the country after President Obama opens the door tonight? :lamo
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Will you join me in welcoming the millions of new Americans into the country after President Obama opens the door tonight? :lamo
Last night a coup took place. The American system of government fell to a tyrant. The federal government is in enemy hands. In my opinion this sets the stage for a revolution or a civil war.

Illegal aliens are still illegal. The Tyrant declared that our borders are open and that the US is ripe for elimination. This will go very poorly for the vast majority of us. I cannot understand why many of you hate the US citizens so much.

Do not scrape the hope and change bumper stickers off your cars.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Last night a coup took place. The American system of government fell to a tyrant. The federal government is in enemy hands. In my opinion this sets the stage for a revolution or a civil war.

I think you are full of...hyperbole. :lamo
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I think you are full of...hyperbole. :lamo

It will be interesting to learn the reaction of 10's of thousands of employers who are likely to learn many of their employees lied about their status, and provided fraudulent documents in order to work for them.

I would hope they view this revelation as an indicator of the character of a person who would put their business at such risk, and take immediate steps to terminate their employment.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Impeachment requires an actual crime or an act directly in conflict with the president's duty to work for the good of the nation and the American people. Arguably going beyond his authority in order to actually do some governing when congress won't is hardly either of those.

On the contrary, it is an illegal seizure of legislative power and an attack on the separation of power. Pretty much would fit the bill for a High Crime or Misdemeanor.

I mean, if a President simply saying he can ignore an entire branch of our government and create / change law as he see's fit isn't impeachable, then what is?

Congress is welcome to attempt to rein in presidential power via legislation or constitutional amendment, but it would have to apply to the office itself, not just this president that they don't like.

This doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment or any Legislation. It's already in the Constitution.. It's already in the law. President Obama has simply decided he will ignore those because he doesn't like them and because Congress will not do what he tells it to (almost as if they were a co-equal branch of government in a system designed to feature checks and balances, or some such...)



Agreed, however, that even Presidents you like should be restricted to the power of their office. That's a good point for Democrats to consider - Obama is setting a precedent for the next Republican President who thinks that things like Tax and Entitlement Reform are Important Priorities That Can't Wait.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

It will be interesting to learn the reaction of 10's of thousands of employers who are likely to learn many of their employees lied about their status, and provided fraudulent documents in order to work for them.

I would hope they view this revelation as an indicator of the character of a person who would put their business at such risk, and take immediate steps to terminate their employment.

During my time as a machinist, do you know how many shops I worked for that had illegals working there. The boss knew it, but didn't care.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

During my time as a machinist, do you know how many shops I worked for that had illegals working there. The boss knew it, but didn't care.

How would I know how many shops you worked for that had illegals working there?

Obviously there are bosses/owners who either suspected, or actually knew, some of their employees were illegal. They should be fined and jailed, with forfeiture of personal assets to pay the fines.

For those employers who did their best to screen employees and require proper documentation, if it turns out they were lied to, immediate termination is an appropriate response.

Personally, I will never allow my company to hire someone who shows up with documentation provided through the Presidents unilateral action. Learning they have no character and no respect for the law is all the evidence I need to learn they would be a terrible employee, and someone I would not want the people who work for me to have to deal with.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

How would I know how many shops you worked for that had illegals working there?

Let me educated you. It's called a rhetorical question.

Personally, I will never allow my company to hire someone who shows up with documentation provided through the Presidents unilateral action. Learning they have no character and no respect for the law is all the evidence I need to learn they would be a terrible employee, and someone I would not want the people who work for me to have to deal with.

Go for it! I hope if this unlikely scenario where to take place, I would hope the employee would sue the **** out or you and your company.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I think you are full of...hyperbole. :lamo
There will be many, like you, who were harmed last night who will fail, as you have, to understand what happened. The Constitution was voided. Our borders were declared open to any who can reach them. If you earn less than 100K per year your wages were suppressed. If you work in technology you may find yourself replaced by an Indian or Pakistani.

American citizens lost their nation last night.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Let me educated you. It's called a rhetorical question.



Go for it! I hope if this unlikely scenario where to take place, I would hope the employee would sue the **** out or you and your company.

LOL.

How would they do that? California is a right to work state. I can fire for any reason I invent.

So by your statement, I take it you support liars and cheats who put business owners at risk? I guess that does get to bottom line of the character of illegal aliens. Probably some of the most self centered people I can imagine. Certainly explains much about the failed countries they failed to learn how to live in.
 
Back
Top Bottom