• 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]

I think will fight him on every level, with the exception of impeachment. He is being sued now and the courts will be deciding on both immigration and Obamacare, and we still have Benghazi, the ballsup in Iraq, Fast and Furious, as well as a couple of other scandals.

Impeachment proceedings would only detract from the other issues, and the bumbler might actually gain some public sympathy.
A legislature that looks to the courts to defend it will be disappointed. Should the lawsuit fail to be completely won the Congress will be little more than a rubber stamp to approve what the imperial president demands of it. Rome had such a system of government when it transition from a Republic to a Republic in name only. A lawsuit is one of the worsts ideas that fools could possibly have devised.

Defeating the tyrant is not a distraction. It is essential if we are to remain even somewhat free. A coup took place. This government is no longer a government of, by or for the people. The Republicans are not up to the challenge. They will fail. And we will lose our remaining liberties.
 
A legislature that looks to the courts to defend it will be disappointed. Should the lawsuit fail to be completely won the Congress will be little more than a rubber stamp to approve what the imperial president demands of it. Rome had such a system of government when it transition from a Republic to a Republic in name only. A lawsuit is one of the worsts ideas that fools could possibly have devised.

Defeating the tyrant is not a distraction. It is essential if we are to remain even somewhat free. A coup took place. This government is no longer a government of, by or for the people. The Republicans are not up to the challenge. They will fail. And we will lose our remaining liberties.

Do you EVER stop with this "sky is falling" crap?
 
Do you EVER stop with this "sky is falling" crap?
Not after the sky has fallen. This coup sets the stage for the end of the nation. Pat yourself on the back. You did it. You and your Tyrant-president overturn the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Congratulations. He does not like to be called the king. He prefers Emperor. Dear Leader, First Citizen or Der Fuhrer all seem appropriate.

Heil!
 
Not after the sky has fallen. This coup sets the stage for the end of the nation. Pat yourself on the back. You did it. You and your Tyrant-president overturn the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Congratulations. He does not like to be called the king. He prefers Emperor. Dear Leader, First Citizen or Der Fuhrer all seem appropriate.

Heil!
Sorry, you are wrong. Kobie has said on several occasions that he didn't vote for Obama.
 
Not after the sky has fallen. This coup sets the stage for the end of the nation. Pat yourself on the back. You did it. You and your Tyrant-president overturn the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Congratulations. He does not like to be called the king. He prefers Emperor. Dear Leader, First Citizen or Der Fuhrer all seem appropriate.

Heil!

Sorry, I just can't get on board with the idea that Obama is a "tyrant" or a "king" because he is declining to use executive power in a narrow number of cases to enforce immigration laws against people who have never done anything wrong aside from flee bad living conditions to try and make a decent living for their family.

My guess is that most people don't understand what either word means.
 
Sorry, I just can't get on board with the idea that Obama is a "tyrant" or a "king" because he is declining to use executive power in a narrow number of cases to enforce immigration laws against people who have never done anything wrong aside from flee bad living conditions to try and make a decent living for their family.

My guess is that most people don't understand what either word means.

Of course you cannot. You support authoritarian statists. He is ruling against the will of the American citizen on behalf of the invading illegal aliens. I realize that to those of you who are on the left the Constitution is an obstruction to your desires. It was intended to be. When a president chooses to void the Constitution he is waging war against the citizens, the nation and the Constitution itself. It really does not matter whether you like what he did or not. His actions are unconstitutional and reprehensible. I want the House to impeach him. I want the Senate to convict him and remove him from office. If we ever get a real attorney general, and not just a hatchet carrier for the democratic president, I hope we can arrest the traitor, try him, convict him and then put him on death row until he is a very old man. It will be a warning to the next tyrant.
 
Of course you cannot. You support authoritarian statists.

The irony, it's really killing me.

He is ruling against the will of the American citizen

It just so happens that American citizens are generally in favor of this kind of action...

on behalf of the invading illegal aliens.

Deportations are still on the rise and this action will double security at the border. Not exactly "on behalf" of these people. All he did was strike a deal with some of these illegals based on narrow criteria (time spent here, children here, no violent criminal background, etc) as a means to pull these illegals out of the shadows and eventually get them paying taxes and contributing.

I realize that to those of you who are on the left the Constitution is an obstruction to your desires.

I'm not the one advocating that the President's power of the pardon be taken from him. :shrug:

When a president chooses to void the Constitution he is waging war against the citizens, the nation and the Constitution itself.

Except he isn't voiding the constitution.

It really does not matter whether you like what he did or not. His actions are unconstitutional and reprehensible.

No they aren't.

I want the House to impeach him. I want the Senate to convict him and remove him from office. If we ever get a real attorney general, and not just a hatchet carrier for the democratic president, I hope we can arrest the traitor, try him, convict him and then put him on death row until he is a very old man.

Yeah good luck with that. :lamo
 
The irony, it's really killing me.



It just so happens that American citizens are generally in favor of this kind of action...



Deportations are still on the rise and this action will double security at the border. Not exactly "on behalf" of these people. All he did was strike a deal with some of these illegals based on narrow criteria (time spent here, children here, no violent criminal background, etc) as a means to pull these illegals out of the shadows and eventually get them paying taxes and contributing.



I'm not the one advocating that the President's power of the pardon be taken from him. :shrug:



Except he isn't voiding the constitution.



No they aren't.



Yeah good luck with that. :lamo
I will place you in the undecided column.
 
I never made any allegations, I simply posed a question. If they're smart they won't try to impeach him, but rather pass some legislation that protects the borders.

Why would the GOP want to pass border protection legislation when they oppose it 100%? Explain.
 
I want the Senate to convict him and remove him from office. If we ever get a real attorney general, and not just a hatchet carrier for the democratic president, I hope we can arrest the traitor, try him, convict him and then put him on death row until he is a very old man. It will be a warning to the next tyrant.

Dumbass posting of the year!

BTW, why would you put someone on death row to stay until they are very old? That's what the general population in prison is about. At least try to have your dumbass rants make a little sense.
 
Please explain how a majority vote in the House, on impeachment or anything else, shows contempt for the American people. Who do you imagine elected the Representatives, if not the American people?

Because when it comes down to the actions the current president did it will be very difficult for the manager of the charges to effectively demonstrate that Obama has done anything radically different than previous US Presidents of both parties who have used and expanded executive power over the last 75 years. And when that becomes very obvious that Obama is just the latest in a line of power expanders who push the envelope in favor of the presidency the real question then becomes NOT did Obama do this - the real question becomes why are Republicans trying to nail his ass to the wall at this point in time when Congress has been ignoring others for a very long time now?

And I suspect a sizable portion of Americans will indeed view this is political chicanery and be not pleased by it.
 
You don't make any sense. :roll:

NO, it makes perfect sense--why would the GOP want to enact legislation (i. e. tight border laws) when it's against it? Explain.

Unless you're one of those right wing stooges gullible enough to believe that the GOP's anti-immigration rhetoric reflects its true motives?
 
No kidding, neither side wants anything done about it. So the RWers still want to be able to tell the base they wanted a fence and border guards and on and on, then blame the Democrats for not having it. Then still have the cheap undocumented laborers after it is all over.
NO, it makes perfect sense--why would the GOP want to enact legislation (i. e. tight border laws) when it's against it? Explain.

Unless you're one of those right wing stooges gullible enough to believe that the GOP's anti-immigration rhetoric reflects its true motives?
 
Dumbass posting of the year!

BTW, why would you put someone on death row to stay until they are very old? That's what the general population in prison is about. At least try to have your dumbass rants make a little sense.

I think what he would really support is the old fashioned way of dealing with 'them' when they get 'uppity'. You know - a rope and the nearest tree.
 
NO, it makes perfect sense--why would the GOP want to enact legislation (i. e. tight border laws) when it's against it? Explain.

Unless you're one of those right wing stooges gullible enough to believe that the GOP's anti-immigration rhetoric reflects its true motives?

I'd explain, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get it.

Are you really calling me names like a 'stooge'?
 
Because when it comes down to the actions the current president did it will be very difficult for the manager of the charges to effectively demonstrate that Obama has done anything radically different than previous US Presidents of both parties who have used and expanded executive power over the last 75 years. And when that becomes very obvious that Obama is just the latest in a line of power expanders who push the envelope in favor of the presidency the real question then becomes NOT did Obama do this - the real question becomes why are Republicans trying to nail his ass to the wall at this point in time when Congress has been ignoring others for a very long time now?

And I suspect a sizable portion of Americans will indeed view this is political chicanery and be not pleased by it.

To repeat, the assertion that a majority vote by the American people's elected representatives, on any matter, shows contempt for the American people is nonsense--a contradiction in terms. It was the remark of an unthinking person, just like many remarks by this President's supporters. The House was designed to be the body of Congress most responsive to the people, and it still is. Members who do not represent the will of majorities--let alone vote in ways that show contempt for them--get voted out themselves, as we see every two years.

As to your claim that it would be very hard to bring a bill of impeachment against Mr. Obama, I could not disagree more. Finding enough grounds would be the easiest part of it. Obama has committed more serious violations of the public trust and offenses to the Constitution, and more of them, than Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or even Richard Nixon ever did. I do not see him as just the latest in a line of Presidents, from FDR on, who have expanded their powers. This is the most lawless administration, the most contemptuous of the Constitution, the U.S. has ever had. There have been so many offenses it would take a book to catalog them--and for anyone interested, one came out within the year: "Faithless Execution," by Andy McCarthy. The outrage of a few days ago is the worst of all, but only the latest in a long line.

It is only the fact this damned lying would-be king is the first black President that is saving him--so far. If Republicans tried to impeach him now, it would remind millions of white Americans who voted for him just how big a mistake they made. And for pointing it out, they would take out their anger on the people who had embarrassed them. But things may happen during the next year or so--e.g. a major terrorist attack, or the Obamacare law being held unconstitutional--to make Obama's star fall even further. And if it falls far enough, there will no longer be enough people willing to cut the first black President extra slack to save him.
 
I'd explain, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get it.

No one knowledgeable about actual GOP politics would get it. That's why you need to explain.

Are you really calling me names like a 'stooge'?

It depends. R u conservative? Most conservative voters are indeed stooges, i. e. the kind that believe that GOP pols actually stand for what those voters want.
 
Dumbass posting of the year!

BTW, why would you put someone on death row to stay until they are very old? That's what the general population in prison is about. At least try to have your dumbass rants make a little sense.
There is no reason to get my hopes up. Many people live to a ripe old age on death row.

I understand your love for the tyrant. He suits you.

You do not yet recognize the amount of harm he has done to you. Your wages have been suppressed. Your taxes will go up. If you have children they may be exposed to diseases that make them sick. Some will die. You and your family will be exposed to criminal illegal aliens. It seems that the Tyrant knows keeping the criminals is good for him. He does not care that it is bad for you. He needs the chaos and the anger.

If you are a citizen you are second class. The illegal alien's needs trump your rights.

Obama knows that Gruber was right about his supporters.
 
I think what he would really support is the old fashioned way of dealing with 'them' when they get 'uppity'. You know - a rope and the nearest tree.
Wiggen, now you know that lynchings were done by people on your side of the political spectrum. Not mine. If we are to maintain our liberties than tyrants must be dealt with as the Constitution and the laws allow.

The first step is impeachment by the House of Representatives. The House needs to begin to make the case now and they should make it every day. When more than one-half of the people agree then it is time to impeach the Tyrant.

The next step is a trial and conviction in the Senate. Once more than half of the people agree this should be doable. Removal from office follows.

Once we have an attorney general then arrest the tyrant for treason. Try him. Treason is a capital offense. Once the tyrant has been convicted then determine his punishment.

Or you can just find some good, old fashioned Democrats, former members of the Ku Klux Klan and do it your way.

Mine preserves the nation under its Constitution. Your way is simply wrong for a free people.
 
To repeat, the assertion that a majority vote by the American people's elected representatives, on any matter, shows contempt for the American people is nonsense--a contradiction in terms. It was the remark of an unthinking person, just like many remarks by this President's supporters. The House was designed to be the body of Congress most responsive to the people, and it still is. Members who do not represent the will of majorities--let alone vote in ways that show contempt for them--get voted out themselves, as we see every two years.

Your premise fails by the simple reality that the vast vast majority of the American people have nothing but contempt for Congress.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

79% of the public sticks up their middle finger to Congress and only 15% approve of their job performance.
 
Your premise fails by the simple reality that the vast vast majority of the American people have nothing but contempt for Congress.

Congress and the Public | Gallup Historical Trends

79% of the public sticks up their middle finger to Congress and only 15% approve of their job performance.

Whether Congress is doing a good job and whether President Obama should be impeached are entirely different questions. There is no reason to expect popular opinion about the one to be tied to popular opinion about the other. For all you know, many people disapprove of Congress' performance exactly because many of its members have been abdicating their responsibility by meekly acquiescing in power grabs by this President.

The members who were just elected did not elect themselves. They were elected because more people voting in their districts favored them than any of their opponents. Even if a large majority disapproves of Congress generally, that does not mean most people disfavor a particular action favored by a majority in the House or Senate.
 
Whether Congress is doing a good job and whether President Obama should be impeached are entirely different questions. There is no reason to expect popular opinion about the one to be tied to popular opinion about the other. For all you know, many people disapprove of Congress' performance exactly because many of its members have been abdicating their responsibility by meekly acquiescing in power grabs by this President.

The members who were just elected did not elect themselves. They were elected because more people voting in their districts favored them than any of their opponents. Even if a large majority disapproves of Congress generally, that does not mean most people disfavor a particular action favored by a majority in the House or Senate.

Could you tell me who did elect them and in what sort of districts they were elected? I believe when you honestly evaluate both of those questions and honestly answer them your idea that the House represents "the people" crumbles and falls and will soon be gone with the wind.
 
Wiggen, now you know that lynchings were done by people on your side of the political spectrum.
.

The KKK were liberals? Who knew that behind all those white sheets were a bunch of folks anxious for civil rights for black people and equality under the law?:lamo

You really are clueless, aren't you. Because right wing vigilante southerners in the 19th century were Democrats, that must mean that Democrats in the 21st century are right wing! Get a clue.

You continue to be either the dumbest poster on the forum or somebody playing the dumbest poster on the forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom