• 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!

Impeachment?

Glowpun

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Who are those people talking impeachment of Obama? And on what grounds? Is this a ploy to try and get that loser Romney in? There is a legal procedure that must/will be followed and that loser Romney will not figure into this scenario.
The hatred some people have for Obama borders on the pathological. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton who proved himself to be far more capable a president than those two bumbling Bushs whose feet the extremists worship.
 
It's off of the belief that he lied about Benghazi and denied help to the seals
 
obviously since the republican party lost the election for the presidency to obama, they have to impeach him now. contrary to the will of the american people, the will of the republican party is to remove obama at all costs, so says their senate minority leader.

even if it requires an illegal and futile act like attempting to impeach him while the senate is controlled by the democrats.
 
Who are those people talking impeachment of Obama? And on what grounds? Is this a ploy to try and get that loser Romney in? There is a legal procedure that must/will be followed and that loser Romney will not figure into this scenario.
The hatred some people have for Obama borders on the pathological. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton who proved himself to be far more capable a president than those two bumbling Bushs whose feet the extremists worship.

They are complete and total idiots, to a man.

Even if the president lied to the American people
, that is not grounds for impeachment.

As for wondering if it's a ploy to try to "get that loser Romney in?" People who ask that question are just as delusional as those who wonder about it.
 
They are complete and total idiots, to a man.

Even if the president lied to the American people
, that is not grounds for impeachment.

As for wondering if it's a ploy to try to "get that loser Romney in?" People who ask that question are just as delusional as those who wonder about it.

well, if it came out he was lying, like bush was, i'd say impeach the scum. but i'd need to see real evidence.
 
well, if it came out he was lying, like bush was, i'd say impeach the scum. but i'd need to see real evidence.

Lying is not grounds for impeachment. Lying under oath? Might be grounds; but even in Clinton's case, he was not convicted.

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.
 
I'm too tired to research this, but I don't believe we have ever impeached a president. It's been tried a few times, most recently as to Clinton (for lying under oath about sex, which most likely would have failed on various levels).

If Obama was impeached (which will never happen), he'd be succeeded by Biden, not the president of the Senate (who is another Democrat).

It's okay by me if people are still butthurt over the election but I would appreciate it if we could turn our attention to the nation's problems before Thanksgiving.
 
Lying is not grounds for impeachment. Lying under oath? Might be grounds; but even in Clinton's case, he was not convicted.

United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

he's on a hill with that. as the commander in chief, supreme commander of us forces, his counsel/command/inducement to action or lacktherof led directly to the murder of american citizens.
 
United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

he's on a hill with that. as the commander in chief, supreme commander of us forces, his counsel/command/inducement to action or lacktherof led directly to the murder of american citizens.

Absolutely ridiculous. First of all, grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States are covered in the Constitution and quoted above. Secondly, the President of the United States is not in any way, shape or form under any legal obligation to "rescue" anyone from anywhere.
 
I'm too tired to research this, but I don't believe we have ever impeached a president. It's been tried a few times, most recently as to Clinton (for lying under oath about sex, which most likely would have failed on various levels).

If Obama was impeached (which will never happen), he'd be succeeded by Biden, not the president of the Senate (who is another Democrat).

It's okay by me if people are still butthurt over the election but I would appreciate it if we could turn our attention to the nation's problems before Thanksgiving.

Yeah, people get confused about the process. Actually, Clinton was impeached -- on two charges: obstruction of justice; and lying under oath. He was acquitted by the Senate. The HoR impeaches (indicts). The Senate tries.
 
well, if it came out he was lying, like bush was, i'd say impeach the scum. but i'd need to see real evidence.

You obviously never required any real evidence to dub president Bush a liar, so why in the world would it be important to you now?
 
hmmm? wmds in iraq? no? k.

First, I don't believe you can impeach a former president. Second, it has never been proven that Bush knew Iraq had no WMD -- like you, I suspect he started that war for other reasons and never even had a strong suspicion, but what we thought then or think now is not evidence.

I'm not sure what would serve as adequate grounds for impeaching a president --scholars mostly agreed that even Watergate was not sufficient to impeach Nixon (though secretly invading Cambodia might have sufficed).
 
So maybe we didn't find any WMD in Iraq after all.

At least oil profits paid for the war.

not really, because the american taxpayer paid for the war, and the oil companies who pay little in tax made all the profits from the oil. that money did not pay for the war, it went to ceo bonuses and we taxpayers footed the bill while oil companies avoided their taxes:
How much do oil companies really pay in taxes? - The Washington Post

First, I don't believe you can impeach a former president. Second, it has never been proven that Bush knew Iraq had no WMD -- like you, I suspect he started that war for other reasons and never even had a strong suspicion, but what we thought then or think now is not evidence.

I'm not sure what would serve as adequate grounds for impeaching a president --scholars mostly agreed that even Watergate was not sufficient to impeach Nixon (though secretly invading Cambodia might have sufficed).

i'm going to go with bush lied for 500. but, as you say we cant impeach him now. although, i think he should be tried at the hague for warcrimes.
 
Who are those people talking impeachment of Obama? And on what grounds? Is this a ploy to try and get that loser Romney in? There is a legal procedure that must/will be followed and that loser Romney will not figure into this scenario.
The hatred some people have for Obama borders on the pathological. Remember that the Republicans impeached Clinton who proved himself to be far more capable a president than those two bumbling Bushs whose feet the extremists worship.

While I agree that talk of impeachment is ignorant and stupid....... things like your last line make you sound just as extremist and its where you lose the reader.
 
While I agree that talk of impeachment is ignorant and stupid....... things like your last line make you sound just as extremist and its where you lose the reader.

so bush didnt destroy the us economy and he does not qualify as bumbler in your book?
 
To be fair when you repeat someone else's lie and think it was truth, that doesn't make you a liar.

if he was that stupid he should have been removed for criminal incompetence. the buck stops at the president.
we learned that line from this guy:
$(KGrHqZHJDIE-STuMwuoBPns8tTZ3g~~60_35.jpg
a real leader.
 
so bush didnt destroy the us economy and he does not qualify as bumbler in your book?

Making statements that other people worship someone's feet and always having to run back to the "Bush standard" in order to debate an issue politically about your beloved party's President is clearly a sign of a partisan hack... aka extremist.

I agree Impeachment is retarded, I don't have to agree with how someone finishes their conversation on the issue...... especially when one jabbers on about extremists by sounding like one themselves.
 
if he was that stupid he should have been removed for criminal incompetence. the buck stops at the president.
we learned that line from this guy:
View attachment 67137918
a real leader.

Criminal Incompetence?

Lets just make up some more **** to be illegal why don't we.


I think Obama should be removed for criminal nose scratching in public!!!!!!
 
Criminal Incompetence?

Lets just make up some more **** to be illegal why don't we.


I think Obama should be removed for criminal nose scratching in public!!!!!!

if current laws dont allow for the removal of corrupt leaders like george bush in the past, and potentially now obama, new laws are needed.
 
You obviously never required any real evidence to dub president Bush a liar, so why in the world would it be important to you now?

He hasn't been here for a month. How do you know he called Bush a liar?
 
So maybe we didn't find any WMD in Iraq after all.

At least oil profits paid for the war.

Unless we've taxed a trillion dollars out of oil companies, which we haven't, I don't really see how 'oil profits' paid for anything.
 
Unless we've taxed a trillion dollars out of oil companies, which we haven't, I don't really see how 'oil profits' paid for anything.

Stop it.......

It Pains me.......
 
Back
Top Bottom