• 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!

POLL: one-third say Impeach Obama

"Impeachment is a political decision to solve a political problem."

Then what crime must an office holder commit to be removed from office? Actual crimes are the top end of the scale of reasons, not the bottom.

Impeachment isn't on the table until possibly, after the mid-term elections. If Republicans can seize a majority in the Senate..... If they do not get a majority, then it's not an option unless Obama murders someone in broad daylight in the Rose Garden, with a pistol. (Obvious "Clue" reference there... ) The news networks would probably destroy the video - so it's a "maybe" even then.
 
Impeachment is a meaningless waste of time.

It won't go through, but it will take up at least 6 months and probably an entire 2 years of time, when politicians could be doing nothing whatsoever, which is a better use of their time.
 
Good luck getting 2/3 of the Senate on board then.

Remember, on a couple of the counts against Clinton, they couldn't even get a simple majority. Which means that they didn't even get all the Republicans.
He won't be, the country has lost it's way. Obama's crimes are far worse then Clintons ever were.
 
If Bush and Cheney can get off scott free what hope do we have on impeaching Obama?

Specifically, has anyone lined out what high crime or treason Obama has committed?

I know a lot of opinions feel he has. But what specific law has he broken?

Most of the folks I know that want Obama impeached wanted him hung by the yardarms the day he was inaugurated. It really don't matter what :crime" he has, or has not, committed.

I'm thinking these are the people that this political stunt is trying to appeal to. But why? They are insignificant in the big picture.

I do wish they would go forth with it. Make my day.
 
Are you aware that it was the democrats in the Hillary Clinton camp that started the birther movement against Obama? They also leveled it at McCain.

That was already debunked on this thread. Nice try though. Now carry on.
 
Let's be clear. The economy was in recession when Bush took office. Then 9/11 hit. Carter, LOL. What President is he better than? Wait, he is better than Obama now.

Let me dissect this one by one and it clearly started on Bush's watch -- not that he was directly responsible for business cycles. Here is that recession in gray. It wasn't much of anything.
fredgraph.png


Thanks to the democrats and the CRA. They f-ed up the entire economy with their forcing loans to unqualified people and their corruption and Freddie Mac. Enough said there.
The narrative that the government forces banks to do things they really didn't want to do is nonsense. Banks have a powerful lobby and lots of representation in Washington. The Great Recession was caused by relaxation of regulations -- things conservatives always want to do. Those regulations worked for 80 years until conservatives eliminated many of them.
[h=2]Fannie Mae Didn’t Cause the Housing Crisis, Radical Ideologues Did[/h]

Did you catch what I said about that great job with the falling deficit? Don't forget to thank the next guy that robs you. if that's they way you think of the falling deficit.

Whose deficit? Note the date of this article.
CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

And it was mainly revenue loss.

usgs_line.php
....
usgs_line.php
....
usgs_line.php
 
If this poll were conducted when Bush were President, you would have similar results but with the partisan divide flip-flopped. The same would be true of any president. People that don't like a president will want him or her impeached. They don't care about if that would be legal. These polls are pointless and do nothing but foster nonsensical, partisan bickering.
 
That was already debunked on this thread. Nice try though. Now carry on.

I really think that the birther think got going as acheck against what might have happened to Mccain because he was born in Panama. I know that he was born on US territory; a military base as I recall, but nonetheless, as we can see, when you drop something like that in a campaign, it gets legs.

As for impeaching Obama: you can impeach anybody for anything, like you can sue anybody for anything: it doesn't mean you have a case or that you can win. Impeaching him would be another grandstanding show trial like the Clinton impeachment and will just waste more rescources than we can afford, so I'm for just forgetting about teh idea. If GW Bush was allowed to walk after his fiasco then the Republicans shouldn't even be talking about impeachment.
 
Let me dissect this one by one and it clearly started on Bush's watch -- not that he was directly responsible for business cycles. Here is that recession in gray. It wasn't much of anything.

2001 Recession

It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%).


Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002

The narrative that the government forces banks to do things they really didn't want to do is nonsense. Banks have a powerful lobby and lots of representation in Washington. The Great Recession was caused by relaxation of regulations -- things conservatives always want to do. Those regulations worked for 80 years until conservatives eliminated many of them.
[h=2]Fannie Mae Didn’t Cause the Housing Crisis, Radical Ideologues Did[/h]

The government doesn't force banks to do things they don't want to? You've got to be kidding with that one. Where have you been, under a rock?

You do remember that the TARP spending, a huge waste that it was, was supposed to be a one time emergency jolt (not) for the economy. But, as feared, Obama seized on the chance to screw us all, and treat it as part of the budget, so he could keep up that reckless spending for a few more years. What a destructive jerk.
 
Can you give us the high water mark for impeaching the last Bush and Clinton so we can judge the "ever increasing radicalization of the right".

How would numbers on advocating impeachment of Bush and Clinton a decade or two ago provide evidence either way for the radicalization of the right in 2014?
 
Perhaps, however I don't think it will help them on election midterm election night. All races are regional and the amount of money spent per race has not always been the deciding factor. Look at what happened to Eric Cantor. He out spent his opponent something like 30 to 1.

It's a well-known fact that mid-terms almost always result in significant gains for the party that is not residing in the White House. In fact, if the GOP doesn't take the Senate, it will be seen as a significant victory for the Dems, especially since more incumbent Dem seats are up for reelection than are GOP seats. And in the House, the districts have been gerrymandered to such a degree that most GOP seats are safe no matter what - which is why the GOP has a significant majority even though in the 2012 election Democratic House candidates received over a half million more votes than GOP candidates did.

However, in 2016, if Hillary runs and lives to election night, she will win the election and we will certainly take back the Senate...and possibly the House as well...because as much as the Right hates her, there's no one on your side that even comes close to presenting a real threat to her candidacy. Personally, I'd much prefer Elizabeth Warren...but if Hillary's the nominee, she'll get my vote...and the votes of all the other Dems who would prefer a real liberal instead of a LINO like Hillary. We see her much as the Right saw McCain.

But while funding greatly helps, it's certainly not the be-all and end-all of elections. You and I can agree on that much, at least.
 
I love it when right wing true believers states nonsense like this. In the real world of real Americans with real incomes and real budgets such insanity would be mocked and ridiculed.

I can see it right now in homes all across America:

Husband: Hey baby, you know how you are always complaining that I am never here to do those chores you want me to do around the house? All that is changing and I will have much more time at home.
Wife: How's that?
Husband: I quit my second job working evenings at the mall.
Wife: That second job brought in eighteen grand last year and was the difference between us being able to live here and pay the bills and us having to move to a much smaller place in a crappy neighborhood.
Husband: No baby - it'll be okay. We just cut back on other stuff that we are overspending on...


That is how it works in the real America with real people. Overspending my Great Aunt Mathilda!!!!!!

LOL, not even a good analogy! Yeah, the federal government doesn't have any waste, not a smidgen. They need every bit of our tax dollars to cover the bare minimums that the government is supposed to be doing. Right.
I'm glad you "love it" so much, you must love being wrong. And whose money do you think it is?
Here's another flaw in your logic, working families go out and earn money, it belongs to them. Tell me, what does the federal government earn? What does it produce?
Not even close to the real world. That's why you liberals believe what you believe, because you depend on the flawed logic of you leaders.
 
"Impeachment is a political decision to solve a political problem."

Then what crime must an office holder commit to be removed from office? Actual crimes are the top end of the scale of reasons, not the bottom.

Perjury? Break and enter? Taking a bribe?
 
Poll: One-third say impeach Obama - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com




The ever increasing radicalization of the right becomes more and more obvious every day and now this poll clearly provides more evidence of the divide in America between the right and everyone else.

65% of Americans reject the political tactic of impeachment but a full one-third of the citizenry are more that willing to go down that road. Nearly one in five simply want to use it to advance their own political objections and need no actual crimes for the process.

I think a 35% number is quite high for something like impeachment. Because it's very likely that others are also dissatisfied, but don't want impeachment. Like me for instance. I don't think it's a good move, regardless of whether I'd like to see him rocketed into outer space.
 
2001 Recession

It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%).


Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002



The government doesn't force banks to do things they don't want to? You've got to be kidding with that one. Where have you been, under a rock?

You do remember that the TARP spending, a huge waste that it was, was supposed to be a one time emergency jolt (not) for the economy. But, as feared, Obama seized on the chance to screw us all, and treat it as part of the budget, so he could keep up that reckless spending for a few more years. What a destructive jerk.
Your on citation says that the 2001 recession started in March 2001. Sorry, Clinton was out of office by then. In any case, it was a small, short lived recession that had little effect on government spending and revenue. Your narrative that this recession was responsible for the years of deficits that followed has no empirical support.

Self-serving declarations by Bush and Cheney that they inherited the recession are just that, self-serving.

On Tarp, it was fully paid back and economists conclude that it saved the banking system, so of course, you were against it. I also think you don't know the difference between Tarp and the American Recovery Act, which was fiscal stimulus.
 
I think a 35% number is quite high for something like impeachment. Because it's very likely that others are also dissatisfied, but don't want impeachment. Like me for instance. I don't think it's a good move, regardless of whether I'd like to see him rocketed into outer space.

Since about a quarter of America doesn't think Obama is a citizen, a poll such as this has little merit.
 
Are you aware that it was the democrats in the Hillary Clinton camp that started the birther movement against Obama? They also leveled it at McCain.

So what you're saying is that Conservatives trust Hillary Clinton? :shock:
 
Impeachment isn't on the table until possibly, after the mid-term elections. If Republicans can seize a majority in the Senate..... If they do not get a majority, then it's not an option unless Obama murders someone in broad daylight in the Rose Garden, with a pistol. (Obvious "Clue" reference there... ) The news networks would probably destroy the video - so it's a "maybe" even then.

They need a lot more than a majority. Removing him from office requires 2/3 of the Senate. There's 33 Senate seats up for election and given that the Republicans currently hold 45, they'd have to pick up 22 without losing any of them. Seeing as how 13 of the seats being contested are currently held by the Republicans, they have to win all of the other ones, plus 2.

Simply not possible.
 
LOL, not even a good analogy! Yeah, the federal government doesn't have any waste, not a smidgen. They need every bit of our tax dollars to cover the bare minimums that the government is supposed to be doing. Right.
I'm glad you "love it" so much, you must love being wrong. And whose money do you think it is?
Here's another flaw in your logic, working families go out and earn money, it belongs to them. Tell me, what does the federal government earn? What does it produce?
Not even close to the real world. That's why you liberals believe what you believe, because you depend on the flawed logic of you leaders.

It is the perfect analogy as it exposes the rightwing fraud that you can cut your income and still be more than fine just like you are now.

Regardless if you like it or not - the income of the federal government is taxes. Reality is what reality is. Denial is just dumb.

Where did I say there is no waste or nothing to cut? Right off the top of my head I can point to over 2 trillion dollars that the government wasted over the last decade or so sticking our nose overseas where it did not belong. I simply think that the right wing drown it in a bathtub solution is foolish and inane so to talk about only tax cuts and pretend they will not have really bit negative impacts upon the American people is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
They need a lot more than a majority. Removing him from office requires 2/3 of the Senate. There's 33 Senate seats up for election and given that the Republicans currently hold 45, they'd have to pick up 22 without losing any of them. Seeing as how 13 of the seats being contested are currently held by the Republicans, they have to win all of the other ones, plus 2.

Simply not possible.

It's possible, not probable.
 
It's possible, not probable.

They'd have to win every single election and then they still need 2 Democrats to vote with them. I guess it's technically possible, but the odds are astronomical.
 
Your on citation says that the 2001 recession started in March 2001. Sorry, Clinton was out of office by then. In any case, it was a small, short lived recession that had little effect on government spending and revenue. Your narrative that this recession was responsible for the years of deficits that followed has no empirical support.

Self-serving declarations by Bush and Cheney that they inherited the recession are just that, self-serving.

On Tarp, it was fully paid back and economists conclude that it saved the banking system, so of course, you were against it. I also think you don't know the difference between Tarp and the American Recovery Act, which was fiscal stimulus.

TARP has not been fully paid back. $424 billion has gone out, and $388 billion has been repaid as of July 2014.
 
Your on citation says that the 2001 recession started in March 2001. Sorry, Clinton was out of office by then. In any case, it was a small, short lived recession that had little effect on government spending and revenue. Your narrative that this recession was responsible for the years of deficits that followed has no empirical support.

On Tarp, it was fully paid back and economists conclude that it saved the banking system, so of course, you were against it. I also think you don't know the difference between Tarp and the American Recovery Act, which was fiscal stimulus.

So, your point is that Bush, sworn in in late January, caused the recession? Hmmm, I wonder how many of those economists would agree with that. I figured you'd say that. Just a ridiculous response, but not unexpected. What, no comment on Obama's Trillion dollar deficits that followed? Have they been paid back? I think not.
 
Poll: One-third say impeach Obama - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com




The ever increasing radicalization of the right becomes more and more obvious every day and now this poll clearly provides more evidence of the divide in America between the right and everyone else.

65% of Americans reject the political tactic of impeachment but a full one-third of the citizenry are more that willing to go down that road. Nearly one in five simply want to use it to advance their own political objections and need no actual crimes for the process.
Another false narrative in the making from the left. Boy are you guys desperate.
 
Back
Top Bottom