• 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

shrubnose said:
Not going to happen, no matter how much some people on the right whine.
Barack Obama will be living in the White House until another Democrat move in when he moves out in 2017.
Wait and see.
Click to expand...
I only answered you because your math was wrong.

Why do you like the tyrant and the party of tyranny?
 
MTAtech said:
I was responding to Misterveritis, who proclaimed on the previous page, that my statement that unemployment is down under Obama is a lie. To disprove his lie I naturally needed to show the job growth only under Obama. As the graph clearly show, private sector jobs are higher now than when the President was inaugurated.

However, if you have some other claim, you are free to post a graph making that point.
Click to expand...
And yet it was a lie. You clearly know it is a lie.
 
iacardsfan said:
I despise the administration as much as the next guy, but this shows the unintelligent of the American people. Even the GOP is not gunning to Impeach the President (granted they might not be because they know they don't have the numbers in the Senate). Impeachment as it is defined in the Constitution is to remove somebody from office as a result of committing a serious crime. The only crime that Obama has committed is implementing flawed policy. And don't give me this "he oversteps his Presidential boundaries" BS. While I agree that he has overstepped his boundaries, Obama has issued less Executive Orders than any President since before World War Two. Lastly, think of the alternative of impeaching Obama.....Joe Biden *shudder*
Click to expand...

I disagree with your interpretation.

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.​

Impeachment is a political remedy to a political problem. He needs to be impeached. Boehner won't do it because Boehner is a very large part of the problem.
 
bubbabgone said:
So essentially you're saying the unemployment rate is solid and truly reflects the job growth vis-a-vis the workforce.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying the UE rate accurately reflects the percentage of those actually (not hypothetically) available for work who are not working.

"A poll found that about half of unemployed workers say they have given up looking for a job.
A Harris poll on behalf of Express Employment Professionals conducted last month found that 47% of such workers say they have "completely given up looking for work." The survey of 1,500 unemployed adult Americans also found that 82% of those who receive unemployment compensation say they would look harder for a job if those payments ran out. The other 18% agreed with the statement that they would be in such despair, they would give up looking for work altogether."
Click to expand...

I remember reading that poll, and I remember there were some issues with it, but I don't remember what those issues were. I'd have to look.
 
I don't know what the chances are of Obama being impeached. But people who claim there is not enough to impeach him for are just being silly. Representatives who dislike a president or other high U.S. official can impeach him without the sort of proof it would take to convict that person of a crime in a civil court. Impeachment is mainly a political action, not a criminal one--it has some of the character of a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system.

About all a president's enemies have to do is want him gone, and they can find the justification they need. Anyone who doubts that should read about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, whose enemies cooked up a law purposely to trap him. Johnson survived conviction (and therefore removal) by a single vote. He and B.J. Clinton belong to a club so select they are the only two members.

In Obama's case, his opponents wouldn't have to look very hard. Andy McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of Muslim jihadists who conspired to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, has laid out a detailed case for impeaching Obama. There are quite a few ways in which he has grossly violated the Constitution and otherwise abused his power--several times what would be needed for the House to draw up charges.

That's not to say impeaching Obama would be wise politically, nor is McCarthy calling for that. But if Republicans gain a solid majority in the Senate, House Republicans will probably become more willing to impeach him. The simple majority needed is already there, but no action is likely until there is stronger political support in the Senate.
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you feel the need to lie?
Unemployment is down because so many people without jobs are no longer counted as unemployed.
We have experienced a slow moving coup. The deficit is down for a year or two and then it is projected to grow every year until the nation's collapse.
This government has lied to you over and over and over yet you still believe...awesome. I will have whatever you are drinking.
Click to expand...
Welll, let's take a look.
January 2009: Unemployed = 12,058,000 and Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now = 5,708,000
Total not having but wanting job = 17,766,000

July 2014 Unemployed = 9,671,000 and Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now = 6,259,000
Total not having but wanting job = 15,930,000

Keep in mind that of those Not in the Labor Force Want a Job Now, about half haven't looked in over a year (and so are unlikely to start looking soon), some couldn't take a job if offered, and of those remaining, most stopped looking for personal reasons, not labor market reasons, and while now available, haven't started looking again yet.
 
"Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers."

TheNextEra said:
Notice the definition, cruel and oppressive. Yeah you're so oppressed you're posting on the internet. Seriously your comments show nothing but ignorance. In 2 more years you'll still be free so spare me your idiotic "tyranny" which you know NOTHING about.
Click to expand...
Did you notice the word "usually" that precedes "thought of"? That is there for your and other fellow travelers benefit.

Did you notice any of the rest of the portion I quoted that gives the historical use of the term? Did you bother to go read the article?

If you did read it I see no evidence that you understood it. You speak of knowing nothing and I agree that in this case the phrase suits you.
 
pinqy said:
Welll, let's take a look.
January 2009: Unemployed = 12,058,000 and Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now = 5,708,000
Total not having but wanting job = 17,766,000

July 2014 Unemployed = 9,671,000 and Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now = 6,259,000
Total not having but wanting job = 15,930,000

Keep in mind that of those Not in the Labor Force Want a Job Now, about half haven't looked in over a year (and so are unlikely to start looking soon), some couldn't take a job if offered, and of those remaining, most stopped looking for personal reasons, not labor market reasons, and while now available, haven't started looking again yet.
Click to expand...
You have made an assumption that the number of people who should be working has remained static. It should be growing. The actual unemployment rate is probably between 10 and 13%. We make it easy for people to live off the productive. If we stop that then the true numbers will emerge.

Why do you use the government's lies? I believe you know the truth.
 
Misterveritis said:
I disagree with your interpretation.

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.​

Impeachment is a political remedy to a political problem. He needs to be impeached. Boehner won't do it because Boehner is a very large part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Even with your bolded interpretation, it does not fit the Obama administration more than any other President since Grove Cleveland. Just because he has been a failure of a President does not mean we get to impeach him, when he has broken no law.
 
Misterveritis said:
You have made an assumption that the number of people who should be working has remained static.
Click to expand...
Nope. I've made no assumptions about any "should." I have stated the facts. You claimed the reason the number of Unemployed was down was because of people no longer being counted. I showed that the total number of people who want a job but are not working is down. "Should be working" is purely speculative.

It should be growing.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about "should," we're talking about "is." What you think should or should not be is irrelevant.

The actual unemployment rate is probably between 10 and 13%.
Click to expand...
Define your terms and we'll see if we can back that up. Even if you included everyone who says they want a job (regardless of ability to accept or if they have demonstrated they actually want a job), the UE rate would be 9.8%. So you're close, but do people who haven't looked for work in over a year (not even asking friends or family for job leads) tell us anything about current labor market conditions? Do people who couldn't accept a job if offered tell us anything?

We make it easy for people to live off the productive. If we stop that then the true numbers will emerge.
Click to expand...
They're not true numbers if they're hypothetical. It seems you want to include people who should want a job but don't as unemployed. That's a little strange.
 
matchlight said:
I don't know what the chances are of Obama being impeached. But people who claim there is not enough to impeach him for are just being silly. Representatives who dislike a president or other high U.S. official can impeach him without the sort of proof it would take to convict that person of a crime in a civil court. Impeachment is mainly a political action, not a criminal one--it has some of the character of a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system.

About all a president's enemies have to do is want him gone, and they can find the justification they need. Anyone who doubts that should read about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, whose enemies cooked up a law purposely to trap him. Johnson survived conviction (and therefore removal) by a single vote. He and B.J. Clinton belong to a club so select they are the only two members.

In Obama's case, his opponents wouldn't have to look very hard. Andy McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of Muslim jihadists who conspired to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, has laid out a detailed case for impeaching Obama. There are quite a few ways in which he has grossly violated the Constitution and otherwise abused his power--several times what would be needed for the House to draw up charges.

That's not to say impeaching Obama would be wise politically, nor is McCarthy calling for that. But if Republicans gain a solid majority in the Senate, House Republicans will probably become more willing to impeach him. The simple majority needed is already there, but no action is likely until there is stronger political support in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Which really doesn't make any sense. They can't convict him with a simple majority. It is actually impossible for Republicans to get to a 2/3 majority in this election (not just unlikely, there would have to be 2 more Senators up for re-election than there are), and by the time they could, Obama will be out of office anyway.

That's even if you think they win EVERY Senate seat this cycle. Which is highly, highly unlikely. Even if they do that, they need to convince all the Republicans (unlikely) and get 2 Democrats to vote with them. Remember with Clinton, one of the counts against him couldn't even get a simple majority in a Senate that had a Republican majority.
 
Misterveritis said:
You have made an assumption that the number of people who should be working has remained static. It should be growing. The actual unemployment rate is probably between 10 and 13%. We make it easy for people to live off the productive. If we stop that then the true numbers will emerge.

Why do you use the government's lies? I believe you know the truth.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "actual" unemployment rate? Please read this explanation of unemployment:
There Is No “True” Unemployment Rate
 
Misterveritis said:
I only answered you because your math was wrong.

Why do you like the tyrant and the party of tyranny?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Because he keeps people like you awake at night.




"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." ~ John Stuart Mill
 
joG said:
I do not really think that to be right.
Click to expand...
I will offer only the concluding paragraph from a treatise created in preparation for a possible Nixon impeachment:

http://oneutah.org/oneutah-filez/authors/firmage/Substantive Law of Impeachment.pdf

Impeachment, if it comes, should be based upon the commission of “great
offenses” that “subvert the Constitution”; such offenses might be indictable crimes or
political offenses that undermine the integrity of governmental institutions. Impeachment
and conviction must rest, however, upon the proven commission of such acts, rather than
upon patterns of individual behavior and governmental mismanagement that have existed
for some time but are now revealed by records never before made public. Remedies
appropriate to the latter exist both within the criminal law and the electoral and legislative
processes. The criminal law is best equipped to accomplish punishment or retribution,
while impeachment is designed as a means of political protection for the Republic.
Clearly, individual acts have occurred which warrant the investigation that is a part of the
process of impeachment. In the national interest, however, final actions of impeachment,
conviction, and removal must ultimately be founded upon a national consensus sufficient
to “overthrow party interest” 126 and based upon “broad and comprehensive principles of
public policy and duty.” 127​

Draw your own conclusions.
 
shrubnose said:
Because he keeps people like you awake at night.


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." ~ John Stuart Mill
Click to expand...
So tyranny is okay so long as I have fitful sleep?

That explains a few things...
 
iacardsfan said:
Even with your bolded interpretation, it does not fit the Obama administration more than any other President since Grove Cleveland. Just because he has been a failure of a President does not mean we get to impeach him, when he has broken no law.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. But you have to be willing to do a little homework on your own. His offenses against the Constitution are sufficient. Impeachment covers actual crimes and political acts that harm the Constitution. Claiming that earlier presidents got away with impeachable offenses is no excuse for inaction against our current tyrant.
 
pinqy said:
Nope. I've made no assumptions about any "should." I have stated the facts. You claimed the reason the number of Unemployed was down was because of people no longer being counted. I showed that the total number of people who want a job but are not working is down. "Should be working" is purely speculative.


We're not talking about "should," we're talking about "is." What you think should or should not be is irrelevant.


Define your terms and we'll see if we can back that up. Even if you included everyone who says they want a job (regardless of ability to accept or if they have demonstrated they actually want a job), the UE rate would be 9.8%. So you're close, but do people who haven't looked for work in over a year (not even asking friends or family for job leads) tell us anything about current labor market conditions? Do people who couldn't accept a job if offered tell us anything?

They're not true numbers if they're hypothetical. It seems you want to include people who should want a job but don't as unemployed. That's a little strange.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence I could give you that you would accept. I withdraw from this line of discussion. You may claim victory if you wish. It changes nothing.
 
Misterveritis said:
I mean one surmised by people other than government officials giving us rosy scenarios.
Click to expand...
As the link said:
Um, no. There is no “true” unemployment rate, just various indicators of the state of the labor market. Fortunately, these indicators pretty much move in tandem, so we’re not usually confused about whether the market is getting better or worse. But they do measure somewhat different things, and which one you want to look at depends on what questions you’re asking.

After all, what do we mean when we say someone is unemployed? We don’t just mean “not working”, because that applies to retirees, the disabled, playboys on yachts, etc.. We mean someone who wants to work but can’t find that work — a useful notion. But there’s some unavoidable fuzziness about both what it means to want to work and what it means to be unable to find work.

Suppose that I were to retire from the econ biz and take up origami, or something — but could still be tempted to come out and give lectures if offered million-dollar fees. Do I want to work or not? As a practical matter, no, since I don’t get offers in that range. But you could imagine a situation where the numbers were closer, and the question of whether I really want work is genuinely ambiguous.
...
The usual measure, U3, measures your desire to work by asking whether you have been actively searching in the recent past; it measures your ability to find work by your taking a job, any job. Obviously this can deviate from the Platonic ideal in both directions: there could be people who could find work if they were willing to take the jobs on offer, and there could be people who want to work but aren’t actively searching because they know that at the moment there’s no point — or who are working, but only part-time because that’s all they can find.

U6 casts a wider net; it includes people who are working part-time but say they want full-time work, it includes people who aren’t actively searching but either were working recently or say that they aren’t looking for lack of opportunities. Again, this could clearly deviate from the Platonic ideal, but it’s a reasonable stab at the problem.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
I will offer only the concluding paragraph from a treatise created in preparation for a possible Nixon impeachment:

http://oneutah.org/oneutah-filez/authors/firmage/Substantive Law of Impeachment.pdf

Impeachment, if it comes, should be based upon the commission of “great
offenses” that “subvert the Constitution”; such offenses might be indictable crimes or
political offenses that undermine the integrity of governmental institutions. Impeachment
and conviction must rest, however, upon the proven commission of such acts, rather than
upon patterns of individual behavior and governmental mismanagement that have existed
for some time but are now revealed by records never before made public. Remedies
appropriate to the latter exist both within the criminal law and the electoral and legislative
processes. The criminal law is best equipped to accomplish punishment or retribution,
while impeachment is designed as a means of political protection for the Republic.
Clearly, individual acts have occurred which warrant the investigation that is a part of the
process of impeachment. In the national interest, however, final actions of impeachment,
conviction, and removal must ultimately be founded upon a national consensus sufficient
to “overthrow party interest” 126 and based upon “broad and comprehensive principles of
public policy and duty.” 127​

Draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

So it is a tool to be used only in response to offenses.
 
Misterveritis said:
Yes. And the offenses can be criminal or against the Constitution. Read with an open mind.
Click to expand...

Okay . I had put a breach of the Constitution as worse than regular crime. It should be punished as crime.
 
rocket88 said:
Which really doesn't make any sense. They can't convict him with a simple majority. It is actually impossible for Republicans to get to a 2/3 majority in this election (not just unlikely, there would have to be 2 more Senators up for re-election than there are), and by the time they could, Obama will be out of office anyway.

That's even if you think they win EVERY Senate seat this cycle. Which is highly, highly unlikely. Even if they do that, they need to convince all the Republicans (unlikely) and get 2 Democrats to vote with them. Remember with Clinton, one of the counts against him couldn't even get a simple majority in a Senate that had a Republican majority.
Click to expand...

You're right that it takes a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate to convict after impeachment by the House. The Constitution sets that bar high enough that no President has ever been convicted. But I never suggested Republicans were likely to win enough Senate seats in the coming elections to make that possible. Even with a big victory, they would need more Senate Democrats to vote with them than they could hope to win over.

But nothing says you can't move toward impeachment unless you're certain you have enough votes to convict. It's not likely there would have been enough votes in the Senate to convict Mr. Nixon or Mr. Clinton, either. And as it turned out, even Andrew Johnson's enemies came up one vote short in the Senate. But in none of those three cases did that stop the House from starting impeachment proceedings. And that was enough. Nixon resigned when he saw he was sure to be impeached, and both Johnson and Clinton were politically neutered for the remainder of their terms after being impeached. As in chess, you don't have to eliminate the king to win--you only need to put him in check.

The problem is not a lack of votes in the House, where a simple majority is enough to impeach. Republicans already have that and may well add to their majority. McCarthy's argument, which I agree with, is that it's probably not wise politically for Republicans to move to impeach Mr. Obama unless or until they also control the Senate. No one knows just how many Senate seats they would need to gain to make the risk of moving toward impeachment acceptable. But the more solid their majority, the more likely such a move would become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom