• 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!

Should Obama be impeached?

Should Obama be impeached?

  • Total voters
    81
APACHERAT said:
And what was Barack Obama's response to that ? He threw a long time ally who protected Israels southern flank under the bus.

In four years Obama has turned the entire Middle East and North Africa into a complete basket case. Frickin outstanding.
Click to expand...

bush started it by overthrowing saddam.

besides the military have not been reviewing their Clausewitz
 
notquiteright said:
Laffin, you are starting to bluff and bluster now... :roll:

I mention McCain as he at least says what he means on various issues than ***** mouthed Cruz when it comes to impeachment. Cruz at a tiny GOP chapter's dinner and Coburn in his old stomping ground of East Oklahoma can do no better than repeat the same old 'lawless' crap but short stroke any call for action- other than vote for the GOP...

These 'polite' senators use such terms as lawless, most lawless, BUT tap dance around using the 'I' word... :lamo

They are not being polite, they know they have no Constitutional leg to stand on and they damn well know it :doh

Still it is fun to see a CON struggle with reality. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Laffin.....yeah I was. :lol: Its not the point of whether they do or don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. The Point of it, was what Cruz's meaning was. Especially coming after Coburns remarks. Which clearly you have proven you couldn't comprehend what he meant. First Denying it.....which that's been shown for what it is. Now this new tangent of yours you try go with. Although that slant of yours pretty much tells all why you don't think like those conservatives or understand them much.
 
sedan said:
mkn3.png


Live from CPAC: The Most Important Panel Everyone Missed | Brookings Institution​
Click to expand...

Was there a competing panel?
 
MMC said:
Laffin.....yeah I was. Its not the point of whether they do or don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. The Point of it, was what Cruz's meaning was. Especially coming after Coburns remarks. Which clearly you have proven you couldn't comprehend what he meant. First Denying it.....which that's been shown for what it is. Now this new tangent of yours you try go with. Although that slant of yours pretty much tells all why you don't think like those conservatives or understand them much.
Click to expand...

Awwww we were so close to getting the CON colored glasses off your face and then ya go and glue them on!

Oh I think most of 'we' understand what Coburn and Cruz were doing- pandering to their base. Empty words trying to sound tough. neither man is known for not being able to say EXACTLY what they mean and if they meant to call for the President's Impeachment they would have. Best Coburn could do was say 'getting close' :doh

Throw crazy words around like lawless but can't say Impeachment? oh PLAHHHESSSSE... :doh

It isn't my slant that has reality turned on it's ear. those two CONs know there is no grounds for Impeachment and thus have not called for it.

In a way I see you as trying to stare hard enough at a speech and stare the meaning into it no one intended.

In another just blinded by your own partisan political ahhh shall we just call it intensity....
 
notquiteright said:
Awwww we were so close to getting the CON colored glasses off your face and then ya go and glue them on!

Oh I think most of 'we' understand what Coburn and Cruz were doing- pandering to their base. Empty words trying to sound tough. neither man is known for not being able to say EXACTLY what they mean and if they meant to call for the President's Impeachment they would have. Best Coburn could do was say 'getting close' :doh

Throw crazy words around like lawless but can't say Impeachment? oh PLAHHHESSSSE... :doh

It isn't my slant that has reality turned on it's ear. those two CONs know there is no grounds for Impeachment and thus have not called for it.

In a way I see you as trying to stare hard enough at a speech and stare the meaning into it no one intended.

In another just blinded by your own partisan political ahhh shall we just call it intensity....
Click to expand...

:doh Coburn is retiring. Also like I stated. Thanks for showing why your not so much up onto the political. One day you will figure out that Senatorial Part they play.
 
Sounds like a broken record. Maybe the GOP should stop talking about it and do it already.
 
Navy Pride said:
After all his bungling and violating the constitution should Obama be impeached? please put your partisan views aside right or left and try and answer the question honestly.
Click to expand...

Please list the impeachable offences.
 
MMC said:
Coburn is retiring. Also like I stated. Thanks for showing why your not so much up onto the political. One day you will figure out that Senatorial Part they play.
Click to expand...

Laughing, Coburn represents my state so yes I heard a story for 5 about him retiring... :roll:

That doesn't mean he has stopped his CON game or pandering to the base. He is going to work it all the way out the door. You think he should do otherwise? I sure don't. Oh I am 'up onto the political'. Just not desperate to see elephants in the tea leaves.

Dance around all you want but neither man called for Impeachment, did throw ignorant words around like 'most lawless'. (You really going to stick with they are too polite to call for the House to move on Impeachment????)

Nice try but if the TPs had a real case to present in the House they would have.

One day you will figure out the true meaning of words and though I doubt it, quit trying to read your partisan bias into what the CONs say. Ya really should quit, I am the one saying Cruz isn't a dumbass and you keep insisting he is. :doh
 
it would be a waste of time since the Democrats control the senate
 
Smeagol said:
Please list the impeachable offences.
Click to expand...

by not following the constitution.

changing the healthcare law, only congress can change, delay law.

by not enforcing all federal laws...........the constitution states ...the president "shall".......it does not say "may"
 
Jetboogieman said:
Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

Why should he be? For the same reason every president in the past 50 years should have been, extreme violations against the constitution, wars based on false pretenses, extra-judicial killings.
Click to expand...

As a referendum on the changing roles of the presidency, I'm okay with this. As the deranged anti-Obama obsession of the right, no. The trouble is, impeaching one president over the actions of several of them isn't going to have the intended effect. The fact remains that Obama hasn't done anything particularly different than his predecessors, and if we weren't going to impeach Bush over lying in order to start a war, there's not a whole lot we're going to impeach anyone over.

All that said, the lack of specific examples and constitutional analysis to justify any instances of accusing Obama of violating the constitution amuse me greatly.

Jetboogieman said:
Nixon should have faced full impeachment and trial.
Click to expand...

He would have had he not resigned. That's why he resigned. The charges against Clinton were nothing more than a political power grab, and Johnson faced impeachment for opposing an unconstitutional law. Nixon would have been the only legitimate impeachment of a president the US has seen, and would have been the only one to actually convict.

vasuderatorrent said:
The 2012 Republican Party Platform is this: Prove that Obama is bad. The End. That isn't anything close to what Preibus envisioned for the Party.
Click to expand...

They want to believe so badly. That their nonsense isn't actually true doesn't even register.

Navy Pride said:
4 men die in a terrorist attack that could have been avoided if someone was at the helm. Not bad enough but Clinton and Obama lie about it and say it was caused by a video.......If that is not grounds for impeachment I don' know what is my left wing friend.
Click to expand...

Benghazi is basically the free square in Partisan Republican Nonsense Bingo.

clownboy said:
That's just not true. In fact the GOP is very involved and on point at the local level. That's why they rule the People's House and more than a few state legisltures. The federal is getting closer to ruling the entire nation with an iron fist, but they're not there yet.
Click to expand...

And yet the people they're governing are suffering. They are very involved. They're involved in making sure that hungry people stay hungry, sick people stay sick, and gay people remain second class citizens.

Navy Pride said:
I really have mixed emotions over this......I think Obama deserved to be impeached for all his violations of the Constitution but then you look at what with take his place and that scares the hell out of you.
Click to expand...

As above, please provide examples of things that actually violate the constitution. No, the tenth amendment does not allow states to override the federal government. That's another square on the Bingo board.

Navy Pride said:
Perssonally I have never been poor
Click to expand...

No part of me is surprised by this. Never experiencing the plight of those who are struggling in this country seems to be one of the main requirements for holding right wing views. You got lucky but can't see it as anything besides your own amazing talents, so everyone else who isn't as lucky must be inferior in some way.

Navy Pride said:
How about housing, cars, booze, dope? should we buy that for them to because is exactly what is happening with unemployment compensation..
Click to expand...

What makes you think that people who can't afford food or healthcare can afford housing or transportation? Also booze and dope are extremely cheap compared to everything else listed here except perhaps food, but that goes out the window if there are kids involved. As someone who has never been poor, it doesn't surprise me that you don't really know how much things cost.

vasuderatorrent said:
Then I would say very few Americans have ever been poor. The US government defines it differently.

I very vividly remember finding out I was poor in 1993. My parents always told me that we were middle class. I never questioned it. My president Bill Clinton told me that middle class was defined as families earning between $70,000 and $200,000 per year. Boy did that change my world view. I have my suspicions it changed the way a lot of Americans viewed their lot in life.
Click to expand...

And more. "The problem doesn't affect me, so there must not be a problem." Were you one of those 50 million people without healthcare? No? Then there is a problem even if it didn't affect you.

Dragonfly said:
For those who want to impeach Obama - did you want to impeach G.W. Bush too?
Click to expand...

A lot of people who now reject Bush were pretty supportive of him at the time.

Navy Pride said:
Their were plenty of reasons to impeach Clinton but they could never kick him out of office because of the lap dog democrat Senate.
Click to expand...

Such as?

Kobie said:
Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
Click to expand...

If Richard Clarke says that no such offer happened, then no such offer happened. He is one of the foremost minds in the entire counterterrorism field and has more integrity than most people ever do.

APACHERAT said:
I see liberal revisionist history is at work. We are now at 4,000 deaths and because G.W. Bush stuck with Clinton's failed terrorist policies that Al Qaeda wasn't a national security issue but a law enforcement issue and it's now Bush's fault ignoring the findings of the 9-11 Commission.
Click to expand...

Almost no one actually thinks that Bush could have prevented 9/11. That his responses to it were to start an illegal war for false reasons and push for legislation that stripped people of their 4th amendments rights, those he is blamed for.

APACHERAT said:
And what was Barack Obama's response to that ? He threw a long time ally who protected Israels southern flank under the bus.

In four years Obama has turned the entire Middle East and North Africa into a complete basket case. Frickin outstanding.
Click to expand...

Obama isn't responsible to Israel. He is not tasked with protecting Israel's interests. He is tasked with protecting America's interests. Learn the difference. But I do like how you think that Obama is somehow causing a whole bunch of revolutions and civil wars in other countries. It's pretty funny.

ernst barkmann said:
by not following the constitution.

changing the healthcare law, only congress can change, delay law.

by not enforcing all federal laws...........the constitution states ...the president "shall".......it does not say "may"
Click to expand...

Wow! An actual answer. Not, you know, a good answer. But at least an answer. Okay, let's dig in. Please define "executive power" and explain why the things you say the president has done (please give sufficient details as to what those things are) do not fall under that definition. Please ensure that this definition also does not call for any previous president with an R next to his name to have similarly violated his duties. Also ensure that this definition allows Thomas Jefferson to make the Louisiana Purchase and not leave that power to congress.

--------------

In summation, no, there is no instance of the president actually committing any crimes to warrant removal from office.
 
Paschendale said:
Wow! An actual answer. Not, you know, a good answer. But at least an answer. Okay, let's dig in. Please define "executive power" and explain why the things you say the president has done (please give sufficient details as to what those things are) do not fall under that definition. Please ensure that this definition also does not call for any previous president with an R next to his name to have similarly violated his duties. Also ensure that this definition allows Thomas Jefferson to make the Louisiana Purchase and not leave that power to congress.

--------------

In summation, no, there is no instance of the president actually committing any crimes to warrant removal from office.
Click to expand...

the OP was Obama, i do not want to put forth that he is the only one, many presidents have violated constitutional law, and not been held accountable.
 
Paschendale said:
Were you one of those 50 million people without healthcare? No?
Click to expand...

Without health care? No. There is a hospital within 7 miles of my house that would treat me no matter what. Without health insurance? I was never stupid enough to pay for health insurance until Jan 1, 2014. I only did that because I thought it was required by law.

Who are these 50 million people without HEALTH CARE ? or did you spell Health Insurance wrong?
 
Paschendale said:
As a referendum on the changing roles of the presidency, I'm okay with this. As the deranged anti-Obama obsession of the right, no. The trouble is, impeaching one president over the actions of several of them isn't going to have the intended effect. The fact remains that Obama hasn't done anything particularly different than his predecessors, and if we weren't going to impeach Bush over lying in order to start a war, there's not a whole lot we're going to impeach anyone over.

All that said, the lack of specific examples and constitutional analysis to justify any instances of accusing Obama of violating the constitution amuse me greatly.



He would have had he not resigned. That's why he resigned. The charges against Clinton were nothing more than a political power grab, and Johnson faced impeachment for opposing an unconstitutional law. Nixon would have been the only legitimate impeachment of a president the US has seen, and would have been the only one to actually convict.



They want to believe so badly. That their nonsense isn't actually true doesn't even register.



Benghazi is basically the free square in Partisan Republican Nonsense Bingo.



And yet the people they're governing are suffering. They are very involved. They're involved in making sure that hungry people stay hungry, sick people stay sick, and gay people remain second class citizens.



As above, please provide examples of things that actually violate the constitution. No, the tenth amendment does not allow states to override the federal government. That's another square on the Bingo board.



No part of me is surprised by this. Never experiencing the plight of those who are struggling in this country seems to be one of the main requirements for holding right wing views. You got lucky but can't see it as anything besides your own amazing talents, so everyone else who isn't as lucky must be inferior in some way.



What makes you think that people who can't afford food or healthcare can afford housing or transportation? Also booze and dope are extremely cheap compared to everything else listed here except perhaps food, but that goes out the window if there are kids involved. As someone who has never been poor, it doesn't surprise me that you don't really know how much things cost.



And more. "The problem doesn't affect me, so there must not be a problem." Were you one of those 50 million people without healthcare? No? Then there is a problem even if it didn't affect you.



A lot of people who now reject Bush were pretty supportive of him at the time.



Such as?



If Richard Clarke says that no such offer happened, then no such offer happened. He is one of the foremost minds in the entire counterterrorism field and has more integrity than most people ever do.



Almost no one actually thinks that Bush could have prevented 9/11. That his responses to it were to start an illegal war for false reasons and push for legislation that stripped people of their 4th amendments rights, those he is blamed for.



Obama isn't responsible to Israel. He is not tasked with protecting Israel's interests. He is tasked with protecting America's interests. Learn the difference. But I do like how you think that Obama is somehow causing a whole bunch of revolutions and civil wars in other countries. It's pretty funny.



Wow! An actual answer. Not, you know, a good answer. But at least an answer. Okay, let's dig in. Please define "executive power" and explain why the things you say the president has done (please give sufficient details as to what those things are) do not fall under that definition. Please ensure that this definition also does not call for any previous president with an R next to his name to have similarly violated his duties. Also ensure that this definition allows Thomas Jefferson to make the Louisiana Purchase and not leave that power to congress.

--------------

In summation, no, there is no instance of the president actually committing any crimes to warrant removal from office.
Click to expand...


No part of me is surprised by this. Never experiencing the plight of those who are struggling in this country seems to be one of the main requirements for holding right wing views. You got lucky but can't see it as anything besides your own amazing talents, so everyone else who isn't as lucky must be inferior in some way.

Until you have walked in my shoes my left wing friend don't criticize me...You have no clue what I have gone through in my life......Nobody ever gave me anything and any person is this country can make it but when your daddy Obama gives them all the giveaways there is no incentive for people to work...People like you love to give money away as long its not yours. The rest of your comments are not worth responding to.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
After all his bungling and violating the constitution should Obama be impeached? please put your partisan views aside right or left and try and answer the question honestly.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Nothing will destroy the GOP more than that sort of bitter over the top effort to help emasculate government. Please get this going ASAP.
 
ernst barkmann said:
by not following the constitution.

changing the healthcare law, only congress can change, delay law.
Click to expand...

That's very vague.

by not enforcing all federal laws...........the constitution states ...the president "shall".......it does not say "may"
Click to expand...

Still very vague. I was hoping to see specific examples. Nevertheless, do you think nearly every President is our lifetime should have also been impeached?

- Bush enacted the Patriot ACT, which seems to violate the Fourth Amendment.
- Many Presidents have waged covert wars hat have toppled governments without congressional declarations of war.
- Nearly every President since FDR has appointed White House Czars and despite the propaganda from the conservative media to their gullible followers, President Bush had 46 White House Czars. When the conservative pundits were accusing Obama of using Czars to subvert the constitution Obama had 32, 14 MORE that Bush.
 
Last edited:
I voted no. Obama no worse than Bush or Reagan when it comes to wrong doing. Actually I don't think he's as bad.
 
Certain RW posters put out these general platitudes about impeachment rather than specifics on issues.
While DEMs rally around the GOP Tax Reform bill that House GOPs have killed by the Hastert rule.
And McConnell has killed by the filibuster.
D.C. pols only care about "talking" about tax reform .
 
Last edited:
Yet you'll never get a SPECIFIC amswer on an issue/subissue from so many of them.
They even swing and miss at a softball like Keystone XL .
haymarket said:
Absolutely. Nothing will destroy the GOP more than that sort of bitter over the top effort to help emasculate government. Please get this going ASAP.
Click to expand...
 
I could see Sanders and Manchin voting against BHO.
However, Kirk from IL would sustain, looking ahead at his 2016 reelection.
No word on him yet after his stroke.
There are plenty of young guns like my REP who would be ready .
TurtleDude said:
it would be a waste of time since the Democrats control the senate
Click to expand...
 
Navy Pride said:
Until you have walked in my shoes my left wing friend don't criticize me...You have no clue what I have gone through in my life......Nobody ever gave me anything and any person is this country can make it but when your daddy Obama gives them all the giveaways there is no incentive for people to work...People like you love to give money away as long its not yours. The rest of your comments are not worth responding to.
Click to expand...

But that's just the point. You haven't walked in the shoes of the millions of Americans who never had it as good as you did, yet you condemn them.

Plus, I love the regurgitated talking points. "No one ever gave me anything", "safety nets remove the incentive to work", "Obama gives away free stuff". One more and I get Bingo.

vasuderatorrent said:
Without health care? No. There is a hospital within 7 miles of my house that would treat me no matter what. Without health insurance? I was never stupid enough to pay for health insurance until Jan 1, 2014. I only did that because I thought it was required by law.

Who are these 50 million people without HEALTH CARE? or did you spell Health Insurance wrong?
Click to expand...

There is a great deal of care that a lot of people need that is not dispensed from an emergency room. The need for coverage of chronic conditions cannot be overlooked. It is a grossly ignorant position to think that because emergency rooms won't turn people with broken bones away that they have adequate healthcare. Just because something kills you over a few years rather than an afternoon doesn't make it not serious. There are still millions of Americans, even with the implementation of Obamacare, that cannot get any treatment for non-acute conditions. Complications from hypertension alone are estimated to result in a thousand deaths every day, and hypertension is one of the most documented conditions that goes untreated among the poor.

So no, that hospital will not treat you no matter what. They'll help you survive acute illnesses and injuries no matter what, but if you get a tumor, you're on your own. If you have hypertension, you're on your own. If you have complications from diabetes, you're on your own. Not everything is an emergency. A lot of things are degenerative.

A lot of necessary care, especially preventative care, is denied to the poor, and they die because of it.

ernst barkmann said:
the OP was Obama, i do not want to put forth that he is the only one, many presidents have violated constitutional law, and not been held accountable.
Click to expand...

So no, you can't actually articulate an argument for why the president ought to be impeached that isn't simply a few talking points. You claim he violated his constitutionally authorized powers, but can't even define what they are. Make a supported argument. Anything else is just nonsense.
 
Smeagol said:
That's very vague.



Still very vague. I was hoping to see specific examples. Nevertheless, do you think nearly every President is our lifetime should have also been impeached?

- Bush enacted the Patriot ACT, which seems to violate the Fourth Amendment.
- Many Presidents have waged covert wars hat have toppled governments without congressional declarations of war.
- Nearly every President since FDR has appointed White House Czars and despite the propaganda from the conservative media to their gullible followers, President Bush had 46 White House Czars. When the conservative pundits were accusing Obama of using Czars to subvert the constitution Obama had 32, 14 MORE that Bush.
Click to expand...

this is true for democrats and conservatives

but you seem, to want to talk about conservatives, the OP is Obama.

Obama has violated the constitution by what is actions and kept the laws under Bush in places, also the NDAA.

ANY FAILURE TO FOLLOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

as i stated... the Constitution states the president "shall"..........it do not say the president "may", then it comes to enforcement of law.
 
Paschendale said:
So no, you can't actually articulate an argument for why the president ought to be impeached that isn't simply a few talking points. You claim he violated his constitutionally authorized powers, but can't even define what they are. Make a supported argument. Anything else is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

the constitution is clear, ....if any person who takes the oath to to preserve protect and defend the constitution violates that oath, they are outside of the law.

the president "shall"..............it does not say "may"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom