TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 119
   
Posts: 3421/3428
EXP: 18547317
For next: 382029
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 3935 days
Last activity: 3935 days
|  #1 Posted on 28.7.14 1216.32
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1218.52 | Does anyone really think there's any chance of Obama being impeached? I mean, to me, with any removal from office requiring a 2/3 vote in the Senate, that's clearly never going to happen, right? So why do I keep having to skip over headlines about it when scrolling through Google News?
I do occasionally read some of those articles, and this one here from the Associated Press says that in the midst of the Clinton impeachment and trial, "the last time Republicans unleashed impeachment proceedings against a Democratic president, they lost five House seats in an election they seemed primed to win handily." So why would the Republicans threaten it? Not just threaten it, but some, such as Palin, say it is all Americans' duty to vote for candidates who support impeaching the President. Given that the absolute best case for the Republicans is President Joe Biden, and the almost certain outcome is trial that is doomed to end without their desired result, what is their objective here? Is it that the potential forced airing of some Democrat dirty laundry outweighs the lost support that would come with forcing the trial? It doesn't sound like it played out that way the previous time.
So all that leads me to believe this is probably being propped up by Democrats as a scare tactic to encourage support. That's how clearly objective source Steve Scalise, House Majority Whip, who categorized it as the first time a party was trying to whip up an impeachment controversy about its own president. This makes sense to me.
Is this an issue that is likely to influence how people approach this election? Will it be a major issue until November, or will it go away before then? | Promote this thread! |             | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 143
Posts: 5184/5284
EXP: 35494172
For next: 337723
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 2094 days
Last activity: 2094 days
|  #2 Posted on 28.7.14 1224.01
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1224.01 | Originally posted by TheBucsFan
So why would the Republicans threaten it?
Probably the same reason why some Republicans brag about how they voted to overturn the ACA 30-some odd times: They think it will play will with their constituents.
If I read the Wikipedia article correctly, the Impeachment will pass in the House with a simple majority, but the trial is in the Senate and needs a two-thirds majority. That would mean 22 Democrats/independents to join all Republicans. That will not happen.
This is a just a waste of time for everyone. Congress should just get to the issues at hand instead of genuflecting to the extreme elements of their parties. | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 162
Posts: 6222/7105
EXP: 54447231
For next: 844164
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 1356 days
Last activity: 1356 days
| #3 Posted on 28.7.14 1415.49
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1422.26 | Unless, you know, they take that entire "Uphold the constitution" thing seriously.
But, judging on the last 6 years (well, more than that) they don't. | TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 119
Posts: 3423/3428
EXP: 18547317
For next: 382029
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 3935 days
Last activity: 3935 days
| #4 Posted on 28.7.14 1437.26
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1438.02 | | Would you only vote for a candidate in the primaries who supports pursuing impeachment? Would you consider not voting for the Republicans if a person who was anti-impeachment was the nominee? | wannaberockstar
Frankfurter
Level: 61
Posts: 586/745
EXP: 1872004
For next: 4603
Since: 7.3.02
Since last post: 3154 days
Last activity: 617 days
| #5 Posted on 28.7.14 1448.25
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1453.41 | | Because Republicans have drifted so far right they care more about being primaried than they do appeasing to centre America. | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 143
Posts: 5185/5284
EXP: 35494172
For next: 337723
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 2094 days
Last activity: 2094 days
| #6 Posted on 28.7.14 1448.28
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1457.25 | Originally posted by TheBucsFan
Would you only vote for a candidate in the primaries who supports pursuing impeachment? Would you consider not voting for the Republicans if a person who was anti-impeachment was the nominee?
I'm an Independent, so I do not get a primary. I never bother going because every primary is "School Board: Choose no more than three." Ain't nobody got time for that! | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 131
Posts: 3921/4785
EXP: 25854164
For next: 570526
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 2100 days
Last activity: 1939 days
| #7 Posted on 28.7.14 1511.13
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1513.23 | It is amazing how Obama spun it to "Oh look, I used my executive powers less than any modern President and I am getting sued for it." to a whole another level with this. Palin is a moron, don't go by my liberal bias, watch Game Changer on HBO. She is the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. She opens her mouth about this and Obama is running with it. Then the rest of the Republican Party is falling into the trap as well since the guy replacing Cantor, casualty number one of Election 2014, is all in too.
The fact of the matter is Dems have something to run on besides the Supreme Court decisions. Obama's numbers are bad, yet the Dems may have a slight chance to keep the Senate. They are going to lose seats, but not as many as people think. If the Dems can show how out of touch the GOP and is one of those issues. | TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 119
Posts: 3424/3428
EXP: 18547317
For next: 382029
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 3935 days
Last activity: 3935 days
| #8 Posted on 28.7.14 1524.14
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1524.39 | | My question was directed at StaggerLee. I should have used the quote feature. | AWArulz
Scrapple
Level: 126
Posts: 3339/3933
EXP: 22758174
For next: 325993
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 4 days
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #9 Posted on 28.7.14 1655.03
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1657.31 | I'll just say that to impeach or not to impeach (because I don't believe it will ever happen) isn't a voting issue for me. Palin doesn't have to be elected, she's just a pundit for all purposes, not much different than Chris Matthews on the left, so I pay her little mind.
I do not get the adoration for her among the very conservative (as I am very conservative). I don't know exactly what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" El Presidente is supposed to be accused of. Benghazi crap, I imagine. He's gone in 2 years, live with it. | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 89
Posts: 1595/1784
EXP: 6796233
For next: 119695
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 195 days
Last activity: 3 days
| #10 Posted on 28.7.14 1716.33
Reposted on: 28.7.21 1718.24 | | The Republicans have to talk impeachment because they have nothing else to talk about. They've made it clear that they will never support anything Barack Obama agrees to, even if it was their own idea; at this point, they've conditioned their base to make that a requirement. With Obama as President and a Democratic Senate, they therefore have no chance of passing anything. They could of course keep focusing on how Obamacare is terrible and Obama is ruining the economy, but as people discover that Obamacare is actually getting more people covered and driving costs down, and as the economy continues to improve, those become less useful. So, talk impeachment, and keep the accusations as vague as possible since there's no there there. | Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 162
Posts: 6714/7062
EXP: 54836332
For next: 455063
Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 2345 days
Last activity: 1914 days
|  #11 Posted on 28.7.14 2155.58
Reposted on: 28.7.21 2156.08 | There's also Boehner's vague "lawsuit against the president" that seems totally laughable from both a legal and common-sense perspective.
The GOP's single-minded obsession with destroying Obamacare will (or in some ways already has) ruined them. They've spent years demonizing Obamacare as the apocalypse, yet since the program is actually worthwhile and doing some good, it's not a bogeyman whatsoever. | TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 119
Posts: 3426/3428
EXP: 18547317
For next: 382029
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 3935 days
Last activity: 3935 days
| #12 Posted on 29.7.14 0529.27
Reposted on: 29.7.21 0529.33 | Originally posted by AWArulz
I'll just say that to impeach or not to impeach (because I don't believe it will ever happen) isn't a voting issue for me. Palin doesn't have to be elected, she's just a pundit for all purposes, not much different than Chris Matthews on the left, so I pay her little mind.
I do not get the adoration for her among the very conservative (as I am very conservative). I don't know exactly what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" El Presidente is supposed to be accused of. Benghazi crap, I imagine. He's gone in 2 years, live with it.
And this is what I would expect the most common opinion to be of people who come from a similar position. It's the most sensible one for sure. That's why this impeachment uproar all of a sudden has me surprised.
But I seem to remember a similar short-lived and unconvincing movement for a Bush impeachment too, mostly from fringe voices, so I guess this is just something that comes up every presidency. Obviously it did for Clinton.
I don't mean to say Obama isn't a crook, nor Bush. But they are guilty of the same sorts of crimes that every administration has been guilty of in escalating scale for years and years and years. Getting a president removed from office is going to take something extraordinary, outside the normal Washington corruption, in order to overcome the political hurdle that is a 2/3 vote in the Senate. | AWArulz
Scrapple
Level: 126
Posts: 3340/3933
EXP: 22758174
For next: 325993
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 4 days
| | | Y!: | |
|
| #13 Posted on 29.7.14 2051.45
Reposted on: 29.7.21 2052.02 | I read today that Boehner said that it came from democrats. I doubt that's where it started.
Originally posted by Speaker Boehner
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed Democrats on Tuesday for saying House Republicans want to impeach President Obama, calling it "a scam started by Democrats at the White House."
"This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the president's own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Why? Because they're trying to rally their people to give money and to show up in this year's election," Boehner said.
"We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans," he added, for emphasis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-boehner-obama-impeachment-talk-a-democratic-scam/
Palin nonewithstanding.
| lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 131
Posts: 3923/4785
EXP: 25854164
For next: 570526
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 2100 days
Last activity: 1939 days
| #14 Posted on 29.7.14 2104.00
Reposted on: 29.7.21 2105.06 | Originally posted by AWArulz
I read today that Boehner said that it came from democrats. I doubt that's where it started.
Originally posted by Speaker Boehner
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed Democrats on Tuesday for saying House Republicans want to impeach President Obama, calling it "a scam started by Democrats at the White House."
"This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the president's own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Why? Because they're trying to rally their people to give money and to show up in this year's election," Boehner said.
"We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans," he added, for emphasis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-boehner-obama-impeachment-talk-a-democratic-scam/
Palin nonewithstanding.
Palin started it, but Obama is cashing in on it. As well he should when something that stupid is said. There is nothing Obama has done that is worth impeachment. Especially compared to the previous administration that lied about going to war. That to me is a public execution offense, but nothing happened. Shit, I saw almost all of them on the History Channel Worlds at War being smug about going to war.
If the Dems want to cash in on this myth, its less offensive than cashing in on the myth that climate change doesn't exist. Boehner has been a joke of a Speaker and I imagine it will get worse if they do get Cogress. | wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 97
Posts: 2169/2190
EXP: 9038904
For next: 278454
Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX
Since last post: 2980 days
Last activity: 1965 days
| #15 Posted on 30.7.14 0934.38
Reposted on: 30.7.21 0937.28 | http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/21-million-reasons-why-dems-love-the-gops-anti-obama-push
"I’ve been keeping a close eye on this story in recent years, and I remember reporting back in June 2012 on then-Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the #2 Republican in the chamber at the time, telling a broadcast audience that presidential impeachment was “a possibility” if the Obama administration failed to implement immigration policy to the GOP’s satisfaction.
It wasn’t an isolated comment. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said in April 2013 he wanted to impeach Obama because of ”all of the czars,” while Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) talked in March 2013 about impeaching Obama for no apparent reason. What’s more, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto suggested in 2012 that Obama might be liable to impeachment over recess appointments; Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) raised the prospect of impeaching Obama over DOMA; and Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) talked up the idea of presidential impeachment because “it would tie things up” in Washington for a while, making governing impossible. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) even introduced an impeachment resolution, just in case Obama sends U.S. troops to Syria.
We can even go as far back as 2010, when both Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) also raised the specter of impeaching Obama, for reasons that still don’t make any sense, four years later." | Dionysus
Bockwurst
Level: 51
Posts: 343/566
EXP: 958162
For next: 55783
Since: 10.7.11
From: San Francisco, CA
Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 1130 days
| #16 Posted on 30.7.14 1055.42
Reposted on: 30.7.21 1059.02 | As a Democrat, I wish that impeachment was more often seriously considered by Congress. Just having the plausible threat of it on the table would cause Presidents to improve their behavior, and would make them less likely to perform executive actions that are beyond their Constitutional authority.
(edited by Dionysus on 30.7.14 0856) | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 143
Posts: 5187/5284
EXP: 35494172
For next: 337723
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 2094 days
Last activity: 2094 days
| #17 Posted on 30.7.14 1159.31
Reposted on: 30.7.21 1204.24 | Originally posted by Dionysus
As a Democrat, I wish that impeachment was more often seriously considered by Congress. Just having the plausible threat of it on the table would cause Presidents to improve their behavior, and would make them less likely to perform executive actions that are beyond their Constitutional authority.
(edited by Dionysus on 30.7.14 0856)
I only raise this because I'm in an US History class right now, but every president except for William Henry Harrison has issued Executive Orders. It is not going to stop anytime soon unless there is a law forbidding it. It has gone on since day one, so it is practically codified by president. | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 131
Posts: 3925/4785
EXP: 25854164
For next: 570526
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 2100 days
Last activity: 1939 days
| #18 Posted on 30.7.14 1252.00
Reposted on: 30.7.21 1253.04 | | Sometimes, we need those Executive Orders, too. I want him to do an Executive Order on immigration since this Congress refuses to even though they call it a crisis. I would like to remind Congress, too, they can make war. They have the power to do that not the President at least not for an extended period of time. So, when hear all this stuff about Russia and the Middle East, they are the ones who have a respectability to act as well. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 107
Posts: 2691/2743
EXP: 12765320
For next: 326033
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 2764 days
Last activity: 2666 days
| #19 Posted on 30.7.14 1751.19
Reposted on: 30.7.21 1751.28 | | The Republican Party is in a bind because they are really two distinct parties. The "mainstream" Republicans helped create the monster and now they are terrified of it, especially in the primaries. They are running so far right in primaries they are being boxed into what they know are poor decisions (i.e. impeachment). The Speaker know this is stupid, a waste of time and very likely to hurt rather then help them in the general election so he hopes the lawsuit thing will satisfy the horde. What they don't really grasp that while important in the primaries, the true Tea Party is still a minority not only of the general public but within their own party. | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 241
Posts: 16107/17749
EXP: 218816517
For next: 1655974
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 12 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #20 Posted on 31.7.14 0048.17
Reposted on: 31.7.21 0049.41 | | If you've never ever taken [ Palin | Boehner | generic Republican | all Republicans ] seriously before, what is it about impeachment that makes [ her | his | their ] statements around it so newsworthy and believable? |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
