|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 22, 2014 17:43:16 GMT -5
Why Congress Can Impeach ObamaThe Times article does conclude impeachment is a bad idea... but it seems Obama is treading on very thin ice even with his more ardent supporters.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 22, 2014 18:53:51 GMT -5
Obama has deliberately poisoned the well with immigration hoping for the only thing that can save his
crappy presidential career that being impeachment or a government shut down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 22, 2014 19:02:07 GMT -5
Obama has deliberately poisoned the well with immigration hoping for the only thing that can save his crappy presidential career that being impeachment or a government shut down. When he's got even the New York Times asserting impeachment is justifiable, I'm not sure that saves his political career. And depending how the Republicans handle it, he may not even be able to convincingly blame the GOP for a shut-down. Especially with the egg he laid in the immigration speech, where he basically threatened to do it to them. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 22, 2014 23:34:56 GMT -5
The House has enough votes to impeach... but the Senate doesn't have the 67 needed to convict... impeachment and no conviction actually strengthened Bill Clinton's popularity...
It ain't gonna happen...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 23, 2014 1:05:26 GMT -5
The House has enough votes to impeach... but the Senate doesn't have the 67 needed to convict... impeachment and no conviction actually strengthened Bill Clinton's popularity... It ain't gonna happen... That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 3:52:15 GMT -5
I don't think...
|
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Nov 23, 2014 4:24:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Nov 23, 2014 8:38:34 GMT -5
The House has enough votes to impeach... but the Senate doesn't have the 67 needed to convict... impeachment and no conviction actually strengthened Bill Clinton's popularity... It ain't gonna happen... If the Senate is influenced by too many low-information voters (or the uneducated populace, as Dr. Ben Carson describes them), the President will avoid impeachment/conviction no matter how many "high crimes and misdemeanors" he's committed. |
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Nov 23, 2014 9:32:12 GMT -5
Sometimes we forget the wisdom of those who bothered to compose the Constitution and set the foundation of our Republic. I'm not sure why impeachment is always viewed in the lens of a jurist. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Law. Several of the founders fretted about the possibility of a tyrant being skillful enough and powerful enough to abrogate government. With our current massive bureaucracy the legislative branch is effectively just a symbol of our heritage - some folk feel the executive can govern most effectively and efficiently.
My point is that the intent of impeachment was not to be a legal process at all, but to be a legislative process in order to solve a usurping of government. I suppose similar to the notion of jury nullification - not a pretty action but one to be done in desperation. In crass terms,a POLITICAL solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 23, 2014 10:30:52 GMT -5
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 23, 2014 10:34:49 GMT -5
The House has enough votes to impeach... but the Senate doesn't have the 67 needed to convict... impeachment and no conviction actually strengthened Bill Clinton's popularity... It ain't gonna happen... If the Senate is influenced by too many low-information voters (or the uneducated populace, as Dr. Ben Carson describes them), the President will avoid impeachment/conviction no matter how many "high crimes and misdemeanors" he's committed. The Democrats in the Senate are, on occasion, also influenced by the Times. Admittedly, it's a long way from this article to impeachment, but we are further along the road than we were before Obama spoke the other night. It is not hard to imagine Democrats standing up for the Legislative Branch, or the future of their party - both of which Obama is jeopardizing. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 11:07:11 GMT -5
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 11:08:41 GMT -5
Sometimes we forget the wisdom of those who bothered to compose the Constitution and set the foundation of our Republic. I'm not sure why impeachment is always viewed in the lens of a jurist. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Law. Several of the founders fretted about the possibility of a tyrant being skillful enough and powerful enough to abrogate government. With our current massive bureaucracy the legislative branch is effectively just a symbol of our heritage - some folk feel the executive can govern most effectively and efficiently. My point is that the intent of impeachment was not to be a legal process at all, but to be a legislative process in order to solve a usurping of government. I suppose similar to the notion of jury nullification - not a pretty action but one to be done in desperation. In crass terms,a POLITICAL solution. The state of Texas has just approved historical textbooks teaching that Moses had a great influence on the writing of our Constitution... therefore was one of our Founding Fathers... |
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Nov 23, 2014 11:15:05 GMT -5
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... It's common knowledge that you know everything. A pity though for this vast intellect to be wasted upon such a small pond as this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 23, 2014 12:11:01 GMT -5
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... Then that is very unfortunate for the Democratic Party that they are unwilling/unable to rid themselves of the millstone that is this presidency. On strictly partisan grounds, 2 more years of Obama is much better for the GOP than it is for the Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 23, 2014 12:46:59 GMT -5
We have noticed.  |
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Nov 23, 2014 13:25:56 GMT -5
Sometimes we forget the wisdom of those who bothered to compose the Constitution and set the foundation of our Republic. I'm not sure why impeachment is always viewed in the lens of a jurist. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Law. Several of the founders fretted about the possibility of a tyrant being skillful enough and powerful enough to abrogate government. With our current massive bureaucracy the legislative branch is effectively just a symbol of our heritage - some folk feel the executive can govern most effectively and efficiently. My point is that the intent of impeachment was not to be a legal process at all, but to be a legislative process in order to solve a usurping of government. I suppose similar to the notion of jury nullification - not a pretty action but one to be done in desperation. In crass terms,a POLITICAL solution. "therefore was one of our Founding Fathers..." Is that conclusion yours or of the state of Texas? |
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Nov 23, 2014 15:54:29 GMT -5
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... Anybody who says he "knows" what a group of politicians is going to do is either woefully ignorant of our political history or a damned fool. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 23, 2014 16:32:13 GMT -5
Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... Anybody who says he "knows" what a group of politicians is going to do is either woefully ignorant of our political history or a damned fool. Or both. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 17:01:35 GMT -5
Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... It's common knowledge that you know everything. A pity though for this vast intellect to be wasted upon such a small pond as this one. You may "think" I know everything... but I certainly "know" I don't... but I do "know" a hell of a lot more about some things discussed here than some others here "know"... and then there are some things that others know more about than I do... from which I tend to stay away... this is not one of those things... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 17:03:15 GMT -5
Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... Then that is very unfortunate for the Democratic Party that they are unwilling/unable to rid themselves of the millstone that is this presidency. On strictly partisan grounds, 2 more years of Obama is much better for the GOP than it is for the Democrats. We'll surely see... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 17:03:45 GMT -5
We have noticed. I sure don't "think" with regard to you... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 17:05:24 GMT -5
The state of Texas has just approved historical textbooks teaching that Moses had a great influence on the writing of our Constitution... therefore was one of out Founding Fathers... "therefore was one of our Founding Fathers..." Is that conclusion yours or of the state of Texas? According to the article, the so-called christians in the state of Texas... Christian conservatives win, children lose: Texas textbooks will teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses.
On Friday the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted along party lines 10-5 to approve the biased and inaccurate textbooks. The vote signals a victory for Christian conservatives in Texas, and a disappointing defeat for historical accuracy and the education of innocent children.
The textbooks were written to align with instructional standards that the Board of Education approved back in 2010 with the explicit intention of forcing social studies teaching to adhere to a conservative Christian agenda. The standards require teachers to emphasize America’s so called “Christian heritage.”
|
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Nov 23, 2014 17:05:40 GMT -5
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? There was really no need to add anything. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Nov 23, 2014 17:07:29 GMT -5
Damn right... with regard to your comments here: "That wasn't really my point. This is the New York Times explaining why impeaching Obama is justifiable. 4 years ago, that sort of talk was limited to NewsMax. If an Obama supporter can talk about this in the NYT, perhaps those 67 votes aren't as out of reach as you'd like to think."I don't think... I know... Anybody who says he "knows" what a group of politicians is going to do is either woefully ignorant of our political history or a damned fool. Care to make a friendly wager that I'm neither ignorant of political history, or a damned fool... but right in this instance?... |
|
