New poll shows one third of Americans support the impeachment of Obama
- Thread starter Catholic Crusader
- Start date
Interesting. So around 43% of Republicans don't support the measure. That really is remarkable considering the sort of feeling and rhetoric that was part and parcel of the last campaign and election. I mean you couldn't find a much more dogmatically anti-Obama sentiment than you did in that party, notably in the second run.
I hope the left and middle are paying attention and remember those they likely suspected incapable of approaching anything connected to the President with objectivity were demonstrably that. I'm less surprised about the 13% of Dems, given the far left hates him almost as much as the hard right, if for different reasons.
Last edited:
traci's last post :think:
GFR7
New member
and since then: Nothing . ...but .... silence :nono:
Just noting that they same guys who want Obama impeached for swapping prisoners, love Reagan for doing it, and approved supplying the Iranians with weapons.
But Obama is hardly alone in this behavior, historically. In defending the release of Bergdahl, the White House noted that Obama added a "signing statement" to the bill about the transfer of Guantánamo detainees. A signing statement is essentially an executive-branch protest against a bill, saying, "Sure, I'll sign this bill, but...." In this case, Obama claimed that executive authority vested in the Constitution gave him the right to override the law.
Obama is not the first president to add signing statements to bills. President Clinton did it, too, as did President George W. Bush. For instance, Mr. Bush added a signing statement to a bill with an amendment that outlawed torture.
President Bush used signing statements "in an aggressive way to imply that he might not faithfully execute more than 1,000 provisions of statutes," writes James Pfiffner, a professor and presidential expert at George Mason University in Arlington, Va.
Louis Fisher, an expert on the separation of powers, judges Obama to be "sort of in the middle" of presidents who buck congressional authority, according to an article by Monitor reporter Francine Kiefer.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0601/Obama-s-Bowe-Bergdahl-prisoner-swap-Was-it-illegal
So the Reagan cite is quite appropriate. The same people who faithfully supported Bush the younger, are now howling impeachment for a president who did less than Bush.
And that's why it's not going to happen, if the republicans have any sense of self-preservation or patriotism.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I don't see how "Bush and Reagan did it to" is an argument. All of those scumbags should have been impeached...
Gitmo needs to get shut down. Running a secret police state while pretending to have a Republic isn't OK. Shut down all foreign bases and end all foreign wars. That would be a start.
Gitmo needs to get shut down. Running a secret police state while pretending to have a Republic isn't OK. Shut down all foreign bases and end all foreign wars. That would be a start.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Both Bush and Reagan did far, far more to stretch (and sometimes break) the law than Obama has. And yet the same people who were cheerleading for them, are now convinced Obama should be impeached. Doesn't apply to you, since you think all of them should have been tossed out of office.
The idea of politicizing the impeachment process is disturbing, but it's good to know the vast majority of Americans, including many who don't like Obama, have rejected that idea.
republicanchick
New member
well, u didn't think Pres O would just do something like that- not letting Congress know.. w/o an EXCUSE, did you? (Bergdahl's health... right)
never mind that traitors are not good for the health of our nation
republicanchick
New member
yeh, we should just let just anyone be president and do just whatever... b/c it's too politically risky to stop the guy...
sounds good
(to a moron maybe)
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
OK, I get your point about hypocritical Republicans who adore Reagan and Bush, yet want Obama's head.
But it seems to me that, even under legal positivism (by anarcho-capitalist law it would be far worse... look up Walter Block's commentary on Nuremberg Trials if you dare
) the constitution is the highest law in the land, and thus that a President who does not follow the constitution, or who circumvents said process, should be impeached.So, why are we condemning the idea of impeaching Obama? Why are we not instead saying that maybe Bush and Reagan should have been impeached to?
I'm all for impeaching Obama. I also think it would have been justified to impeach Bush. And I suspect whoever #45 is will deserve impeachment.
republicanchick
New member
i fail to see how Bush did anything impeachable. Yeh, he increased the Debt... but that is not an impeachable offense... although maybe it hsould be...
And 43% of Republicans don't support the notion. That's actually encouraging given the political climate. Good on them. It would be an enormous squandering of tax payer dollars to no good end.
Then what you've heard is actually encouraging people to poll against. Badly cobbled question, bias heavy and it still came out:
Last edited:
republicanchick
New member
most Rs are just rinos anyway, so who gives a rip what they think we should do with Mr Virtual Commie Obamanation?
++
++
Translation: anyone who doesn't see it your way isn't in the club. Well, it isn't your club and the membership is decided otherwise. Anyway, there are likely a few who would kick you to the curb for your religious affiliation. That's life. But you get to stay anyway, as do your imaginary rinos.
It was that or, "That's not how you spell winos".
The pollsters? You, in a way.
Because nothing says reasoned and fair like that bit of name calling.
Not in the 43% then. A shock to be sure.
republicanchick
New member
that's right
No, that's just your club. It doesn't define conservatism and it doesn't decide who gets to consider and call themselves by the term, who'll vote or by any real metric be a conservative. But if it makes you happy it's not hurting anyone, I suppose.
That's like saying most elephants are just elephants in name only.
If you're in the minority, then you're the one "in name only."