or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Obama Going to be Impeached?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Obama Going to be Impeached? - Page 3

post #81 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

I'm not sure if the two are that directly connected. As of right now I'm still not sure why the US is involved there in that way. My comment related more to what bothers you guys. The hierarchy struck me as odd. It's clear that I don't understand most of the people who post in this section, which is why I have the tendency to go back to just reading it.

 

The way I see it, the more government is unaccountable and involved in cronyism, the more it will be involved in areas where the national interest isn't the single overriding issue. I also think it should be obvious why there's more anger here over the IRS scandal than the Yemen situation.

 

We know people targeted in the IRS witch hunt, and nobody on AI lives in Yemen.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #82 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

 

The way I see it, the more government is unaccountable and involved in cronyism, the more it will be involved in areas where the national interest isn't the single overriding issue. I also think it should be obvious why there's more anger here over the IRS scandal than the Yemen situation.

You're concerned about track record on the issues that have become public. That's understandable. I'm not sure what else to add, but I at least wanted to acknowledge the response.

 

Quote:
We know people targeted in the IRS witch hunt, and nobody on AI lives in Yemen.

It hits closer to home. I get that.

post #83 of 93
Thread Starter 

hmm
 

Quote:
Aside from that I find it slightly odd what seems to anger you guys most. The IRS issue and immigration angers some of you, yet US actions in Yemen (which aren't anything new) go unmentioned.

 

Um, because our actions in Yemen are not absolutely wrong, illegal and harmful to Americans?  I'm not saying our actions are absolutely right, legal and beneficial, either.  There is certainly room for debate.  But by virtue of your statement above, you are comparing fighting Islamic terrorism to using the most powerful government agency in the world to target private citizens and public groups due to their political views.  

 

As for immigration, I'm not sure what you mean by people being "angry.'  I don't know anyone who is angry about immigration as a concept.  Legal immigration is wonderful and helpful.  Illegal immigration is not, for so many reasons.  Right now, there is also suspicion in the US that the Obama administration is deliberately dumping tens of thousands of immigrants into the US to help force a political move on "immigration reform."  It's also possible that their use of "prosecutorial discretion" on immigration law (read:  making up new laws all by themselves a.k.a. The Dream Act) has inadvertently attracted the masses of immigrants we now see at the Southern border.  

 

Now, you may feel much more strongly about US actions in Yemen.  But that's not surprising...we live here, you don't (correct?).  It's only natural for us to be concerned about our own citizens and domestic problems rather than things we don't know everything about 8,000 miles away.  I think that's true of pretty much any people.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

hmm
 

 

Um, because our actions in Yemen are not absolutely wrong, illegal and harmful to Americans?  I'm not saying our actions are absolutely right, legal and beneficial, either.  There is certainly room for debate.  But by virtue of your statement above, you are comparing fighting Islamic terrorism to using the most powerful government agency in the world to target private citizens and public groups due to their political views.  

 

As for immigration, I'm not sure what you mean by people being "angry.'  I don't know anyone who is angry about immigration as a concept.  Legal immigration is wonderful and helpful.  Illegal immigration is not, for so many reasons.  Right now, there is also suspicion in the US that the Obama administration is deliberately dumping tens of thousands of immigrants into the US to help force a political move on "immigration reform."  It's also possible that their use of "prosecutorial discretion" on immigration law (read:  making up new laws all by themselves a.k.a. The Dream Act) has inadvertently attracted the masses of immigrants we now see at the Southern border.  

 

Now, you may feel much more strongly about US actions in Yemen.  But that's not surprising...we live here, you don't (correct?).  It's only natural for us to be concerned about our own citizens and domestic problems rather than things we don't know everything about 8,000 miles away.  I think that's true of pretty much any people.  


This one didn't pop up for me as it wasn't a direct quote, and I forgot to check the thread. The current regime isn't much better in Yemen, and aside from that, the US military has still claimed civilian lives. I live in California, so quite far from Yemen :). I was surprised by that simply because one set of actions costs many lives and arguably does little to combat problems there. Point noted on the Dream Act, although immigration problems won't be solved unless economies and legal employment opportunities improve in both South America and Mexico.

post #85 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 

Quote from SDW:

 

For once, I commend you on looking at hard data and trying to take a balanced position.   I will mention that I think solely relying on Republican approval/disapproval numbers for the House is highly misleading.  It's not that it doesn't matter, but it ignores the broader political mood, overall Congressional unpopularity, and the unpopularity of the President.  As I said, if you use those numbers alone, then you're right...one could argue that the GOP is less popular than the President.  Again, I think that's misleading though.  

 

 

Here's some hard data for you :

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169022/americans-view-congressional-leaders-negatively.aspx

 

It doesn't really matter that much what the voters think about Obama as much as others who are not lame duck and not in the game any more.

Hillary if she runs will stand on her own and she's very popular.

 

Quote:
 

Many Americans View Congressional Leaders Negatively

Republican leaders net higher favorability among Tea Party supporters

 

Asking nationwide how someone feels about a Congressional leader is pointless because they aren't elected nationally. They are elected by their local constituency. Take Nancy Pelosi for example. She hasn't come close to losing in her district.

 

If someone suggested she was going to lose election in her district, even with her sky high national disapproval, they would be wrong. Hillary has a favorable/unfavorable that is around even. This is before anyone has run a single negative ad against her. Given her history, it will be easy to drive those numbers up.

 

Here's the reality. Not a single politician has managed to win off the Clinton coattails and I mean the Bill Clinton. Gore didn't win. Hillary didn't win either. To suggest that she can attempt to usurp his record and run on it again (with many voters not having even been eligible to vote back then because it was so long ago) and have a guaranteed result is laughable. I was in college when Bill Clinton was first elected. I'm 44 now. He was first elected 22 years ago. That is over a generation ago. In 2016, to suggest a 68 year old Clinton can appeal back to 24 years ago and hope everyone can recall and remember those times is ludicrous.


So you admit that I was right about the fact that Bush won the election in 2000 because of what Clinton did.:lol: 

 

If Hillary runs this time she'll win. Because she's a woman and because people will like her better than anyone the GOP can pit against her. You know it and I know it. That's why the GOP is afraid and trying to attack her as if she's already announced her candidacy.  Like usual it's pretty transparent.

 

And SDW we can all see today all these years later after the GOP's boy decided to an end run around everyone and invade Iraq what the end result is. It's much like Bill Clinton said. The situation in Iraq wouldn't be what it is now if we've never invaded. Saddam wasn't a saint but he kept the other elements in the region out because he wanted to control Iraq. Now we've got a much worse situation there. Instead of Bush's stupid plan he should have left well enough alone and did what the UN wanted by continuing the sanctions.

 

Tell me SDW what good did we do there? WMD found? Huh uh? Freeing the Iraqi people? So they could look forward to this? I don't think so. Set the Iraqi army up so they could defend themselves? Yeah right. Stabilizing the region? LOL!:lol: These were all excuses you used at the time. But of course like usual you'll make excuses or just plain flat out say you don't remember saying those things ( selective memory loss ). I was right about all of it ( believe me when I say I wish I wasn't ). You just will never admit it. Fortunately or unfortunately ( as we've got a real toilet of a situation over there now ) that fact has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the situation.


Edited by jimmac - 6/29/14 at 11:37pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #86 of 93
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

So you admit that I was right about the fact that Bush won the election in 2000 because of what Clinton did.:lol: 

 

I have no idea to what you are referring. Clinton has had no coattails to speak of and not a single person beyond himself has won anything running on his record from the 90's. To suggest that two decades later this will suddenly change is the most ridiculous notion I can imagine someone uttering. Hillary lost in 2008 against Obama. She couldn't even lock up her own party let alone the nation.

 

Quote:
 If Hillary runs this time she'll win. Because she's a woman and because people will like her better than anyone the GOP can pit against her. You know it and I know it. That's why the GOP is afraid and trying to attack her as if she's already announced her candidacy.  Like usual it's pretty transparent.

 

People should never win because they are something. They should win because they've convinced the voters they have the best plan and can act on it. American can ill afford more identity politics in place of actual competence. Plus you are presuming no Republican out there could appeal or win in any fashion along the same lines. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio ring any bells? How does the first Hispanic-American President sound? Bobby Jindal? How does the first Indian-American president sound?

 

Stop presuming that the Democratic Party is the only party with historic candidates.

 

Quote:
 And SDW we can all see today all these years later after the GOP's boy decided to an end run around everyone and invade Iraq what the end result is. It's much like Bill Clinton said. The situation in Iraq wouldn't be what it is now if we've never invaded. Saddam wasn't a saint but he kept the other elements in the region out because he wanted to control Iraq. Now we've got a much worse situation there. Instead of Bush's stupid plan he should have left well enough alone and did what the UN wanted by continuing the sanctions.

 

Tell me SDW what good did we do there? WMD found? Huh uh? Freeing the Iraqi people? So they could look forward to this? I don't think so. Set the Iraqi army up so they could defend themselves? Yeah right. Stabilizing the region? LOL!:lol: These were all excuses you used at the time. But of course like usual you'll make excuses or just plain flat out say you don't remember saying those things ( selective memory loss ). I was right about all of it ( believe me when I say I wish I wasn't ). You just will never admit it. Fortunately or unfortunately ( as we've got a real toilet of a situation over there now ) that fact has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the situation.

 

Clearly you haven't been following along. The situation in Iraq is as it has always been. Plus how is Hillary going to run away from Iraq when she voted for the war there?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #87 of 93
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If Hillary runs this time she'll win. Because she's a woman and because people will like her better than anyone the GOP can pit against her. You know it and I know it.

 

So… not because she’s the better candidate for the job. Not because she can even do any aspect of the job whatsoever.

 

Is this also YOUR view?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #88 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


This one didn't pop up for me as it wasn't a direct quote, and I forgot to check the thread. The current regime isn't much better in Yemen, and aside from that, the US military has still claimed civilian lives. I live in California, so quite far from Yemen :). I was surprised by that simply because one set of actions costs many lives and arguably does little to combat problems there. Point noted on the Dream Act, although immigration problems won't be solved unless economies and legal employment opportunities improve in both South America and Mexico.

 

Claimed civilian lives?  That's an interesting way to put it.  Military action always results in unintended casualties.  There is no way around that...it's regrettable, but you can't expect the populace to be up in arms given all the problems we face here at home.  

 

As for the so-called Dream Act, I disagree with the assertion that nothing will improve until things get better in South America.  We can improve the situation for us immediately by using the military to police the border.  We could also pass severe penalties for hiring undocumented workers, thereby turning off the magnet currently drawing illegals here.  After those steps, we could create a guest worker program that would allow undocumented, non-criminal aliens to stay in the US without penalty, so long as they haven't committed felonies.  They could apply for citizenship ("back of the line" approach), too.  We can't solve every problem in South America...better to start here.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #89 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post
 


So you admit that I was right about the fact that Bush won the election in 2000 because of what Clinton did.:lol: 

 

 

 

I would agree his actions had something to do with it.  I would disagree his actions were the sole reason.  

 

Quote:
If Hillary runs this time she'll win. Because she's a woman and because people will like her better than anyone the GOP can pit against her. You know it and I know it. That's why the GOP is afraid and trying to attack her as if she's already announced her candidacy.  Like usual it's pretty transparent.

 

Who knows.  She'll be a formidable candidate for sure.  The sense of inevitability is gone, however.  Of course the GOP is afraid of her and is attacking here--that's obvious, and that's politics.  That doesn't invalidate everything they and others say, however.  She's got some serious drawbacks as a candidate.  

 

 

Quote:

And SDW we can all see today all these years later after the GOP's boy decided to an end run around everyone and invade Iraq what the end result is. It's much like Bill Clinton said. The situation in Iraq wouldn't be what it is now if we've never invaded. Saddam wasn't a saint but he kept the other elements in the region out because he wanted to control Iraq. Now we've got a much worse situation there. Instead of Bush's stupid plan he should have left well enough alone and did what the UN wanted by continuing the sanctions.

 

Tell me SDW what good did we do there? WMD found? Huh uh? Freeing the Iraqi people? So they could look forward to this? I don't think so. Set the Iraqi army up so they could defend themselves? Yeah right. Stabilizing the region? LOL!:lol: These were all excuses you used at the time. But of course like usual you'll make excuses or just plain flat out say you don't remember saying those things ( selective memory loss ). I was right about all of it ( believe me when I say I wish I wasn't ). You just will never admit it. Fortunately or unfortunately ( as we've got a real toilet of a situation over there now ) that fact has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the situation.

 

 

I'm not sure I see the point of the above rant, other than gloating that things aren't going well in Iraq.  If you want to gloat about not finding WMD, I guess that's fine.  If you want to portray current events as somehow proving that you were "right" all along, OK.  Where I will disagree with you is when you absolve Obama of any wrongdoing and responsibility for the current situation.  Support the original invasion or not, Obama was handed a relatively stable Iraq in 2009.  He is responsible for failing to get a Status of Forces Agreement and for precipitously withdrawing our troops before the Iraqis were ready.  This withdrawal, done for political reasons in my opinion, caused what we are seeing today.   

 

The other place where we'll disagree is on the notion that had we not invaded, Iraq would still be stable under Saddam today.  There is no way to tell what would have happened had we not invaded.  There are little hundreds of scenarios, from things being relatively stable, to Saddam continuing to support terrorism, to Saddam being overthrown during the Arab Spring.  It might be fun to blame Bush (who did not conduct "an end run around everyone"), but it's not useful for determining where we go from here.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #90 of 93

To the original question - no, regardless of what he's done. Two provably impeachable acts have been (1) serial violations of his oath of office, and (2) perjury - in that he knew full well that he was going to break that oath, either by choice or by being forced to, or both.

 

Where there's a will, there's a way, and in DC 2000s there is no real will. Regardless of team color - red or blue - both sides are working for the same promoter, just as in any other spectator sport. The last thing either "side" is prepared to do, is get on the wrong side of their bosses, and bite the hands that feed them.

 

Thats the M.O. in an Oligarchy.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #91 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 

To the original question - no, regardless of what he's done. Two provably impeachable acts have been (1) serial violations of his oath of office, and (2) perjury - in that he knew full well that he was going to break that oath, either by choice or by being forced to, or both.

 

Where there's a will, there's a way, and in DC 2000s there is no real will. Regardless of team color - red or blue - both sides are working for the same promoter, just as in any other spectator sport. The last thing either "side" is prepared to do, is get on the wrong side of their bosses, and bite the hands that feed them.

 

Thats the M.O. in an Oligarchy.

 

That's basically what I think, too.  There is no question he's committed provably impeachable acts, such as making up his own laws, changing laws and refusing to enforce existing law.  But, I doubt it will happen.  I happen to think it's less about both "teams" working for the same thing, and more about political reality.  Even if the GOP takes the Senate, they'd be unlikely to have enough votes to remove him.  And even if they somehow did, the political damage incurred by removing the first African-American President would be incalculable.  They'd rather wait him out and block him at every turn.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #92 of 93
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
Even if the GOP takes the Senate, they'd be unlikely to have enough votes to remove him.

 

But... by definition that’s what it would mean.

 
And even if they somehow did, the political damage incurred by removing the first African-American President would be incalculable.

 

Yes, fantasy racism would be shouted from all corners of Idiotville. And then they’d shut up and get over it.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #93 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

This withdrawal, done for political reasons in my opinion, caused what we are seeing today.   

 

 

Just diving in for a quick point: you have to be really, really careful about statements like that.

It's not to say that U.S. actions in Iraq don't have consequences, or haven't contributed to exacerbating the problems.

 

But, any discussion about the "cause" of the current crisis should focus less on U.S. actions and more on the Islamic State and the Iraqi Prime Minister. As much as we can be critical of the way that foreign interventions are handled - and that's a reasonable conversation - we have to remember that there are adults on all sides, and that people do have to bear some responsibility for their own domestic affairs.

 

I would not want the criminals in IS or the stubbornly-pigheaded Iraqi PM to hide under the banner of "Obama's military policy in Iraq", as that simply wouldn't be fair or accurate.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Obama Going to be Impeached?