Should Barack Obama be impeached?

Post Reply New Topic

As Bush had almost allowed his Wall Street friends to sink the economy, and was beholden to the homophobic/racist right, I think Obama is still by far the better alternative. Obviously, my standards of what makes a decent president differs from yours.
Yes, I'm drunk.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I would never have guessed.

So, other countries had shittier leaders, therefore we shouldn't strive for someone better? Is that about the size of it?

And? Does anything said here matter in the sense that you're getting at? Could you make a more pointless observation?

Hey, it was Father's Day!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Name the crimes that Obama has committed.

Not the crimes that occurred during his watch, particularly those that started before he was even elected. Not the crimes and Constitutional runarounds committed by Congress (the most egregious of which, in my opinion, was the attempt by Congress to pass off on the President their authority to declare war, with that so-called "authorization for the use of force" - in other words, "yeah, we want to go bomb some folks, but we don't have casus belli, and we want to be able to deny responsibility next election"). And not "unethical acts" - if we try to convict people of ethical lapses, we won't have enough folks left outside a cell to run the prisons.

Just tell me, if you can, Dox, what crimes the President has committed. A single felony would suffice.

Violation of the war powers act with regards to Libya is the lowest hanging fruit, his fig leaf that not having boots on the ground doesn't count is just that, a fig leaf. I'm also pretty sure that due process free killing of citizens has some serious legal flaws as well, considering that he continues to classify the legal rationale allowing him to do that. Not the process or the intelligence sources, which might have legitimate reasons to be kept secret, but the entire theory of law that he claims gives him that power.

With that reasoning, Lincoln could have been impeached.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So in your mind, blowing people up and refusing to explain why or even why you believe you can legally do so is morally equivalent to holding the nation together and ending the institution of slavery? I mean I generally oppose ends justifying means thinking across the board, but Lincoln's ends were a whole hell of a lot more noble than Obama's, which have ranged from protecting his public image to doling out favors to wealthy supporters to expanding his own power at the expense of the citizenry. I'm actually kind of offended that you'd even make that comparison, one of our greatest presidents shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as one of our shittiest.

For one, Bush holds the title of this country's shittiest president.
Another, Obama is protecting American citizens against religious lunatics. The charge that he's doing this for the sake of his supporters doesn't hold water, as he's in his second term and doesn't need to face another election.
And finally, Lincoln killed and blew up plenty of American citizens - they were called the Confederacy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So in your mind, blowing people up and refusing to explain why or even why you believe you can legally do so is morally equivalent to holding the nation together and ending the institution of slavery? I mean I generally oppose ends justifying means thinking across the board, but Lincoln's ends were a whole hell of a lot more noble than Obama's, which have ranged from protecting his public image to doling out favors to wealthy supporters to expanding his own power at the expense of the citizenry. I'm actually kind of offended that you'd even make that comparison, one of our greatest presidents shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as one of our shittiest.[/quote

What Lincoln practiced was an early version of American ur-fascism. Statism, fascism with a smile, low calorie tyranny.

The son of a b***h had people tossed in jail without the privilege of habeas corpus. He closed down newspapers because the editors opposed the War.

If Lincoln can be called "great" for extending the power of the State, why not Barak Obama?

ruveyn

ruveyn

Sometimes extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary actions.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

And boots were on the ground. We sent in special forces to help equip and train the rebels. This was well-documented, but nobody really called Obama on it. So, we actively aided in overthrowing a sovereign government.

We'd have more impeachments than we'd know what to do with if every president had been called to the mat for that action.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The War Powers Act of 1974 specifies that the President cannot deploy troops overseas for more than 90 days without Congressional approval. Nothing in there about "boots on the ground", just a time frame. However, the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force permits the President to use whatever force he deems necessary overseas in the fight against terrorism, which is a frighteningly broad mandate.

In short, neither one has to do with the Constitution; and the second act pretty well invalidates the first, provided only that the President can claim that any given overseas deployment is necessary to fighting terror. (And thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, the President doesn't even have to supply the complete reasoning for this position, because it can be covered under the heading of "national security"!)

That is exactly what some Germans said about Hitler. How strange!

ruveyn