Post by Velar Fricative on Jul 26, 2014 9:05:55 GMT -5
If the GOP wins in 2016 I want the Ds to be as obstructive as possible. I mean, we all know they won't be but man, the GOP deserves that. It's not like bipartisanship is ever going to be a reality, so let's go balls to the wall.
Maybe Obama needs to push to invade a country under false pretenses and keep our troops there needlessly for years. That'll guarantee he won't be impeached.
Like I'm 5, if half the country wants green grapes and the other only wants red grapes, and the elected President runs on red grapes and wins, do we have only red grapes then and then the green grapes can impeach because they don't like it? Or can they only impeach if red grapes are unconstitutional? I obvs did not pay attention in civics class.
Don't you need a 2/3 vote by the senate to convict?
To be impeached as Bill Clinton was you just need the vote of the house. You are impeached at that point. Bill Clinton was impeached. The senate tried and "acquitted" him but he was still impeached.
If the GOP wins in 2016 I want the Ds to be as obstructive as possible. I mean, we all know they won't be but man, the GOP deserves that. It's not like bipartisanship is ever going to be a reality, so let's go balls to the wall.
Maybe Obama needs to push to invade a country under false pretenses and keep our troops there needlessly for years. That'll guarantee he won't be impeached.
Don't you need a 2/3 vote by the senate to convict?
To be impeached as Bill Clinton was you just need the vote of the house. You are impeached at that point. Bill Clinton was impeached. The senate tried and "acquitted" him but he was still impeached.
Yes. You are right. But removal is the true destruction. josieposy - you are also right - it is 2/3rds for removal - even I don't see that as possible. (I had forgotten that it wasn't a 51/49 vote)
Like I'm 5, if half the country wants green grapes and the other only wants red grapes, and the elected President runs on red grapes and wins, do we have only red grapes then and then the green grapes can impeach because they don't like it? Or can they only impeach if red grapes are unconstitutional? I obvs did not pay attention in civics class.
Impeachment is supposed to be only for high crimes and misdemeanors - but that can be ginned up (Clinton) if there is the political will from the opposition.
To be impeached as Bill Clinton was you just need the vote of the house. You are impeached at that point. Bill Clinton was impeached. The senate tried and "acquitted" him but he was still impeached.
Yes. You are right. But removal is the true destruction. josieposy - you are also right - it is 2/3rds for removal - even I don't see that as possible. (I had forgotten that it wasn't a 52/49 vote)
I agree that removal is the ultimate destruction but don't you remember the chaos that was the Clinton impeachment process and he wasn't even removed! Impeachment for impeachment sakes is destructive to the president and the nation even if no removal actually happens.
Like I'm 5, if half the country wants green grapes and the other only wants red grapes, and the elected President runs on red grapes and wins, do we have only red grapes then and then the green grapes can impeach because they don't like it? Or can they only impeach if red grapes are unconstitutional? I obvs did not pay attention in civics class.
They can impeach for whatever they want. High crimes and misdemeanors means lying about blow jobs. So....anything.
Yes. You are right. But removal is the true destruction. josieposy - you are also right - it is 2/3rds for removal - even I don't see that as possible. (I had forgotten that it wasn't a 52/49 vote)
I agree that removal is the ultimate destruction but don't you remember the chaos that was the Clinton impeachment process and he wasn't even removed! Impeachment for impeachment sakes is destructive to the president and the nation even if no removal actually happens.
Oh yes. I recall at the time saying that if my own mother was running for dog catcher as a Republican that I wouldn't vote for her.
I am reminded of something my HS history teacher (who was a staunch republican) said to me during the Clinton fiasco - she supported his impeachment but if she was a true Republican she would not and I think that reasoning is going to what saves Obama.
If they remove Obama from office, Biden becomes president. And then you have another incumbent running in 2016, and although politically the rules are changing very quickly, historically, its hard to defeat an incumbent. So I think for that reason alone, they will not remove Obama from office. they will bide their time until 2016.
So what ultimately happens is this whole thing goes on his permanent record and he continues on in office until 2017. So what exactly is the point here?
I am reminded of something my HS history teacher (who was a staunch republican) said to me during the Clinton fiasco - she supported his impeachment but if she was a true Republican she would not and I think that reasoning is going to what saves Obama.
If they remove Obama from office, Biden becomes president. And then you have another incumbent running in 2016, and although politically the rules are changing very quickly, historically, its hard to defeat an incumbent. So I think for that reason alone, they will not remove Obama from office. they will bide their time until 2016.
So what ultimately happens is this whole thing goes on his permanent record and he continues on in office until 2017. So what exactly is the point here?
It taints him forever historically. His legacy will include impeachment.
I am reminded of something my HS history teacher (who was a staunch republican) said to me during the Clinton fiasco - she supported his impeachment but if she was a true Republican she would not and I think that reasoning is going to what saves Obama.
If they remove Obama from office, Biden becomes president. And then you have another incumbent running in 2016, and although politically the rules are changing very quickly, historically, its hard to defeat an incumbent. So I think for that reason alone, they will not remove Obama from office. they will bide their time until 2016.
So what ultimately happens is this whole thing goes on his permanent record and he continues on in office until 2017. So what exactly is the point here?
Like I said above, the last gasps of a dying party.
Plus, after Clinton's impeachment, hillary really helped the Dems (wasnt that then 98 when the Dems retook the Senate or the house...I cant recall) but I rememebr reading in one of her biographies how that election (98 I think it was) really helped establish her as a Democratic star in her own right and helped her to get into the Senate and so on, to the point where now her experience as first lady is almost a footnote in her career.
I don't think the Rs want to prompt that happening. Michelle Obama, desite being mysteriously reviled by the right wing, is enormously popular with Dems and I can see her really coming into her own if they go after her husband like they went after Clinton. Especially because it wouldn't be over an affair.
I am reminded of something my HS history teacher (who was a staunch republican) said to me during the Clinton fiasco - she supported his impeachment but if she was a true Republican she would not and I think that reasoning is going to what saves Obama.
If they remove Obama from office, Biden becomes president. And then you have another incumbent running in 2016, and although politically the rules are changing very quickly, historically, its hard to defeat an incumbent. So I think for that reason alone, they will not remove Obama from office. they will bide their time until 2016.
I'm confused - what does this mean?
sorry I forgot to the connect the thoughts. Because she "shouldn't" want Al Gore in office as president to run as an incumbent in 2000. Her thinking was that was part of the reason the Rs couldnt "pull it off" - because there was a divide in the R party and a lot didnt actually want Clinton removed - the impeachment was all fine and dandy, but actual removal would not have been in the interests of the republicans.
So what ultimately happens is this whole thing goes on his permanent record and he continues on in office until 2017. So what exactly is the point here?
the same thing that's been the point since day one of the Obama administration: Obstruction. Refusal to work with. Refusal even to see reason.
The impeachment does a few things for congressional republicans: it gives them something to do, so they're not running against their own do-absolutely-nothing records. It tarnishes Obama's legacy, which concerns presidents in their second terms. It gives them a bully pulpit to bash the president (like they need it, but this is official).
It also lets them posture themselves, individually, as leaders... who rises to the top in this process becomes a 2016 front runner.
sorry I forgot to the connect the thoughts. Because she "shouldn't" want Al Gore in office as president to run as an incumbent in 2000. Her thinking was that was part of the reason the Rs couldnt "pull it off" - because there was a divide in the R party and a lot didnt actually want Clinton removed - the impeachment was all fine and dandy, but actual removal would not have been in the interests of the republicans.
of course a lot has changed since then
Wow- that's pretty freaking cynical? And she was teaching kids this? That the rules only matter if it benefits your side? geez louise..
anyway, all my other reasoning ot the contrary, I can actually see impeachment happening bc if the Rs use it as major part of their campaign strategy this fall, they will have no choice but to follow through with it or else lose their seats in the next election to someone even more conservative who "would" follow through with it.
sorry I forgot to the connect the thoughts. Because she "shouldn't" want Al Gore in office as president to run as an incumbent in 2000. Her thinking was that was part of the reason the Rs couldnt "pull it off" - because there was a divide in the R party and a lot didnt actually want Clinton removed - the impeachment was all fine and dandy, but actual removal would not have been in the interests of the republicans.
of course a lot has changed since then
Wow- that's pretty freaking cynical? And she was teaching kids this? That the rules only matter if it benefits your side? geez louise..
I actually heard that analysis quite a bit at the time... the impeachment was meant to batter Clinton, not remove him from office, because an incumbent Gore would be a stronger candidate.
Wow- that's pretty freaking cynical? And she was teaching kids this? That the rules only matter if it benefits your side? geez louise..
I actually heard that analysis quite a bit at the time... the impeachment was meant to batter Clinton, not remove him from office, because an incumbent Gore would be a stronger candidate.
Oh absolutely. But a freaking History teacher telling her kids that that's a - ok? Disgusting IMHO.
So what ultimately happens is this whole thing goes on his permanent record and he continues on in office until 2017. So what exactly is the point here?
the same thing that's been the point since day one of the Obama administration: Obstruction. Refusal to work with. Refusal even to see reason.
The impeachment does a few things for congressional republicans: it gives them something to do, so they're not running against their own do-absolutely-nothing records. It tarnishes Obama's legacy, which concerns presidents in their second terms. It gives them a bully pulpit to bash the president (like they need it, but this is official).
It also lets them posture themselves, individually, as leaders... who rises to the top in this process becomes a 2016 front runner.
I think these last two points are really the primary reasons (some) R's are promoting impeachment.
sorry I forgot to the connect the thoughts. Because she "shouldn't" want Al Gore in office as president to run as an incumbent in 2000. Her thinking was that was part of the reason the Rs couldnt "pull it off" - because there was a divide in the R party and a lot didnt actually want Clinton removed - the impeachment was all fine and dandy, but actual removal would not have been in the interests of the republicans.
of course a lot has changed since then
He was impeached. She wanted him impeached. And if he had truly done someone wrong I'm guessing she would have wanted him removed. Ergo, he didn't actually do something wrong. So why did she want him impeached?
She's speaking out of both sides of her mouth. And her thinking is strange.