Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
LucidElement

Impeachment

28 posts in this topic

For all of those people out there that think the president has the final say, is correct, but that final say doesn't always turn out well. I'm starting this thread simply because, im not taking a side yet whether its a good or bad thing to hit syria. There are a lot of pros and cons to both sides. But, regarding congress, if the house says NO even though the Senate said YES it wouldnt matter, need both parties to have an agreement of yes. More importantly, if the President does carry forward and hit Syria after Congress says NO, that is a major violation of the constitution and is grounds for impeachment. The problem is, Obama has already been part of the IRS/Benghazi scandals, (kind of went quite though didnt it all of a sudden....) taking and regulating gun control, 2nd amendment right to bear arms... this guy dosent care for the constitution, and im sure he will do what he wants, wouldn't put it past him to launch and think he is exempt from the rules and laws of the constitution. If he hit the grounds for impeachment, he definitely wouldn't go quietly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the things the Repblicans want to impeach Obama for - Bush did the same or worse. There is no question about bringing a wrongdoer to justice, they just want the other team to lose. It's partisan nonsense and damaging.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No US president has ever been removed from office via the impeachment process. That said, Nixon left office because he probably would have been the first (due to Watergate). Most of this "impeach the President" stuff is just partisan BS and does the country absolutely no good.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting to get tough if the Prez goes against Congress and the will of the people has nothing to do with partisanship. It might be convenient to think that, but that is not the case. Both sides of the aisle and everyone in the middle are against this action. We expect to be to be listened to.

"Impeachment" would not accomplish what is necessary. Impeachment is just the "act" of charging, it is not the conviction and removal from office. If he strikes, he must be charged with violations of international laws and immediately arrested, charged and detained. He and his co-conspirators that is...we don't want "crazy uncle Joe" in there anymore than we want him.

I just wants what is best for the USA. We need to heal ourselves, tend to our needs and rest from 12 years of war. We do no one any good being broke and weary with a collapsing morale. We need to sit the next few "conflicts" out and then when we have healed ourselves, we will be far better positioned to help out in the future.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be happy if impeachment proceeded, but I know that it won't, for the simple reason that the entire federal government is absolutely corrupted and does not govern in accordance with constitutional principles.

Just as the 'opposition party's' leader Pelosi ended the impeachment effort by Kucinich and others, something or other will prevent an impeachment of Obama. He serves the power structure and status quo, and that is pretty obvious.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the things the Repblicans want to impeach Obama for - Bush did the same or worse. There is no question about bringing a wrongdoer to justice, they just want the other team to lose. It's partisan nonsense and damaging.

Not really, Bush had the approval of Congress before going to war.

Obama has made it clear that he may move forward even if Congress says no.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be lots of pros and cons on both sides of this issue but for who? Certainly not US and that's all I care about now. It sucks that civilians are being killed but these are extremists versus extremists and there is no good side to take or easy way to resolve their problem. Besides, this is hardly the only country slaughtering civilians and if it is all about saving civilians what is the difference wether nerve gas is used or machine guns, bombs and machetes? I know death by gas is less humane but death is death and murder is murder. There is no gain for US here.

Impeachment might well amount to be only partisan rhetoric but it is a real thing meant to be invoked and the powers that be aren't ever going to hear US if our only method of getting our point across is a stupid disapproval rating because face it, stupid ratings are the only reprimanding they ever get. Someone has to deal with the consequences of their actions sooner or later or what's the point of having consequences?

We are stretched thin, broke and weary and it's time we come home, line our borders with spare troops and ships and take care of our selves for a decade or two.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this isn't the first time I've said it but we need Jack.

Here's an awesome season 5 mash up that seems highly relevant to this topic.

After all that, they left out the best part at the end where Jack places him under arrest. The micro transmitter in Logan's pen is the recorded proof that he was full of it.

Edited by F3SS
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at all the killing going on in Africa....we sure are jumping to do something about that aren't we?

Oh that's right...our "leaders" do not seem to care about that....there is nothing their puppet masters want from there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like how the price of oil has spiked, but yet no one is accusing Obama of simply doing this to pad the pockets of his oil industry buddies.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that a lot of people, not all but a lot, are against going into Syria simply because Obama is for it. I see it all the time. People say they’re for something then a few months later Obama says something about the topic and now the people that were for it, are now against it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at all the killing going on in Africa....we sure are jumping to do something about that aren't we?

Oh that's right...our "leaders" do not seem to care about that....there is nothing their puppet masters want from there.

And if Obama did call for us to step in, in Africa (like we should) people who are for it now, would rage against that as well just because Obama said we should.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if Obama did call for us to step in, in Africa (like we should) people who are for it now, would rage against that as well just because Obama said we should.

I'm sure you are right on several cases.

"Obamacare" was actually a Republican plan from years past...how funny is that? In fact...don't quote me on this...but I think Newt Gingrich was the fanboy of this system when he was a "somebody".

For me, it's the blatant obviousness of our greed and corporate spun interest. We "have" to save the middle east....there is oil and resources there...as well as Jews that back up so many campaigns....but Africa...well...they really haven't found much they need from there now. Perhaps after they bleed the middle east, they'll look a little more critical at Africa.

To me, if you are so concerned with despots killing their people, then why has Africa gone unnoticed for so long? We must then conclude it is not about human lives...there is another reason for the concern.

Ya get what I'm tryin to say?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thnk a lot of other countries are all talk. Even the issue with North Korea, so many other countries say they will do this or do that, but deep down they know if they do anything they will get man handled. Its really a d*** showing contest lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if Obama did call for us to step in, in Africa (like we should) people who are for it now, would rage against that as well just because Obama said we should.

Sub-Saharan Africa has nothing to do with our Israel's national security. We at least have to keep it there to draw out any kind of partisan difference here. Many Republicans disagreeing with Obama aren't worried about the rule of law, they're going to play politics and accuse him of bombing the wrong target. The real target should be Iran...how many times have I heard that one lately from the republitards?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

"Obamacare" was actually a Republican plan from years past...how funny is that? In fact...don't quote me on this...but I think Newt Gingrich was the fanboy of this system when he was a "somebody".

Gingrich was for it when it was Bob Doles bill. Of course then it was more in the interests of the insurance companies.

Also, all the impeachment talk is stupid. You guys don't like Obama, we get it already.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he realizes if he does go ahead and issue an attack he will be the first truly cooked goose, so I would'nt bet on him doing a strike with out congressional approval. Likely just testing the waters and understanding that he may be on his last leg. Either way isnt this the fifth Impeach Obama thread in the last week lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama underestimated the pushback from the people over his sudden crisis agenda. We can't be silent spectators when the bureau says so. 100,000 dead Syrians and here we were, responsible the whole time. So says our Constitutional lawyer in chief. Travesty!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gingrich was for it when it was Bob Doles bill. Of course then it was more in the interests of the insurance companies.

Also, all the impeachment talk is stupid. You guys don't like Obama, we get it already.

I think Obama is a good man and an average politician. Would I have voted to impeach him for bombing Africa like I would have voted to impeach Clinton for bombing Africa? Yes. And Pakistan. And Yemen. And if hostilities ceased in Iraq, possibly even that too. Flying Wild Weasels over Iraqi airspace looking for a fight wouldn't be much of an excuse imho

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, Bush had the approval of Congress before going to war.

Obama has made it clear that he may move forward even if Congress says no.

Obama looked like fool at the G20.

Even the liberals are turning against him.

John Kerry tried to sell this garbage at the U.S. Congress. 3 days later......fewer votes!

Obama and Kerry are going the wrong way. France will support us if we attack Syria. However, they will only provide coffee & donuts.

America will have to do the rest.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the history of the United States, Presidents have engaged in 125 military operations WITHOUT consent from Congress. Congress has declared war only five times since the nation was founded, 1942 was the last time Congress declared a war. Congress has only authorized military engagements 13 other times since the nation was founded. In other words, Congress doesn't really have much say in military actions, they just provide or not provide the money to finance it. It would be next to impossible to impeach a President for engaging in a punitive military strike against a country that violated the Geneva Convention Protocols prohibiting the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Conservatives throwing around the "impeachment" word because of Syria should just shut up. They conveniently forget that their hero Reagan had a private war in Nicaragua funded with illegal weapons sales to Iran. The Iran-Contra Scandal was probably the closest a President ever got to being impeached for using military force, but that was mainly because of the highly illegal way he financed that war (a violation of Congress's "Power of the Purse"), rather than the actual fighting of the war.

Edited by Slate
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at all the killing going on in Africa....we sure are jumping to do something about that aren't we?

Oh that's right...our "leaders" do not seem to care about that....there is nothing their puppet masters want from there.

Oh, right...because there are no Soldiers and Marines in Africa :innocent: . Misinformation runs rampant through these threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, right...because there are no Soldiers and Marines in Africa :innocent: . Misinformation runs rampant through these threads.

it sure does.

there are soldiers and marines, yet killings going on, and always have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the history of the United States, Presidents have engaged in 125 military operations WITHOUT consent from Congress. Congress has declared war only five times since the nation was founded, 1942 was the last time Congress declared a war. Congress has only authorized military engagements 13 other times since the nation was founded. In other words, Congress doesn't really have much say in military actions, they just provide or not provide the money to finance it. It would be next to impossible to impeach a President for engaging in a punitive military strike against a country that violated the Geneva Convention Protocols prohibiting the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

And before all men were created equal endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, we had slavery laws in this country. With that kind of justification, we'd still have slavery today.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President can order the military around; the President can't start wars without Congress. Now it would seem we've lost our definition of War somewhere in all the hoopla. I know this will astonish some, but firing missiles at another country is an act of war.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.