Obama's Failures

Tools    





I don't think there's been any credible evidence that President Obama has done anything that has been an impeachable offense. Was your comment meant to be taken in jest? On what grounds do you believe we should be moving for President Obama to be impeached?



I don't think there's been any credible evidence that President Obama has done anything that has been an impeachable offense. Was your comment meant to be taken in jest? On what grounds do you believe we should be moving for President Obama to be impeached?
Holy moly, YOU must be the one taken in jest, how about:

1) mass murder with drones/double taps = thousands of innocents killed
2) illegal interventions
3) illegal spying
4) fast n furious
5) NDAA + killing two american citizens abroad without trial
6) re-signing the patriot act
7) Bengazi, NSA, IRS
8) Not doing anything about the banks because as Holder said "they're too big"
9) Guantanamo's majority are people we know are innocent + ordering torture in general
10) illegal drilling in the Gulf
11) Obamacare is an illegal mandate, and was knowingly bought with votes
12) Czars

And so on



Wintertriangles, thanks for contributing to this discussion. Unfortunately, none of these are impeachable offenses. Many of these are your own opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that there's a legitimate basis in the law for what you are saying. For example, you call Obamacare an illegal mandate, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, and the Supreme Court has the final say on what the law is. They ruled Obama's healthcare mandate was constitutional.

Congress approved the NSA spying and the Patriot Act, so neither of these are illegal according to US law. Whether they should be legal or represent good policy is an open question, but words have meaning and what you are saying simply isn't true. I'm not informed enough on the Fast and Furious events to comment intelligently on them, but from my cursory understanding of these events there is no evidence that President Obama has been directly involved with this.

I think that you have legitimate points with respect to Guantanamo Bay, but President Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay and was blocked by Congress from doing so. I am not aware of any evidence that President Obama has ordered torture. If you have some, I'd be happy to take a look at that.


There is as of yet no evidence that President Obama was directly involved with the IRS scandal or Benghazi. With respect to Benghazi, even if he were, failing to stop a terrorist attack in Benghazi is not illegal.

There's also nothing illegal about oil drilling in the gulf. Whether this is good policy is a legitimate point of debate, but your opinion that something is bad policy doesn't make that policy illegal. I don't know what your point is about czars.

Drone attacks trouble me greatly, and the lack of oversight of them is worrying, but just because you or I may have concern about government policy that doesn't make the government policy illegal. None of these policies you have listed are illegal according to US law and your disagreement about them doesn't make President Obama subject to impeachment.



Actually you're completely wrong, but thanks for writing all that out.

1) I'm not really concerned with the Supreme Court ruling because they've overturned themselves before, thus their decisions are impermanent and somewhat arbitrary based on who owns them at the time. They can rule however they want but it doesn't change the fact that Obamacare is a forced mandate for everyone: anyone who doesn't pay for it will be fined, what's that called?

2) Congress approving illegal activity doesn't make it legal are you sh1tting me

3) Obama has oversight over Fast and Furious, he is at the very least indirectly responsible, even for keeping Holder on the team. As for the IRS and Benghazi scandals, there is plenty of evidence he was involved. I know failing to stop a terrorist attack, let alone in a foreign country, is not illegal, but all these things add up to show how incapable of being a president he is, including not going after any bankers.

4) Obama did not try to close Guantanamo. He made a single, frail motion to see if maybe Congress would possibly consider thinking about considering discussing the possibility of closing Guantanamo. That is not trying. As for torture, Wikileaks, Kiriakou, and Manning alone provide enough evidence that Obama is well aware of and condones torture.

5) Apropos the oil drilling, he is held in contempt of court for going through with the situation. Even under your silly definitions that is illegal. Just like illegal interventions without Congressional consent. Or killing two Americans without a trial.

6) The drones clearly don't affect you at all if they're just a minor perturbation in your view of the Democratic Jesus. Several countries and the EU has called them illegal actions, and since they are international actions, they are thus illegal.

In summation, your definition of opinion is pathetic.

What would he have to do to be subject for impeachment? There's not much left!



Yeah, I'm not sure how much to factor technical legality in here, when half the complaint is that things that really shouldn't be allowed are being deemed legal.



Wintertriangles, I've criticized President Obama plenty. I certainly don't think of him as the "Democratic Jesus," but words have meaning. If you are going to call for President Obama's impeachment, you have to have provable evidence that he has broken US law. You don't have that evidence. Therefore, it's irresponsible to throw these words around, in my opinion.



I suppose anything can be legal now if it's reworded in a well-enough way for enough people or enough of the right people. If it serves a useful function for the powerful, is convenient, is a shortcut to "getting it done". I'm sure there are plenty enough people who can be manipulated to adopt any words with any meanings... aka plebes.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Yeah, I'm not sure how much to factor technical legality in here, when half the complaint is that things that really shouldn't be allowed are being deemed legal.
Here you go again.

And this only applies to Obama?

You never expressed such concerns about the even more impressive list of Bush transgressions.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



That statement isn't me stating my opinion, dude: it's me pointing out to AKA that he's talking past winter's actual complaints by relegating himself to technical legality, when winter's clearly not talking about that. It's not an endorsement of anything.

So, as usual, you're contributing nothing to the discussion other than confusion.



You never expressed such concerns about the even more impressive list of Bush transgressions.
Pretty sure if you compare their transgressions Obama is like Bush on crack.

Also, this:

I suppose anything can be legal now if it's reworded in a well-enough way for enough people or enough of the right people.
If you are going to call for President Obama's impeachment, you have to have provable evidence that he has broken US law.
Dude, besides that your moral compass is skewed so far to not consider these things more than just mere faults, even the couple things I mentioned that are blatantly illegal don't count? Really? And you want to call me irresponsible? Forgive me, but I don't recall OKing the massacres of innocents overseas with the push of a button, I don't think you can call me irresponsible.



Bush was bad. Ergo, Obama can do what he wants. Praise Obama. He's saving Merika because black democrat.
Yeah, it's a very cynical approach to politics that treats it like chess, where your piece is "safe" so long as you can put someone else's in danger, too. When I see people do that instead of defending the actual position on some level, I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't really interested in what's right. They just want to win; either the campaign or the argument.



Pretty sure if you compare their transgressions Obama is like Bush on crack.
Yeah, it's kind of funny how the degree of each policy just flies out the window, as if it's all binary. We saw it most egregiously with deficits, where we just hear "Bush had deficits!" as if it's the same thing even when it's three times as large. It's tremendously silly.



I understand the substance of the point you are making Yoda, but in order to be eligible to be impeached, you have to break US law. An argument that something shouldn't be legal but is isn't a credible argument for impeachment. In order to be impeached, you have to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." High crimes and misdemeanors are either things that are illegal or that the House of Representatives deems to be against US law. Clinton lied under oath. Nixon orchestrated a burglary and then covered it up. Both of these were clearly against US law. That's why both were impeached. Nothing that has been brought up in this conversation rises to that level, and that's the criteria for impeachment. Policy disagreements do not become fodder for impeachment proceedings just because we want them to be.



Nixon orchestrated a burglary and then covered it up.
By this example re-signing the Patriot Act can be considered treasonous. Oh wait it doesn't count because Congress said warrantless wiretapping is cool these days, just not when Nixon did it, what a bad man he was, doing a fraction of the crime our politicians commit these days.



By this example re-signing the Patriot Act can be considered treasonous. Oh wait it doesn't count because Congress said warrantless wiretapping is cool these days, just not when Nixon did it, what a bad man he was, doing a fraction of the crime our politicians commit these days.
Chill out, bro. Next you'll be throwing around words like "Constitution".



Bush and Obama are both war criminals. They have continued unprovoked conflicts, and done so in the name of the local population, which largely doesn't want us occupying them.
__________________


...uh the post is up there...