The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Impeachment ...

  1. #11
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,322

    Default

    Impeachment is sure to go down in defeat. The GOPs don't have the votes. The GOPpers had more on Bill Clinton than they do on Obama and that impeachment fizzled and then backfired. I would like to be a democrat campaign strategist post a GOPper impeachment attempt. You have a Republican House that can't agree on what day of the week it is unless it happens to be payday. The least productive House of Representatives in history. Government shut downs. 50 failed attempts to repeal the Obamney Care. A failed impeachment attempt on top of it. Let's face it, this bunch of losers would have skid marks on their ears the day after the election.
    Last edited by zeus3925; 07-27-2014 at 11:01 AM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  2. #12
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I am also in agreement that impeachment would be a terrible way to go. I agree that it would provide Ds a great political football for upcoming elections that currently look pretty grim for them.

    Nothing wrong with SP being a spokesperson for conservatives. There are many political figures of both persuasions that do what SP does, though they hold no elected office. I personally think she's too impulsive to be a POTUS or VP, but she obviously does strike a chord with many voters.

    In fact, liberals make a practice of campaigning on buzzwords and sound bites. SP is using those same tactics, I think. it's about time liberal opponents caught onto how liberals create the atmosphere that gets to the low-info voters.

    It may not be such a bad thing to draw attention to the fact that POTUS has acted outside the laws and his Constitutional authority to such a degree that it merits impeachment ... but not actually do the impeachment.

    Truthfully, I'm also waiting for Reid to invoke the nuclear option for other matters in the Senate beyond appointments. God knows the appointments are doing enough damage, but could he extend that beyond just appointments? A nation of 300 million would be at the mercy of 51 people? Surely, the Founders never intended for that to happen (or there would be no need for the House)? What if Reid used the process he used on ACA on other bills passed by the House?

    But what should Congress do if POTUS were to extend amnesty by executive order to many millions of illegals? Most say he is operating within the law with UACs ... however, as I mentioned before, that law was written for UACs that are brought here by force ... not those who come voluntarily. That is carefully being overlooked by almost everyone right now. And there is also the loophole that POTUS could declare all of those UACs (and the adults that are accompanying them) as "refugees" ... and they immediately are "legal" and can collect all social service benefits.

    This kind of "blanket" refugee status was only done, in the past, with Cubans and Viet Namese. This new influx is not quite the same as that.

    Perhaps my OP question was not the right one. Maybe the question should be what options does Congress have if the POTUS' use of executive orders that flout existing law become even more blatant ... and more dangerous to rule of law? When a supporter of D policies like John Hurley, a Constitutional scholar, believes that we are in a Constitutional crisis, it makes me take notice.
    I believe the non contiguous refugee act signed by "W." permits this drama on the border. The republican House could earn their paychecks by passing legislation repealing that action. It could follow that on by funding the personnel to seal up that border. It could fix the problem by getting a meaningful immigration act. Don't hold your breath with this bunch of high priced Republican prima donnas. They are too busy trying to hang their inaction on the POTUS AND collecting their ill gotten paychecks.
    Last edited by zeus3925; 07-27-2014 at 11:14 AM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  3. #13
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,504

    Default

    No modern President deserves to be impeached more than Obama! But I do not think that anything will get the democrats in the Senate to support it. Not to mention that Dingy Harry Reid would never let it come to a vote....like the over 100 bills submitted to him from the House that he never allow to be debated on the Senate floor...!

    Letting Obama continue to tear down the Democratic Party will be our best option, but I only hope the country can survive his lack of leadership and down right illegal executive orders.....!

  4. #14
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    As long as we don't round up illegals and ship them home what's it matter anyway? The bleeding hearts love all those on programs which means bigger government.

    All about cheap labor no matter how you look at the immigration issue. Everyone today can have a housekeeper, a perfect lawn, and their roof repaired in a day..

    The capitalists who lead our corporations only deal in the number of goods they can sell. More people who arrive in the USA, the more wealth for big business. Who controls Congress, and the POTUS... big business. So impeachment will not happen and then their next candidate will do nothing to close our borders.

    The corruption of our Government is so deep it is hard to get worked up anymore.
    I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot. ..... Elmer Keith



  5. #15
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I am also in agreement that impeachment would be a terrible way to go. I agree that it would provide Ds a great political football for upcoming elections that currently look pretty grim for them.

    Nothing wrong with SP being a spokesperson for conservatives. There are many political figures of both persuasions that do what SP does, though they hold no elected office. I personally think she's too impulsive to be a POTUS or VP, but she obviously does strike a chord with many voters.

    In fact, liberals make a practice of campaigning on buzzwords and sound bites. SP is using those same tactics, I think. it's about time liberal opponents caught onto how liberals create the atmosphere that gets to the low-info voters.

    It may not be such a bad thing to draw attention to the fact that POTUS has acted outside the laws and his Constitutional authority to such a degree that it merits impeachment ... but not actually do the impeachment.

    Truthfully, I'm also waiting for Reid to invoke the nuclear option for other matters in the Senate beyond appointments. God knows the appointments are doing enough damage, but could he extend that beyond just appointments? A nation of 300 million would be at the mercy of 51 people? Surely, the Founders never intended for that to happen (or there would be no need for the House)? What if Reid used the process he used on ACA on other bills passed by the House?

    But what should Congress do if POTUS were to extend amnesty by executive order to many millions of illegals? Most say he is operating within the law with UACs ... however, as I mentioned before, that law was written for UACs that are brought here by force ... not those who come voluntarily. That is carefully being overlooked by almost everyone right now. And there is also the loophole that POTUS could declare all of those UACs (and the adults that are accompanying them) as "refugees" ... and they immediately are "legal" and can collect all social service benefits.

    This kind of "blanket" refugee status was only done, in the past, with Cubans and Viet Namese. This new influx is not quite the same as that.

    Perhaps my OP question was not the right one. Maybe the question should be what options does Congress have if the POTUS' use of executive orders that flout existing law become even more blatant ... and more dangerous to rule of law? When a supporter of D policies like John Hurley, a Constitutional scholar, believes that we are in a Constitutional crisis, it makes me take notice.

    ok Gerry if SP is too impulsive to be a VP or Pres then how in the hell can she be the spokesperson for conservatives, she lacks the depth or the political chops to be my flag bearer, also as much of a lightning rod as she appears to be I dont want her as my point person..She certainly is NOT the face of the party
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  6. #16
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    ok Gerry if SP is too impulsive to be a VP or Pres then how in the hell can she be the spokesperson for conservatives, she lacks the depth or the political chops to be my flag bearer, also as much of a lightning rod as she appears to be I dont want her as my point person..She certainly is NOT the face of the party
    Sarah Palin has been demonized by the liberal press who did not like her down to earth common sense. The people of Alaska still maintain the Spirit that made this nation great. That is not fair at all. There is not much I don't like about her. She is real... not some Hillery Clinton who has never got her hands dirty in her life.
    I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot. ..... Elmer Keith



  7. #17
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    ok Gerry if SP is too impulsive to be a VP or Pres then how in the hell can she be the spokesperson for conservatives, she lacks the depth or the political chops to be my flag bearer, also as much of a lightning rod as she appears to be I dont want her as my point person..She certainly is NOT the face of the party
    She may not be the face of the PARTY... But the party is totally lost as it is. Palin speaks more for the AVERAGE American, like me, than you might think. The PARTY needs more who are willing to tell it like it is rather than hide behind the PC bull that got us in this mess.
    Bill Davis

  8. #18
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    Impeachment is sure to go down in defeat. The GOPs don't have the votes. The GOPpers had more on Bill Clinton than they do on Obama and that impeachment fizzled and then backfired. I would like to be a democrat campaign strategist post a GOPper impeachment attempt. You have a Republican House that can't agree on what day of the week it is unless it happens to be payday. The least productive House of Representatives in history. Government shut downs. 50 failed attempts to repeal the Obamney Care. A failed impeachment attempt on top of it. Let's face it, this bunch of losers would have skid marks on their ears the day after the election.

    Of course... That's why Obama and his crew keep egging the R's on about it... They want the R's to impeach him. The D's need the issue for the election.
    Bill Davis

  9. #19
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,440

    Default

    Zeus, there are nearly 200 bills passed by the House that Reid refuses to bring to the Senate floor. Most are R-sponsored bills, but about 30 of them are D-sponsored bills.

    I believe the House has proposed (not sure if voted) on a bill to change the 2008 law ... even though that law does refer to those forcibly brought to this country. POTUS insists that any such bill must include the $3.7 billion he has asked for to take care of the present UACs, most of whom are expected to stay either by their legal processing according to the 2008 law or by being given refugee status. There is also some correlation between that law and the DACA executive order. There is evidence from the flyers in those Central American countries that the DACA is at least part of the reason for the influx since DACA was implemented by the POTUS. So, now it's incumbent upon the R's to "fix" this for POTUS (who may well have exceeded his Constitutional authority to begin with).

    While Obama "says" that these people will not be allowed to stay, his actions speak louder than his words. Not too many people, here or in international circles, I'd say, place much weight on Obama's words anymore.

    I will repeat the question: Ruling out impeachment (since none of us feel like it would do anything useful for anyone), what other recourse does Congress have to reign in a POTUS who is exceeding his authority to this degree? When I say "to this degree" ... I refer to the fact that this immigration fiasco, alone, is likely to cost a lot more than the $3.7 billion on the table right now.

    If Guiterrez is being accurate, he asserts that the POTUS has promised that he will legalize up to 5 million present illegals (as he did with DACA). Maybe Guitterrez is just making propaganda to get POTUS that $3.7 billion by panicking the Rs into giving in? Maybe POTUS will take the $3.7 billion and just renege on signing the change to the law ... or do so only after granting further amnesty to those 5 million? If he promised Guiterrez he would do it, and then he doesn't do so, he would risk the Hispanic vote for 2016. IOW, the POTUS has to lie to one of the two sides in question. Regardless of whom he lies to, it will impact the 2016 elections (if not the 2014). I figure he'd lie to the Rs since that risk would be less impactful to his agenda than lying to the Hispanic Caucus.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Immigration surely is/was not an impeachable offense, at least not uniquely to this Potus. Fast and Furious or the IRS scandals surely are but someone before the potus would go down on those. This is the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil President who learns of these things on the news.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •