Impeach Obama If He Strikes Syria

[IlarMeilyr]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

Incorrect.

Clinton broke no law, his acquittal in the Senate is proof of that.

That the charges against Clinton warranted impeachment is debatable; but again, the fact that Clinton’s enemies failed to win conviction in the Senate is strong evidence in support of the argument that the Clinton impeachment was motivated by partisanism, not fact.

And we see the same partisan motivation with regard to the right’s advocacy of ‘impeaching’ Obama.

^ I guess we now have Adam_Clayton on record, on that basis:

George Zimmerman broke no law in the Trayvon Martin matter. His jury trial acquittal is proof of that.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I've come to the conclusion it is suicidal to continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth. Both parties depend on 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The 1% depend on eternal war to maintain their lifestyles. Neither political party will turn its back on war except as a tool to club the other for votes; look at all the conservatives urging Obama to back off in Syria and ask yourself if most of them would offer the same advice to McCain or Romney. Democrats would be screaming from their roof-tops if McCain or Romney wanted to lob missiles at Assad. IMHO, we need to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents (Rs and Ds alike) from DC in 2014 and replace them with third party candidates who aren't indebted to defense contractors and Wall Street.

The question then becomes where would these third party candidates get their money to run for office? Takes a bundle.

My ballots always offer a variety of third party candidates for House and Senate seats; I don't know what percentage of ballots nationwide offer the same choice; however, for those that do, it would be relatively simple and inexpensive (at least the first time) for millions of US voters to select their Representatives and Senators from third party candidates instead of continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican.

But...nobody wants to be on the losing team, do they?

 

[georgephillip]

The question then becomes where would these third party candidates get their money to run for office? Takes a bundle.

My ballots always offer a variety of third party candidates for House and Senate seats; I don't know what percentage of ballots nationwide offer the same choice; however, for those that do, it would be relatively simple and inexpensive (at least the first time) for millions of US voters to select their Representatives and Senators from third party candidates instead of continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican.

But...nobody wants to be on the losing team, do they?

Maybe this is not a game?
What do 99% of Americans win when they "choose" between Democrat OR Republican?
Should dozens or even hundreds of current DC incumbents lose their jobs in a single news cycle in November of 2014, it seems to me everyone not getting rich from our current political economy wins.

 

[gallantwarrior]

My ballots always offer a variety of third party candidates for House and Senate seats; I don't know what percentage of ballots nationwide offer the same choice; however, for those that do, it would be relatively simple and inexpensive (at least the first time) for millions of US voters to select their Representatives and Senators from third party candidates instead of continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican.

But...nobody wants to be on the losing team, do they?

Maybe this is not a game?
What do 99% of Americans win when they "choose" between Democrat OR Republican?
Should dozens or even hundreds of current DC incumbents lose their jobs in a single news cycle in November of 2014, it seems to me everyone not getting rich from our current political economy wins.

No, it isn't a game at all. That's one of the galling points when I listen to why some people cast their vote the way they do. Lots only vote because they belong to a particular party, just like their mommies and daddies. They're like legacy voters. The past couple of cycles, I've observed mobs of voters who chose a candidate based on his skin color alone. People will vote against a candidate they don't like. Lots of reasons why people vote the way they do. I would like to see a whole bunch of third-party candidates sweep the decks clean this coming cycle, but I doubt it will happen. Because when all is said and done, too many people don't think third-party runners can win, so they won't back them. Too bad, really. If enough of us could shed that fear of backing a loser, they might not lose.

 

[georgephillip]

But...nobody wants to be on the losing team, do they?

Maybe this is not a game?
What do 99% of Americans win when they "choose" between Democrat OR Republican?
Should dozens or even hundreds of current DC incumbents lose their jobs in a single news cycle in November of 2014, it seems to me everyone not getting rich from our current political economy wins.

No, it isn't a game at all. That's one of the galling points when I listen to why some people cast their vote the way they do. Lots only vote because they belong to a particular party, just like their mommies and daddies. They're like legacy voters. The past couple of cycles, I've observed mobs of voters who chose a candidate based on his skin color alone. People will vote against a candidate they don't like. Lots of reasons why people vote the way they do. I would like to see a whole bunch of third-party candidates sweep the decks clean this coming cycle, but I doubt it will happen. Because when all is said and done, too many people don't think third-party runners can win, so they won't back them. Too bad, really. If enough of us could shed that fear of backing a loser, they might not lose.

Sweeping the DC decks in November 2014 would probably require using internet-based social media in an "Arab Spring" model designed to encourage the 40% to 50% of eligible voters who don't usually bother casting a ballot to get involved and vote AGAINST every congressional incumbent appearing on their ballots. Absent the sort of crisis we saw in November 2008, I agree that's a real long shot.

 

[g5000]

This topic seems relevant at this moment.

 

[Lakhota]

This topic seems relevant at this moment.

Yep, the NaziCon hypocrisy is dripping...

 

[g5000]

This topic seems relevant at this moment.

Yep, the NaziCon hypocrisy is dripping...

Yeahbut...

Yeahbut...

Because Trump!

 

[JoeMoma]

Clinton's impeachment wasn't a "distraction." He broke the law.

Agreed.
Clinton broke the law and deserved his impeachment which also distracted him from Social Security "reform."

Incorrect.

Clinton broke no law, his acquittal in the Senate is proof of that.

That the charges against Clinton warranted impeachment is debatable; but again, the fact that Clinton’s enemies failed to win conviction in the Senate is strong evidence in support of the argument that the Clinton impeachment was motivated by partisanism, not fact.

And we see the same partisan motivation with regard to the right’s advocacy of ‘impeaching’ Obama.

^ I guess we now have Adam_Clayton on record, on that basis:

George Zimmerman broke no law in the Trayvon Martin matter. His jury trial acquittal is proof of that.

Even better, OJ Simpson did not murder anyone. His acquittal of the murder in criminal court is proof of that.

 

[regent]

The Day an American President is thrown into jail?

Will be the day Democracy ends in America.

Bank on that.

The day the American people elect a president that should be thrown in jail, they may learn to take their voting responsibilities more seriously.

 

[georgephillip]

"De Niro wants to play Mueller again, escort Trump 'to jail'"
De Niro wants to play Mueller again, escort Trump 'to jail'
Art imitates life?

 

[Timmy]

Cons are the biggest phonies . Nothing to see here!