01 Feb 13
Poll: 67 percent of Texas Republicans want to impeach Obama
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Just in case you had any doubt that Texas Republicans were a breed apart, consider this statistic:
According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, 67 percent of Texas Republicans would like to see President Barack Obama impeached and removed from office.
One GOP elected official — Rep. Steve Stockman of Friendswood — has suggested impeaching the second-term president because of his executive actions related to guns.
Because Texas has so many Republicans, the overwhelming GOP support for impeachment translates into 39 percent backing among all Lone Star State voters. We don’t have any national numbers, but we’d guess that impeachment has microscopic support outside of the Deep South.
The state remains very much racially polarized: Just 32 percent of non-Hispanic whites approve of Obama’s performance, compared to 70 percent of Latinos [the surging demographic in Texas] and 84 percent of African Americans. Whites, older Texans and men are the most likely to disapprove of Obama and to favor impeachment.
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/01/poll-67-percent-of-texas-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama/
01 Feb 13
1 edit
I've kept an eye on freerepublic.com for years and there are people that have been demanding impeachment for all manner of things since even before his inauguration in Jan 2008. My favourite was when he once made a speech in which he mentioned the right to "pray" rather than the right to "worship" and there was a whole frothing thread about how he had done away with the right to practise religion in the U.S. in one dastardly fell swoop with that speech! And there were people calling for his impeachment for it. Just one of many instances.
Is there a credible case for impeachment over the issue of "his executive actions related to guns"? Even if it is not credible, what is the case against him?
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by FMFNo, there's no good reason to impeach Obama over his executive orders. As executive orders go, they were particularly limp-wristed.
I've kept an eye on freerepublic.com for years and there are people that have been demanding impeachment for all manner of things since even before his inauguration in Jan 2008. My favourite was when he once made a speech in which he mentioned the right to "pray" rather than the right to "worship" and there was a whole frothing thread about how he had done away ...[text shortened]... utive actions related to guns"? Even if it is not credible, what is the case against him?
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by moon1969Not exactly a big suprise. Republicans want to impeach anyone who does not march in lock step with their agenda. 😴
[quote][b]Poll: 67 percent of Texas Republicans want to impeach Obama
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Just in case you had any doubt that Texas Republicans were a breed apart, consider this statistic:
According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, 67 percent of Texas Republicans would like to see President Barack Obama impeached and removed from of ...[text shortened]... p://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/01/poll-67-percent-of-texas-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama/[/b]
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by bill718Oh please. Everyone on the left wanted to impeach Bush for the war.
Not exactly a big suprise. Republicans want to impeach anyone who does not march in lock step with their agenda. 😴
Whoever is elected in 2016 will suffer the same fate because they don't have the big "D" or "R" by their name.
As for whether these people are impeachable, I would just say that once you attain this level of power you are free to do pretty much anything, assuming you are not too stupid about it. For example, Nixon was out of control, simply because he was a control freak. Had he gone about things differently he would have been just fine. In fact, the man broke the law on more than one occasion, but never saw one day of jail time. THen you have jokers in Congress like Charley Rangel who have a laundry list of ethics violations, and nothing is ever done about it.
From my vantage point, just signing the NDAA which basically defecates on due process under the law is enough reason to impeach the man, but who the hell cares what Whodey thinks?
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672So you would say that his EO's on allowing certain illegals to be legal is not an impeachable offense?
No, there's no good reason to impeach Obama over his executive orders. As executive orders go, they were particularly limp-wristed.
Basically he is ignoring the laws on the books.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by moon1969I don't see any of this as remotely surprising.
[quote][b]Poll: 67 percent of Texas Republicans want to impeach Obama
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Just in case you had any doubt that Texas Republicans were a breed apart, consider this statistic:
According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, 67 percent of Texas Republicans would like to see President Barack Obama impeached and removed from of ...[text shortened]... p://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/01/poll-67-percent-of-texas-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama/[/b]
If you didn't vote for him and don't like him, it stands to reason that there's an excellent chance you "would like to see President Barack Obama impeached and removed from office." Of course there are no legitimate grounds for impeachment, but since when has something like that ever worried partisan voters?
What percentage of San Francisco democrats would have "liked to see President George W. Bush impeached and removed from office"? I would be surprised if it were as low as 67%.
It's now essentially a fact of life in American politics that there will be calls to impeach any second term president and President Obama would be well served to realize this and not take these calls personally or seriously.
01 Feb 13
I wanted Bush and Obama impeached for continuing the status quo I consider wrong headed.
I am not a partisan creature as many people are. I just don't like imperialism. Whether it is from the left or right makes no difference to me. I hate them all.
Change you can't believe in. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou may have wanted that but that's not what the Constitution calls for. Impeachment is allowed for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" not for "continuing the status quo you consider wrong headed" or for "imperialism."
I wanted Bush and Obama impeached for continuing the status quo I consider wrong headed.
I am not a partisan creature as many people are. I just don't like imperialism. Whether it is from the left or right makes no difference to me. I hate them all.
Change you can't believe in. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyFailing to enforce a law is not an impeachable offense. If in fact a President has a responsibility to actively enforce every law on the books (a dubious proposition, but at least a debatable one), the remedy is to get a court order compelling the President to do so.
So you would say that his EO's on allowing certain illegals to be legal is not an impeachable offense?
Basically he is ignoring the laws on the books.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by sh76It is treason. Continuing an empire for the interests of the minority is contrary to the interests of the majority.
You may have wanted that but that's not what the Constitution calls for. Impeachment is allowed for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" not for "continuing the status quo you consider wrong headed" or for "imperialism."
Bribery is just normal politics anymore. Proving it is a different matter.
01 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou're expanding the definitions of those terms to suit your own political opinion. By no standard definition has President Bush or President Obama been proven to have committed treason or bribery.
It is treason. Continuing an empire for the interests of the minority is contrary to the interests of the majority.
Bribery is just normal politics anymore. Proving it is a different matter.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by sh76As long as the corporate news media manufactures consent you and others will always feel that way. Israel can break international law and you will be just fine with it and think it is normal. Double standards mean nothing to you as they are.
You're expanding the definitions of those terms to suit your own political opinion. By no standard definition has President Bush or President Obama been proven to have committed treason or bribery.
If Iran were to break international law the news media would be all over it, but Israel and the USA always get a free pass in this area. I understand you only see what you want to see and I expect that to continue as usual.
International law means nothing to you unless you agree with it. So goes the status quo in the USA. Double standards rule, logic suffers.