Democrats Are Obsessed With Impeachment

[Moonbeam]

lol

"Just out of curiosity, could you read and retype the bolded below? Because your post would suggest not."

That is an incoherent statement. You are saying that my post suggests I didn't read and retype a post my post had nothing with which to do. Could you reread what you wrote and try to put it in English. LOL! LOL>lol. LOL

 

[werepossum]

Can you be sure GOP won't impeach Obama? The tea party inmates are running the asylum over there, I wouldn't put it past them.

We can be sure the GOP won't impeach Obama IF he doesn't do something monumentally stupid. The GOP leadership has a secret phrase to make the Tea Partiers back down from impeachment talk: President Biden. All the proggie, half the intellect.

Besides, impeachment makes Boehner cry.

 

[theeedude]

We can be sure the GOP won't impeach Obama IF he doesn't do something monumentally stupid. The GOP leadership has a secret phrase to make the Tea Partiers back down from impeachment talk: President Biden. All the proggie, half the intellect.

Besides, impeachment makes Boehner cry.

Shutdown made Boehner cry too, but he couldn't do anything to stop it. The guy can't even control his own tear ducts, you think he can control the tea-baggers in his caucus?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
The Dems aren't trying to nip it in the bud, dude. They are desperately trying to give the perception that impeachment is a very real threat in order to recreate the political benefit Clinton enjoyed in the hopes that this perception will save them electorally in November. The GOP (less the crazier elements anyway) have figured out that just as the media successfully sold the dumb masses the idea that Clinton's impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice was "just about consensual sex", impeaching Obama on unilaterally breaking the law will result in the media successfully selling the dumb masses the idea that Obama's impeachment would be about Kenya or his birth certificate or something else similarly frivolous.

Unfortunately for the Dems, they don't have a lot this year besides this, so they're going with what they have even if what they have is imaginary.

Nice spin, but it's not a stretch at all given prominent Republicans' calls for impeachment and a recent poll showing 57% of Republicans support impeachment. That's not to say savvy Democrats aren't jumping to use this to political advantage. It's a great example of how unhinged today's GOP has become.

 

[werepossum]

"Just out of curiosity, could you read and retype the bolded below? Because your post would suggest not."

That is an incoherent statement. You are saying that my post suggests I didn't read and retype a post my post had nothing with which to do. Could you reread what you wrote and try to put it in English. LOL! LOL>lol. LOL

Not at all. I was saying that your post implies that you did not comprehend the earlier posts in the same thread. I added the retyping as a test of whether what you think it says is actually what it says. You said:

You just project your own fear of being controlled.

Just a bit above you was a post accusing the GOP of "trying its damnedest to destroy" people's rights whilst totally ignoring that the Democrat Party is doing that very thing. And the OP's topic was Democrats continually talking about the threat of something that manifestly is not happening.

Put together, those three things display a mind-blowing unawareness of self.

 

[werepossum]

Shutdown made Boehner cry too, but he couldn't do anything to stop it. The guy can't even control his own tear ducts, you think he can control the tea-baggers in his caucus?

That's a good point. I'd say the difference is that with the shutdown he needed Republicans to vote with the Democrats which could very well destroy their personal careers, and not a lot is more precious to a Congresscritter than his or her personal career. Boehner could not shut it down by simply not bringing it up because he had to pass a bill to not shut down the government, and Democrats being in lockstep he had to pass a bill acceptable to Democrat leadership.

With impeachment he needs Republicans to NOT vote for impeachment; Boehner can kill that by simply not bringing it up. Moreover, while most Republican Congresscritters know that voting against impeachment will likely hurt them in the primary, voting for impeachment will likely hurt them in the general where most need not only hard-core Republican faithful votes but also independent votes.

 

[theeedude]

That's a good point. I'd say the difference is that with the shutdown he needed Republicans to vote with the Democrats which could very well destroy their personal careers, and not a lot is more precious to a Congresscritter than his or her personal career. Boehner could not shut it down by simply not bringing it up because he had to pass a bill to not shut down the government, and Democrats being in lockstep he had to pass a bill acceptable to Democrat leadership.

With impeachment he needs Republicans to NOT vote for impeachment; Boehner can kill that by simply not bringing it up. Moreover, while most Republican Congresscritters know that voting against impeachment will likely hurt them in the primary, voting for impeachment will likely hurt them in the general where most need not only hard-core Republican faithful votes but also independent votes.

It's likely you are right, but as a Democrat, I wouldn't take it as a given. I think if a little bit of money and my time to vote can help tilt it more towards a certainty, then, considering the damage an impeachment would do to America, it's a worthwhile investment.

 

[UberNeuman]

And the GOP is obsessed with their dog and pony show - GOP-led House votes to sue Obama in first-of-its-kind lawsuit

Idiots.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not at all. I was saying that your post implies that you did not comprehend the earlier posts in the same thread. I added the retyping as a test of whether what you think it says is actually what it says. You said:


Just a bit above you was a post accusing the GOP of "trying its damnedest to destroy" people's rights whilst totally ignoring that the Democrat Party is doing that very thing. And the OP's topic was Democrats continually talking about the threat of something that manifestly is not happening.

Put together, those three things display a mind-blowing unawareness of self.

I think that what you think my post implied was what you inferred it implied which may not be what it implied at all. However, if you wish to think that I am mind-blowingly unaware of myself that would imply that I don't have any idea what I implied but that's OK by me. I would rather you go on with that belief than try to parse this out. I have eaten a meal, the day is beautifully warm and I'm getting sleepy. The penultimate unawareness is creeping up on me hopefully faster than the one that's ultimate and final.

When you sleep, do you ever fret that you could be losing millions in stock trades? Happy dreams.

 

[werepossum]

It's likely you are right, but as a Democrat, I wouldn't take it as a given. I think if a little bit of money and my time to vote can help tilt it more towards a certainty, then, considering the damage an impeachment would do to America, it's a worthwhile investment.

Wouldn't the damage an impeachment would do to America be rather dependent on the reason behind the impeachment?

I think that what you think my post implied was what you inferred it implied which may not be what it implied at all. However, if you wish to think that I am mind-blowingly unaware of myself that would imply that I don't have any idea what I implied but that's OK by me. I would rather you go on with that belief than try to parse this out. I have eaten a meal, the day is beautifully warm and I'm getting sleepy. The penultimate unawareness is creeping up on me hopefully faster than the one that's ultimate and final.

When you sleep, do you ever fret that you could be losing millions in stock trades? Happy dreams.

I don't sleep much, but the prospect of losing millions in anything is not one that has much meaning to me. If I had millions to lose, I would not be sitting here waiting for these damned drawings to compile.

 

[cubby1223]

Can you be sure GOP won't impeach Obama? The tea party inmates are running the asylum over there, I wouldn't put it past them.

You should totally give your life savings to the Democratic party's re-election fund to protect yourself from that possibility.

I wonder, if we all keep projecting a possible maybe but not likely but totally greater than 0.01% to happen threat to impeach someone... activist liberals all over the country might bankrupt themselves! Hmmm, must study further...

 

[theeedude]

Wouldn't the damage an impeachment would do to America be rather dependent on the reason behind the impeachment?

If there is a good reason, it will be bipartisan. And if it's not bipartisan, there will be an acquittal in the Senate anyways, since GOP won't have 67 votes.

 

[werepossum]

If there is a good reason, it will be bipartisan. And if it's not bipartisan, there will be an acquittal in the Senate anyways, since GOP won't have 67 votes.

Agreed.

 

[Matt1970]

A liberal will tell you not to walk alone of the savanna with lions are around. .

Typical Liberal. You don't have to outrun the lion, you just have to outrun the person you are with.

 

[nehalem256]

Ignorance is bliss. And there's not much more ignorant than a person who will vote for a party that is trying its damnedest to destroy that person's rights.

No matter how special you may personally feel abortion is it is only a singular right.

Trying to pull a Bill Clinton and set back English another decade?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ignorance is bliss. And there's not much more ignorant than a person who will vote for a party that is trying its damnedest to destroy that person's rights.

I wasn't impressed with Bush and his "terrur" agenda, or am I with Obama and his "Oh we won't spy on our people" then do just that. I won't vote for any of them. Destroying rights? Neither side has a monopoly.

As far as impeachment it didn't happen to Bush and it won't happen to Obama. There is no sin which cannot be forgiven by their respective party, nothing that won't get the wagons circled. Partisans prevail.

 

[dank69]

The Democrats using the GOP's actual words against them constitutes dirty politics. Do I have that right?

 

[werepossum]

Typical Liberal. You don't have to outrun the lion, you just have to outrun the person you are with.

lol

 

[DominionSeraph]

The conservative bubble at work.

 

[Moonbeam]

Typical Liberal. You don't have to outrun the lion, you just have to outrun the person you are with.

Spoken like a true female. Men don't run.

 

[norseamd]

Just remember that Comcast runs their own politics so this might have nothing to do with liberals or conservatives.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, the calls for impeachment have withered on the sour grapevines but have hope Repubs! A lawsuit against Obama from the HOR has just been filed.

This is going to be fun to watch.

 

[trenchfoot]

We can be sure the GOP won't impeach Obama IF he doesn't do something monumentally stupid. The GOP leadership has a secret phrase to make the Tea Partiers back down from impeachment talk: President Biden. All the proggie, half the intellect.

Besides, impeachment makes Boehner cry.

OK, that was pretty good I have to admit.

 

[John Connor]

The democrats are deathly affraid of losing the Senate in November. Fuck 'em.

 

[Bitek]

I believe Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, those are serious crimes if you're a pleb. Also, they should have added an additional charge for setting sex ed and English back a number of decades.

A bipartisan congress voted to delegate warmaking authority to the president, which was essentially without precedent. There was even a constitutional challenge by people who didn't become antiwar when it was politically expedient. The court in Massachusetts had this to say:


(emphasis mine)

Democrats called Bush nasty names too. (and I agreed with them to a large degree)

I guess Nate Silver isn't popular with the Dems when he writes things that don't benefit them.

Doesn't matter. Nobody read the Starr report or remembers all the other background. Same with any bipartisan war commissions.

What matters is the high level collective public memory. Clinton got impeached for porking a fat girl with a cigar, and Bush invaded the wrong country and let bin laden escape and nothing happened. Fair and accurate or not, it's how people will interpret events today.

Add to that the remainder, and it has left the GOP with very little public credibility for reasonableness. All it's taking is a few idiotic statements from the former VP candidate and a little finger on the scale from the dems and a stupid idea becomes believable in the public's mind.

Now the GOP wants to cry they are being slandered. Good luck with that.