The debate "Should Barack Obama be impeached from the position of President of the United States of America" was started by
May 4, 2015, 6:53 pm.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 43 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
scooter6381 posted 2 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 6 arguments, Shahmir posted 1 argument, Getmurked posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
scooter6381, Bodaciouslady16, jonatron5, AnkGanu, toughgamerjerry, Benzdick, Damn3d, WhyNot, AstroSpace and 22 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, PsychDave, Sosocratese, Seraphim, Shahmir, bearunter, Mrcolaman, Zach_Hill, Getmurked, Violet, DarkAngelAnarchist, egzon135, shinywhale, skyfrancois_97, soullesschicken, jedty and 27 visitors disagree.
you seem to be caught up in a midst of conspiracy theories. yes obama is not perfecr, liike most presidents, but hes a safe haven from the likes of bush. he has been fair enough, and has upped the economy, lowering the unemployment rate significantly, and also plannee out and executed the death of osama bin laden. he is helping in the war against isis and has done far more domestic wise. hes not amazing, or anything innovarive but hes done a fair job and done nothing to get him impeached
I don't just mean politically experienced, every somewhat good president that the US has had has a military background. Bush was in the National Guard as a pilot. He may not have led an army but he knows what it's like to be led and he used that ability as president well in my opinion.
Yes, Obama does have military advisors that give him suggestions on what to do. Although he ignores them. Most of them practically begged him to send troops to Afghanistan (I believe) and he didn't send any until after that battle was over. Obama does not know what it is like to be in a war and he does not want to listen to those who have been.
And there is at the moment a bill that is going to go through congress that will affect out international trade, but I do not know exactly what it changes or when it will go through congress, but it has gone through the house, next congress, and of it goes through them then Obama has to sign it which I cannot answer if he should or should not because I do not know the contents of the bill.
Obama has not be the most honest president. He has lied even before he became president. for example, he said he was a Christian when running for president, if he really was a Christian then he would have shown at least some reaction to the almost 2 dozen Christians murdered by ISIS.
He may not have tapped into his opponents phones himself. But he passed a bill a.k.a the Patriot act, FISA section 702, Bullrun, third party doctrine etc. that let's the NSA tap directly into America's phones and computers. well used to. this pass Thursday there was a bill passed that made electronic bulk collection illegal. BTW do not get into a debate with me on electronic surveillance because I just spent this past whole school year debating on electronic surveillance.
Those are fair points. I don't know everything he has done because, from here in Canada, we basically just get the highlights.
I think having an intelligent, educated president is more important than a politically experienced one. Bush had never led a military either. Nor has any president (to the best of my knowledge) worked in a power plant, or in any number of other fields. A wise man knows what he does not know and gets help from those who do. Obama is not a tactician, but there are generals who are that he can rely on. He is not an expert on international trade (again, to the best of my knowledge) but he must employ diplomats and businessmen who are.
Personally, from what I have seen of Obama, he has been more upfront and honest than some past presidents. He has not had an affair and perjured himself, he has not been caught tapping his opponents phones, and he did not lie about the existence of WMDs in order to justify a war.
I know he is not perfect, but I don't feel he has done anything sufficient to warrant impeachment.
Okay, I agree with you on all those points except for the last point. First off you say that Obama was trying to put in affordable health care. In my opinion he failed miserably on that regard because Obama care is not affordable. And I don't know about you but I want a president who knows what he is doing, and for that to happen he needs experience in more than just being a lawyer and teaching the constitution. He does not know how to run an army, which right now is one of the biggest things that we need against ISIS. I agree with you that not every person is perfect. There are many things that every president has done wrong. But I think that the American people need to vote for someone who is skilled, not says he is going to do all this stuff. I can say I will stop world hunger, does that mean that you should vote for me to be the president of the association that is trying to get rid of world hunger? I think not, because I have done nothing other than say that I can do something. Unless I show that I have the ability to do what I say, nobody will believe me. I think that the American people voted for Obama for the wrong reasons. I do not mind having a black president. But the only reason why we haven't had one before Obama is because nobody wanted to step up to the plate. So yes I do believe that every president has flaws in their own ways, but I also believe that Obama has the most recorded flaws out of all the United States presidents. I was actually talking to a man from Israel last Wednesday, and he said that Obama was an embarrassment to the US. And he was a very credible source. That is my opinion on this matter.
Sorry, I will try to be a bit more clear. When I looked into Obama playing the race card, I had no problem finding interviews with Cheyney saying he had, and other people saying that Obama was playing the race card, but I couldn't find anywhere that Obama was quoted to.
It is like if someone claimed to have heard Obama make antisemitic comments. Whether he had or not, news outlets would pick up the story. I can find people reporting the claim, but not evidence that the claim is true. It is possible that the speech in which Obama played the race card is being buried in reports about the Cheyney interview, but unless I can find it, all I have to go on is one of his opponents word, even discrediting Obama would be to his benefit.
I know Truman faced different challenges, every president does, but the fact remains that there is precedent for using the presidential power in this way. If the president is blocked by Congress, he still has some power to keep things running.
I wasn't just criticizing her lack of experience in journalism, I just find it bizarre that I can't find any record of her accreditations other than her Facebook page. Generally they have some kind of boo on Web sites, but hers doesn't seem to. It is possible that she is am excellent investigate journalist, but I can't verify any of her sources, which always makes me skeptical. Especially when her facts contradict other, more established and reputable news outlets.
I do agree that there were other, more experienced potential candidates. But what Obama lacked in experience, he made up for with charisma, passion, and ideals. He vowed to bring about change and, while he has not lived up to all of the hype (what politician does) he has brought about some fairly major changes. Affordable health care may not have been popular with some people, but from a Canadian perspective helping people afford basic care is important. I don't agree with everything he has done, but I haven't agreed with everything a national leader has done since I was old enough to start paying attention . Obama ran promising he would be different, and for that less experience is not necessarily a bad thing.
Forgive me but I don't follow your first point. You said that it is someone saying Obama is playing the race card but not actually playing the race card.
President Truman was a completely different story (and not because he was white), if my history is correct then president Truman gave the order for the atomic bomb to be dropped. Whereas Obama has done it on things like how our national secrets are classified, gun control, giving federal employees the day after Christmas off and much more. Yes congress may not be doing that much for Obama but maybe it's because he's not giving them anything to do. Truman may have been battling congress but look at the chart. He is one of the lowest on the list.
How can we debate about this subject? Because we have done research on this subject. The author may not be famous but she "could have" done a lot of research on this. Although I will look for another source that is more famous.
I did mean the last paragraph to be sarcastic because when you look at the credentials of other both Republicans and Democrats, you see that Obama was not the best credible person for the job. Sorry if I got a little carried away.
Your first link is Cheyney saying Obama is playing the race card, not information about Obama actually doing so. His political opponents statements are hardly representative of his actions. Could you link something with evidence to support your claim?
Your second link is interesting. Yes, it seems that Obama is using his legal authority to get things done. He is exerting it through memorandum and executive orders more than other presidents have, but with a deadlocked Congress, that isn't entirely surprising. The article also references president Truman using similar powers when blocked by Congress (nicknamed the "Do Nothing Congress") while showing that he is exerting a power past presidents have not, it is still within his legal authority, and as such not grounds for impeachment.
Your third link is the most interesting. I tried to follow your advice on the author, but couldn't find any kind if credentials. By going to her Facebook page I cam see her college education in paralegal studies, but that hardly qualifies her as an expert in the subjects she reports on. I remain skeptical, as her report is so different from every respectable news outlet.
As to your flippant response to my explanation demonstrating that Obama did not "just showed up", having a law degree shows that he is highly educated. Teaching constitutional law shows that he is an expert in the field. I don't understand your (apparently) sarcastic response to his history.
As to your question about the second amendment, that conspiracy theory has been around for years. Even if he had decided that perhaps having thousands of people armed was not helping lower the homicide rate, that is a logically dependable position. Countries with strict gun control have less gun crime. The second amendment was written so that if the British invaded, Americans would be able to hold them off. I don't know about you, but I suspect the risk of that is fairly low. Slavery was allowed (and banning it was actually prohibited), but we have moved beyond that. Why is it impossible to imagine a USA that has grown beyond the need to sleep with a gun under their pillow for fear of the British?
and before you read this, yes it is a blog but it doesn't always matter on the site, look at the author of the post and find their credentials.
Oh wow Obama was a lawyer that is so awesome. Does that mean that every lawyer in the us can run for president and actually run an entire country? If Obama taught the constitution, then why is he trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment? And anybody can read it and say this is what this means. It ain't that hard.
Several problems with your argument. First, you say Obama has done many impeachable things, but fail to list any. You claim Obama hides behind the race card, but I can find no record of that being used as a defense. You claim that his birth certificate has been proven false, but while I can find many blogs stating this, I cannot find any respectable journalist, expert or authority figure making that claim. Finally your claim that he "just showed up" shows that you didn't do a lot of research. He was a lawyer, taught constitutional law, and was a US senator before running for president. A simple Web search pulls that information up, and all if these positions involve public record documents that can be verified.
If you want to claim he should be impeached, please provide some detailed claims about why rather than vague statements.
Okay first off, Yes Obama has done many impeach able things. And yes the Republicans have tried to draw him out on those, but here's the problem, whenever they try to he just pulls the racist card on them. And as far as I know, there is no way to go against that. With Obama being African American, and all the Republicans that want to do something being White, Obama says that they are racist and then all of his "followers" a.k.a the American people who support him, think that they really are racist because Obama said it and so now they won't vote for them. I am not racist I do not mind having an African American president, IF that man is fit to be president. Obama isn't even American, his birth certificate has been proven to be fake, I believe the hospital that he listed wasn't even around when he said he was born. Nobody even heard of Obama and he just showed up, appealed to the people and became president representing the Democrats. The only reason we haven't had an African American president before Obama is because nobody wanted to run for president I believe but I could be wrong on that.
The Burden of proof lies with you on this one. You are simply making vague assertion about wrong doing, yet you're not providing proof or even claiming a single action which would be considered an impeachable offense. It is up to you to provide the specifics in order to advance your argument. You can't just make a claim without any evidence for it. Well, you can, but it's poor form at best. You gotta at least have one premise to support your conclusion to have a shot at a valid argument.
The idea of making a veto without referring to Congress is called an executive action. That process has been used multiple times by various Presidents and is something legal.
Of course, the action is debatable but it is legal. Anything that is illegal would have been found out by now.
How exactly do you have knowledge of something that you claim has no evidence for? If there is sufficient evidence for people without access to government assets to know about it, how could people with those assets not? Which specific action are you saying he should be impeached for (I dislike debating about generalities when specifics make both sides easier to verify)
Dave if he did the action without documentation how would they know he did this on his own with no recommendations or anything of a refferal so there is little to no documentation
Somehow I think Obama would have lawyers and advisors capable of knowing what was illegal before he did things publicly. His actions are public record. If he exceeded his authority and committed an impeachable offense, why are the Republicans not in the process of having him impeached? They have lawyers, they have money, and they have a clear record of every order he has given and every directive he has issued. What is stopping them if not the fact that he has not, actually, exceeded his legal authority?
actually, socratoses, he has committed multiple impeachable offenses he once even took matters in to his own hands and decided to not go through congress, which last time I checked was very much illegal
He hasn't committed any impeachable offenses....