Decision 2012
Quote: AZDuffmanThe thing that is baffling me is that there are Democrat Congressmen just as upset about the IRS thing as the GOP. Not all but the standard procedure is circle the wagons. Not sure what to make if it yet. Either they figure everyone hates the IRS or hope to keep investigations as low-level as possible.
No matter what it still gives the Tea Party a huge "we told you so" moment on the danger of government power.
The level of investigation is shocking. I understand the idea (check that tax exempt status is not being abused, who wouldn't want that, right?) but the amount of documentation required for proof of NOT breaking a rule is ridiculous.
Quote: EvenBobIts because there's a big election coming next year. When
they appoint a special prosecutor, and they will, this will
be in the news forever. Not good for the sitting Dems..
What they may do is drag things out for a bit and then appoint a special prosecutor at some point in the future to drag it out even further (until after the 2014 elections). In them meantime, they will use the "I-can't-comment-let's-wait-for-the-special-prosecutor's-report" excuse to weasel their way out of answering any questions until after November 2014. Just like they (allegedly) did last year.
The scandals are piling up and he is insulated from most of them--that is fine. I'm not blaming him directly for ANY particular incident but there is a culture of corruption in the Executive Branch and he is doing little more than letting spokesidiot Carney hang out in the wind trying to explain the failures or why they really aren't failures...
Bush has been gone for years. The DNA issue is settled with Clinton. The elder Bush and Reagan are 20 years plus out of office. C'mon, folks, it is time to DEMAND that OUR President fix his house.
Quote: RonCDEMAND that OUR President fix his house.
What would like him to do? Based on what precedent would you like him to do it? His office is one branch of governement all by itself.
Whatever he does, the next Republican in office will be subject to the same laying prone on the carpet, or whatever it is you're demanding.
I'll drop over in shock if the next Republican adminstration is forthcoming about all the crap they'll be doing.
The released e-mails show that Petraeus was actually disgusted with the results of the deputies' meeting, called the resulting talking points useless and recommended kicking the problem up to the White House. abc newsQuote: boymimboBenghazi looks like it was a single handed decision by the front office of the CIA to tone down the message but it was Petraeus' lead to make it about the demonstrations.
Quote: rxwineWhat would like him to do? Based on what precedent would you like him to do it? His office is one branch of governement all by itself.
Whatever he does, the next Republican in office will be subject to the same laying prone on the carpet, or whatever it is you're demanding.
I'll drop over in shock if the next Republican adminstration is forthcoming about all the crap they'll be doing.
He could start by handling these problems in a better way. Maybe a few heads should roll to show he is serious (BEFORE someone outside the administration demands it). Stand up like the President and say we have problems and I am going to fix them. Kind of all the things he said he was going to do.
Your idea? Pathetic. You just pawn it off as okay because the next Republican president might do the same thing. Why are we willing to settle for that...D or R?
I don't know how big of a scandal it should be because they appear to have done two major things wrong:
--failed to properly defend, or come to the defense of, our ambassador...and then have been less than truthful about what happened.
--lied about the "why" of the attack
It is a bigger scandal than it was going to be because of the lies. Watergate ended a Presidency not because of a foolish and silly break-in...it was the cover-up that took Nixon down. Ego and paranoia.
I'm not saying that there would be no scandal...but this would have all gone away months ago without the cover-up.
Lemme get my popcorns :) Ah, good times.
No thanks...why not hold both of them accountable?
Quote: s2dbakerI think the Republicans should impeach Obama. But timing is critical. Too soon and the voters will forget, too late and November 2014 will pass. I think the articles of Impeachment should come next Spring so that Harry Reid can drag this through to Election Day.
Lemme get my popcorns :) Ah, good times.
Impeach him? I don't think there is anything to impeach him for out there so far...he is just failing miserably at keeping control of his administration. He is failing to keep his promises of transparency and such, not committing crimes.
Fortunately, you don't count. Republican members of Congress and Teabagistan want Obama impeached and I can think of nothing that would make me happier.Quote: RonCImpeach him? I don't think there is anything to impeach him for out there so far
Quote: s2dbakerFortunately, you don't count. Republican members of Congress and Teabagistan want Obama impeached and I can think of nothing that would make me happier.
I guess my thought on that is that you are so partisan that you desire to see a circus that leads to your favored folks staying in power rather than mature adults who have differing opinions actually getting things done.
Neither the President or the Republicans have shown any real desire to compromise and get things done...and that doesn't hurt me or you alone as partisans...it hurts all of us while helping very few.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe released e-mails show that Petraeus was actually disgusted with the results of the deputies' meeting, called the resulting talking points useless and recommended kicking the problem up to the White House. abc news
+1
Wonder if the video will change his mind though? lol...
Quote: s2dbakerI think the Republicans should impeach Obama.
Hey, we agree on that. (haha!) ;)
But seriously, if it ever did happen, it would probably just end up like Clinton's impeachment.
there's impeachment talk already. And after that great
1st term too, who would have guessed this could happen.
Snicker..
Quote: rxwineOr it could be like Scooter Libby's felonious conviction and Dick Cheney's freedom. (Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs and Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States)
1: Again, so what?
2: Does anyone say with a straight face that Dick Cheney wasn't complicit in Libby's actions? He's free because suborning perjury is a very difficult thing to prove in court.
Graph looks about the same still.
Perhaps people sense Republican hype vs actual dirt.
Quote: rxwinehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Graph looks about the same still.
Perhaps people sense Republican hype vs actual dirt.
...or perhaps they don't know the truth yet?
June 17, 1972 = Watergate break-in
November 7, 1972 = Nixon 60%, McGovern 37%
Quote: RonCHe is failing to keep his promises of transparency and such, not committing crimes.
Actually, I had a discussion awhile back with someone complaining how Obama had failed on gay rights issues before he started in on gay rights issues. I aruged, that one doesn't know what timetable he is on. He might start transparency legislation or actions just in time for the next administration -- putting them in the awkard position of undoing tranparency.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/
Based on not doing their job, we need to fire the GOP first, not Obama.
Their record of promises kept and broken is worse than Obamas.
Excerpt from the New York Times:
"The Internal Revenue Service is caught in an election-year struggle between Democratic lawmakers pressing for a crackdown on nonprofit political groups and conservative organizations accusing the tax agency of conducting a politically charged witch hunt..."
No way...Obama couldn't possibly have had a clue about this in an election year!
Quote: rxwinehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
.
"Republican officeholders were considered by Politifact to have made substantially more "false" or "pants on fire" statements than their Democratic counterparts. Of 98 statements PolitiFact judged "false" or "pants on fire" from partisan political figures, 74 came from Republicans (76 percent) compared to 22 from Democrats (22 percent) during the selected period reviewed.'
Wow, what a shock that they concluded this. Consider
who they (Politifact) are and its no shock at all.
Quote: Beethoven9th...or perhaps they don't know the truth yet?
The fact is, the left want tyranny. They want "bad" journalists blacklisted and wiretapped; they want the IRS to "correctly" enforce their policies. They're all but saying it. These aren't scandals to them, because to them (except Benghazi and the drones), he's doing the right thing. If you look into the doctrine of "new legal realism," nigh-universal among the intellectual left, you'll realize how deep this rabbit hole goes.
Also, rxwine, setting aside for the moment that if you could you'd apparently make the national motto "TV・QVOQVE," you can't restrict the financial associations of the "bad guys" without de facto restricting their speech, a fact I know you acknowledge when it's your "friends'" money on the line. In short, Cathy's donations are sacrosanct not due to his freedom of speech, but due to the recipients'; Citizens United follows.
Quote: 24BingoThe fact is, the left want tyranny. They want "bad" journalists blacklisted and wiretapped; they want the IRS to "correctly" enforce their policies. They're all but saying it. .
Of course they do, thats how Socialist/Communist
govt's work.
Quote: 24BingoThe fact is, the left want tyranny.
The left is not homogenized.
But if it is, then so is the right.
Quote: 24BingoAlso, rxwine, setting aside for the moment that if you could you'd apparently make the national motto "TVEQVOQVE," you can't restrict the financial associations of the "bad guys" without de facto restricting their speech, a fact I know you acknowledge when it's your "friends'" money on the line. In short, Cathy's donations are sacrosanct not due to his freedom of speech, but due to the recipients'; Citizens United follows.
That reminds me, that I keep intending to send a letter off to Scalia on the SC. How can the Supreme Court come to fair decisions when they listen to arguments, not based on unlimited speech with loudspeakers and bullhorns on one side where one side has millions to invest, and the other side next to nothing.
No they divide the speech/arguments up into pieces and let each side each have their say. It's kind of like equal time.
Quote: 24BingoSo "free speech" means expression in the public square be under the same provisions as arguments in an adversarial court of last resort? Huh. I think I learned a new word today.
Earlier in this thread, he started bringing up completely unrelated things with me, too...haha.
REPORTER: Doesn't the buck stop with him? Should he have known about these things but he said he didn't know about any of this?
PELOSI: The president doesn't know about everything that is going in every agency in government. Should Mr. Boehner have known because this is the neighborhood in Cincinnati where the IRS office is. I don't think you can hold him accountable for what happened in that IRS office. I think that obviously the public will make its decision about it but that's it. It's a Bush appointee, under his leadership this happened. It was wrong. Let's make sure it doesn't happen again. "
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/23/pelosi_blames_bush_appointee_for_politicized_irs_scandal.html
Really? I am not saying (yet; we will see what the investigations show moving forward) that the President is "involved" in every scandal that is emerging but I do believe he has a responsibility for the tone of his branch of the government. He has not set a good one--his chief reason for everything is that it is someone else's fault.
Neither Boehner or Bush is responsible for the folks under the executive branch.
Quote: rxwineI still hear the rightwing complain about the Roosevelt administration when they get their anti-socialiast ire in gear.
Not a valid comparison. We complain about Roosevelt because his policies extended the Depression and he set the USA on the path of being a welfare state. He invoked policies that started us on a path of more regulation for regulation sake (eg: under FDR a customer was not allowed to pick which chicken he or she wanted to buy in a butcher shop. The butcher was required to sell the next one in the display case.)
However, you do not hear the "right wing" say, "well, we invaded a country that did not 'attack us' because Roosevelt did it!"
See the difference?
I'd rather have a functioning government but that won't happen with the cueent crop of clowns in office so second best outcome is to have the Republicans destroy themselves with their own hubris.Quote: RonCI guess my thought on that is that you are so partisan that you desire to see a circus that leads to your favored folks staying in power rather than mature adults who have differing opinions actually getting things done.
Neither the President or the Republicans have shown any real desire to compromise and get things done...and that doesn't hurt me or you alone as partisans...it hurts all of us while helping very few.
Is Obama impeached yet?
Quote: 24BingoSo "free speech" means expression in the public square be under the same provisions as arguments in an adversarial court of last resort? Huh. I think I learned a new word today.
Not really, but perhaps you don't see any irony on how the court runs itself, versus what's good for the public. It would be fun to simply have all courts entertain the richest clients with the most one sided arguments; just run a taxi meter. If the opposite side can only afford a minute to get their argument across, that's it, that's all they get.
Quote: s2dbakerI'd rather have a functioning government but that won't happen with the current crop of clowns in office so second best outcome is to have the Republicans destroy themselves with their own hubris.
Are you of the opinion that the "clowns" are all on one side of the aisle or do the reside on both sides?
Quote: s2dbakerIs Obama impeached yet?
Were impeachment on the table (and it does not appear to be so far in any meaningful way), I would think the Republicans learned from the Clinton impeachment that you need to be pretty convinced that you can convict after you impeach. That means you need 67 Republican votes--which would mean not only winning the Senate in 2014 but winning it in a huge way that may be numerical possible but virtually impossible given the races being held. No Democrats voted to convict Clinton.
The other side of that is that I don't think a President would stick around if his own side started sounding like they would vote for conviction. He'd be off like Nixon before standing to be convicted should anything rise to that level (again, read carefully--I am not stating that impeachment is even an option from my point of view at this time). A quick "I am not a crook" and a wave from the helicopter departure area would be it...
And here we disagree. Republicans don't learn, that would require acknowledging facts and stuff. Not gonna happen. I look forward to seeing the black dye from Darrell Issa's hair streaming down his forehead as he tries to explain to the Senate what high crime the President committed.Quote: RonCI would think the Republicans learned from the Clinton impeachment...
Giggity
Quote: RonC
The other side of that is that I don't think a President would stick around if his own side started sounding like they would vote for conviction. He'd be off like Nixon before standing to be convicted should anything rise to that level (again, read carefully--I am not stating that impeachment is even an option from my point of view at this time). A quick "I am not a crook" and a wave from the helicopter departure area would be it...
That is what would have to happen. At some point all but the most partisan hacks see their own career is in jeopardy if they keep standing behind their leader. At some point they get told that their support is no more. Kind of an extreme no-confidence vote.
I don't see it coming close to impeachment. But I do see a few things cracking. The press is not happy about being bugged or seeing one of their own harassed. And no matter how in the tank they are for the guy, they don't want to look like that Iraqi guy reporting all was well with a tank driving behind him. Nor do they want to lose more and more viewers as they report on Obama's basketball game while the non-lamestream media covers the scandals.
I see a slow decline to the low-40s in approval, maybe even high 30s. As that happens a POTUS cannot get anything done. That can be nearly as good as impeachment. Obama has already proven he cannot get anything done without a super-majority; proven he cannot negotiate anything out on any level. As he gets weaker this will get worse.
It may get to the point that he is reduced to giving speeches and meeting visiting diplomats and leaders. As it is now the summer of 2013 is over as far as his having control of the conversation. The worst part for him is *everyone* hates the IRS. And most everyone is scared to death of them. At the least, nobody likes them. There is no sympathy for his side.
Quote: s2dbakerAnd here we disagree. Republicans don't learn, that would require acknowledging facts and stuff. Not gonna happen. I look forward to seeing the black dye from Darrell Issa's hair streaming down his forehead as he tries to explain to the Senate what high crime the President committed.
Giggity
Ah, yes...so down this road we go again. You have once again proven yourself as among the folks so partisan that their side is the only one capable of learning or changing. The ones who own the "facts" in a strange way--our "facts" are right; your "facts" are not--even if "our" facts are patently false.
Of course, Republicans cannot learn from the past; only Democrats.
That is a very narrow-minded opinion that borders on something much worse...
How about asking Holder to step down, finding a new Attorney General, and letting that person investigate the current policies and make changes to them that the President says that he'd like to see?
The President is making a huge mistake with his loyalty to Holder. He is not leading on this issue, he is doing the minimum. Loyalty is appears to be more important than being a leader and letting a guy go.
Oh--it would be BETTER for the President if Holder went away; as a Republican I should just hope he keeps him in place because that is the option that will likely hurt the President more. Unlike some, I don't think that way...
And the frustration seems to be growing because Obama will be in office for 3 more years.
The future aint bright cause next in line is President Hillary Clinton. Yes it sounds weird but might as well get used to it. Republicans may hold the house now but the reality is Dems got more votes total then Repubs when you add all votes. Repubs are able to hold majority due to gerrymandering.
What's funny is Rubio is trying to help Repubs with the Hispanic and Repubs are openly opposing him. Fascinating. There is no way a Repub can win the Presidency without help from the growing Hispanic population and instead of courting them, they are totally dissing their star Hispanic, Rubio.
I guess the righties have to vent here. They are all gamblers since they are here and know the odds. The odds are A demo President the next 7 to 11 years.
Get used to it. I'm a registered Republican. I voted for Obama twice. If the Election were held today, I'd vote Obama. Romney is a clown. Palin? I liked Mccain but Palin a heartbeat from President, cant imagine anything scarier.
Quote: terapinedbut Palin a heartbeat from President, cant imagine anything scarier.
I'd start taking bong hits myself.
I am curious who will end up being the Republican front runner. While it may be awhile for the actual election, the early campaigns may be out the gate next year the way it's been going, so in some ways it's not long at all.
Quote: terapinedI find it fascinating that here we are on a Vegas gambling board and the Right wing is venting about Obama. Though I've seen some Lefties here, seems the majority chiming in are righties. What is it about gambling and the right wing, do they go hand in hand. Interesting. Or maybe it is a 50 50 split and Righties are so upset with how they perceive the world that they have to post more to vent their frustration.
And the frustration seems to be growing because Obama will be in office for 3 more years.
The future aint bright cause next in line is President Hillary Clinton. Yes it sounds weird but might as well get used to it. Republicans may hold the house now but the reality is Dems got more votes total then Repubs when you add all votes. Repubs are able to hold majority due to gerrymandering.
What's funny is Rubio is trying to help Repubs with the Hispanic and Repubs are openly opposing him. Fascinating. There is no way a Repub can win the Presidency without help from the growing Hispanic population and instead of courting them, they are totally dissing their star Hispanic, Rubio.
I guess the righties have to vent here. They are all gamblers since they are here and know the odds. The odds are A demo President the next 7 to 11 years.
Get used to it. I'm a registered Republican. I voted for Obama twice. If the Election were held today, I'd vote Obama. Romney is a clown. Palin? I liked Mccain but Palin a heartbeat from President, cant imagine anything scarier.
Haha...good one.
All that the controversies are creating is some fun on the right, but it isn't swaying voters. It's fun to try to pin some of this shit on Obama, but unless the Republicans come up with something better besides finger pointing, it will do nothing except provide a summer of frustration and entertainment for the few million people (FNC viewers, Rush-Hannity listeners).
Americans are looking for reasons to vote for somethind different than what they voted for in 2012. The contorversies of 2013 will have no effect whatsoever on the presidential election of 2016, and it is doubtful that it will sway voters in 2014 either.
Polls are showing that the support of Obama is unwavering at this point. Democrats firmly are in the camp that the Republicans are posturing as there is nothing (yet) that puts Obama as responsible for any of the controversies.
Staunch Democrats feel that IRS' profiling of "tea party" 501(c)(4) candidates are akin to profiling muslims, blacks, and hispanics. They also see all of the voter suppression efforts that happened by Republican lawmakers in 2012 and just see this as "fair play".
But more importantly, most Americans don't see Obama as a dirty, typical, politician. They still see him as a honest and decisive leader. And frankly, most Americans have checked out of politics for awhile. After a pretty brutal election campaign, most people are tired of politics.
Republicans would be far better off attacking Obama's policies and come up with better alternatives than trying to drag all of this through to the 2014 election which is clearly being planned.
Here's a thought: get some meaningful legislation passed that will help the American people. Just a thought.
Quote: RonCYou gotta love our President...
Today the Hypocrite in Chief said we need to
look into tougher laws so the AP incident can't
happen again. The one his administration
ordered. Thats like a bank robber calling for
more armed guards at banks.
*facepalm*Quote: boymimboThey also see all of the voter suppression efforts that happened by Republican lawmakers in 2012....
Quote: boymimboAll that the controversies are creating is some fun on the right, but it isn't swaying voters....Polls are showing that the support of Obama is unwavering at this point.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
June 17, 1972 = Watergate break-in
November 7, 1972 = Nixon 60%, McGovern 37%
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: terapinedI find it fascinating that here we are on a Vegas gambling board and the Right wing is venting about Obama. Though I've seen some Lefties here, seems the majority chiming in are righties. What is it about gambling and the right wing, do they go hand in hand. Interesting. Or maybe it is a 50 50 split and Righties are so upset with how they perceive the world that they have to post more to vent their frustration.
And the frustration seems to be growing because Obama will be in office for 3 more years.
The future aint bright cause next in line is President Hillary Clinton. Yes it sounds weird but might as well get used to it. Republicans may hold the house now but the reality is Dems got more votes total then Repubs when you add all votes. Repubs are able to hold majority due to gerrymandering.
What's funny is Rubio is trying to help Repubs with the Hispanic and Repubs are openly opposing him. Fascinating. There is no way a Repub can win the Presidency without help from the growing Hispanic population and instead of courting them, they are totally dissing their star Hispanic, Rubio.
I guess the righties have to vent here. They are all gamblers since they are here and know the odds. The odds are A demo President the next 7 to 11 years.
Get used to it. I'm a registered Republican. I voted for Obama twice. If the Election were held today, I'd vote Obama. Romney is a clown. Palin? I liked Mccain but Palin a heartbeat from President, cant imagine anything scarier.
Haha...good one.
The proof, A picture of my voter registration card
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22787213@N02/8809706447/
Just to show off, My Royal from Biloxi last year. After all this is a gambling board.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22787213@N02/8125736342/in/photostream/
Quote: Beethoven9th
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
June 17, 1972 = Watergate break-in
November 7, 1972 = Nixon 60%, McGovern 37%
Yes, I remember it took forever for Watergate to take
hold. Just like the IRS thing, most people haven't even
heard about it yet. It'll pick up steam as the year goes
on and they start calling witnesses and heads roll and
a Special Prosecutor is named. Nixon didn't resign till
over two years had elapsed.
Didn't you know that all Republicans must vote against Obama? Dissent is not acceptable!Quote: terapinedThe proof, A picture of my voter registration cardQuote: Beethoven9thHaha...good one.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22787213@N02/8809706447/
*hands in the air*.
And so, do you think they'll find a "smoking gun" or tape recording, mp3, email, or conversation that will directly link Obama to any of this? Communciations are much different these days. A 1972 tape recording goes a pretty powerful way. This is not Watergate. Obama did not break into the RNC offices.
*hands in the air*
The IRS controversy will likely turn out to not have violated any laws (though it is clearly wrongdoing), nor did Benghazi (changing talking points is not breaking the law). The DoJ controversy was wrong, but they were trying to find leaks to the media, not interfere with an election.
I don't see anything that Obama did as impeachable.
