The Obama Scandal Bracket: Which Scandal Will Take Down the President?

​

Source:
http://liberallogic101.com/?p=8592

Kind of puts it all into perspective, doesn't it. Just like March Madness Brackets Obama is so fond of.

 

You ACTUALLY believe that Barack Obama is going to leave office before noon, January 20th, 2017?

Seriously?!?!?

How much do you want to bet?


(BTW, again, I ask...if people are "afraid to say what they believe"...as Ben Carson claims.....why is he still talking? )

 

Obama derangement syndrome but organized now!

 

This kind of thing won't end with guys like WW once January 20th, 2017 comes....3 years from now.....bet?

He's talking "post-Presidential prosecution and trial".

 

Of course, they left off the runaway odds on favorite choice: There is no "scandal" that will bring down the President. Odds of that choice winning are essentially 100%.

 

I have to tend to agree with you. In as much as who really wants to impeach the first Democratically elected Affirmative Action president even if he's destroying America? Impeachment would raise Joe Biden to the presidency, that's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

 

If you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't use Comic Sans MS...it's the laughingstock of the font world.

But, since you asked, there is a slim chance any of those "scandals" will take down President Obama. It is highly unlikely any Democrat will even vote for a conviction on impeachment charges. Therefore, the GOP will have to do something that has not happened since the 75th United States Congress, have more than two thirds of the seats in the Senate. There's also the possibility that some within the GOP may decide not to vote for conviction anyway.

Of course, if a Republican President enters office on January 20, 2017, there's always the possibility of initiating an investigation of the previous Administration. However, that is both setting a bad precedent and taking resources away from pertinent issues going forward. Once that Republican President leaves office, a Democratic successor could cite the precedent set by the outgoing administration and initiate their own investigation.

Do we really want to spend several years looking into the affairs of the previous administration?

I would say no. The United States has, for over two centuries, set a standard for peaceful transitions between political rivals. Hell, look at George W. Bush. He went to Obama and said "I want to make the transition easy for you." Bush even sent a VC-25A to go pick Obama up from Chicago and take him to Washington to show good faith. Obama could have investigated Bush for war crimes or referred him to the ICC, but he didn't.

 

The correct answer is None of the above.

 

Even schizos and psychos have perspective.

 

There are many people in this country who need to study the Constitution and what it says about what is impeachable: "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." are impeachable " things I don't like" are not.

 

Wow. Just. Wow.

 

Actually we know that hardly any Democrat would vote for impeachment. This was proven with the Clinton impeachment. We also know that as far as the present scandals are concerned, Democrats like Holder, Cummings and others have stonewalled any investigations into the wrong doing. In all cases, whether it's Fast and Furious, Benghazi or the IRS scandals, including the NSA debacle, the primary goal of the Obama White House is clearly not to come clean, but to continually obfuscate and cloud the situation, with hopes of eventually “running out the clock” of public opinion.
In fact, Obama’s minions have already tipped their hand with this ploy. After stonewalling for months and effectively evading any truthful disclosure of Obama’s role in last September’s Benghazi debacle, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed questions on the matter as events from “a long time ago.”
So as far as you're and your fellow travelers are concerned the Bernays/Goebbels inspired propaganda machine grinding out of the Obama White House is acceptable and believed by you.

 

Thus, you are making the possibility that impeachment of Obama will happen even lesser.

I am not excusing Holder, I believe he deserves to be brought up on charges of perjury for Fast and Furious.

I will even go so far as to say that there needs to be a separate branch of government that is not staffed by political appointees to oversee and investigate the actions of the Legislative and Executive Branches. Appointees from the same political party are highly unlikely to

The NSA activities you accuse Obama of were started before he was in office. They can be traced back to the Patriot Act, which was first passed before Obama was even in the Federal Government.

The loss of four lives in a single terrorist attack is not going to lead to an impeachment of the President, otherwise Bush would have been impeached several times.

I've mentioned many times before, I do not partake of purported news sources with a partisan slant, Liberal or Conservative, except as entertainment.

For those keeping track, this thread fulfilled Godwin's law in 12 posts.

 

Did anybody notice that in just a little over 30 minutes...

WW completely contradicted his own OP? Claiming impeachment won't happen...even that he opposes it?!?!?

Such is the mind when in an obsessive state.

- - - Updated - - -

Completely contradicting his OWN OP.

 

He's not the first guy that I've caught today making a contradictory statement. Check out the PF Question thread and the exchanges between 1wiseguy and myself.

It seems contradicting oneself and using the word "rant" are the conservative buzz topics of the day. Anyone check O'Reilly last night to see if he used "rant"? Might have been his word of the day.

 

As in previous posts, I take no stock in the impeachment of Obama. He could be caught read handed handing secrets to China and/or Russia and Democrats would block any attempts to impeach. That statement would be reversed if it were a Republican President. Democrats would be on it like flies on cow crap.

Then how do you account for the 400 plus percent in KIA of American soldiers in Afghanistan and now the idiotic ROE's imposed by Obama?

It's the apparent lies and obfuscation of the truth not the immediate attack and deaths that's the crux of the problem regarding the Benghazi incident.

As far as Goodwin's law is concerned here. My analogy was in reference to use of propaganda. The two authorities on the subject were Edward Bernays an Austrian-American utilized and improved upon by Goebbels.

 

How much are you paid to post this nonsense?

 

He will move from Obama derangement syndrome to Hilary derangement syndrome.

The only 'cure' that will work to cure this syndrome is a Republican being elected President.

Suddenly whatever the President does will be Conservative approved.

 

Let's try to remain within a realm of plausibility. Barack Obama has wanted Edward Snowden returned to the United States to face charges relating to espionage. If Obama was complicit, that would not have happened.

Even when George W. Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq and did all that, the Democrats did not want to impeach him as much as the GOP wants to impeach Obama. Like someone else pointed out, without proof of an actual crime, any talk of impeachment is dead in the water.

It's called a Status of Forces Agreement, that was signed and went into effect before Obama's Inauguration. The SOFA mandated a restricted ROE.

Every presidential administration is guilty of obfuscating and hiding things. Yellowcake uranium sound familiar?

You must not be very familiar with Godwin's Law, it doesn't matter WHAT you meant by your analogy, you referred to the Nazis. Trying to rationalize it just proves how inane your argument is.

 

ROTFLMFAO!!!!.. Somebody spiked your wacky weed.

 

Not a denial in any way, how telling.

 

Snowden aside, I guess you were deaf and blind to the utterances of William Jefferson Clinton about Iraqi WMD, or the agreement coming from Democrats with Clinton before Bush was elected.

SOFA included the maintenance of American forces within Iraq for a period of time. Ten to twenty thousand American military that Obama was not willing to leave there. Now what is happening in Iraq because of the incompetence of Obama?

Then perhaps you're too sensitive at the mention of Goebbels. Bernays is still top of the list and he was "American".

Your straw man mentioning yellowcake has no merit here and is being used as obfuscation of the present.

 

Clinton's actions on Iraq never included an outright invasion using flawed intelligence.

I know Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery. The US and France, as well as probably the UK and Soviet Union gave Iraq the means to produce the weapons. Iraq also was pursuing nuclear weapons with the help of France prior to the 1981 Israeli Operation Opera.

However, pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not, in and of itself, justification for a war of aggression. We could have waited until the UN finally got fed up with Iraq, which would have happened around 2004 or 2005, since the Oil-for-Food Program was being abused anyway and it was only a matter of time before the lid blew off the entire corruption.

Public opinion had turned well against the war, and Obama had campaigned on the platform of ending the war. He did exactly that. Everyone wanted our troops home, because had we left 10,000 troops in Iraq, they would have all been easier targets, and we would still have been suffering casualties. With each casualty, Obama would have been under more and more pressure to pull out every servicemember.

Nothing. It wasn't Obama's incompetence that caused the secular violence.

How incompetent was the guy who sent us to war in 2003?

I know you're another one who can't stand a fellow Conservative being shown as a liar. Shall I break out my tiny violin for you?

 

It depends! We actually have to have a "real" scandal to take the president down first.

 

No need, we have Obama as the largest and premier liar of America. He only speak the truth 22% of the time. That's a Politifact truth. If anyone needs your tiny violin playing it's Obama and the Democrats he's abandoned that will lose on November 4, 2014.