[besson3c]

...And you can bet your ass that I'd be saying the exact same thing if a Democrat were to have made the same colossally big mistakes that Bush has.

I just can't get over the fact that despite being flat out wrong about our need to invade Iraq (and it can be argued that this is not the only major mistake this administration has made) we still can't fire Bush and get somebody else in there. Why does impeachment have to involve breaking the law? Why can't we have a vote of no confidence?

It has been said many times that many other leaders thought that Saddam had weapons. Fine, I don't doubt that... Bush took a gamble and lost. When you gamble and lose, you pay the price, and none of this "well, he was *close*... I can understand why he made this gamble, I would have done the same". Screw that. This isn't horseshoes, this has resulted in literally thousands of lives being lost (and it is completely idiotic to even compare this mistake with Clinton's mistake of getting a blowjob and lying about it, since last I checked nobody died over Clinton's mistake).

I don't care if we have nobody in there that could do a better job than Bush, we need to try... and if that person sucks, we get him/her out of there, and keep on replacing presidents until we find one that demonstrates sound judgment that does not impair. Why can't we do this? This is the most powerful and important job in the world right now, but why is it that we can't fire presidents like we can fire anybody else in just about any other job?

Leaving Bush in office does the exact opposite of unifying us, it causes us to distrust our governments even more, and it turns people off of politics. This is exactly the thing we do not want to be doing. I'm not suggesting that Bush should have been replaced with a Democrat, but an election should be held when it is clear that the public has lost confidence in their leader (with Bush's approval rating, it is very clear that this is the case). Our leaders need to get things right. I don't care if we have to pay them more or whatever it will take, but this stuff is simply too important to get wrong.

I'm sick of crappy leadership and having to sit around with my thumb up my ass until the next election. Why can't we hold an election now?

[peeb]

Could not agree more, but, to be completely accurate, impeachment does not require you to have broken a law. It's a political process, not a legal one.

[Shaddim]

After the sex scandal and perjury charges, Clinton's approval numbers dropped below 50%. If it were so simple as a no confidence vote, he would have been removed from office by the majority of Americans.

Are you ok with that too? Mob rule doesn't make for good government, no matter how badly you feel the guy is performing.

[Chongo]

Impeachment is the the bringing of formal charges. It then goes to the Senate for trial, requiring 2/3 of those Senators present to convict.

At the Federal level, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Impeachment can also occur at the state level; state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, according to their respective constitutions.

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 20, 1988 Alcee L. Hastings Judge (US District Court, Florida, Southern District) Removed ( now Congressman Alcee L. Hasting (D) from Florida

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was also disbarred for five years and payed $25K fine

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

After the sex scandal and perjury charges, Clinton's approval numbers dropped below 50%. If it were so simple as a no confidence vote, he would have been removed from office by the majority of Americans.

Are you ok with that too? Mob rule doesn't make for good government, no matter how badly you feel the guy is performing.

That is why we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. democracy=mob rule

[Shaddim]

Also, Congressional approval numbers are lower than Bush's, if that's even possible.

IMO, we need to clear the lot of them, from the President on down.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

this has resulted in literally thousands of lives being lost (and it is completely idiotic to even compare this mistake with Clinton's mistake of getting a blowjob and lying about it, since last I checked nobody died over Clinton's mistake).

But they're all volunteers

I don't care if we have nobody in there that could do a better job than Bush, we need to try... and if that person sucks, we get him/her out of there

Um, you do realize that person would be Cheney don't you? And the next person would be someone Cheney appointed to be his VP. It's not someone the people choose.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Impeachment is the the bringing of formal charges. It then goes to the Senate for trial, requiring 2/3 of those Senators present to convict.

It's unlike regular trials though it that all that is needed is for 2/3 of the Senate to vote that the President is guilty of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" - there is no standard of evidence, no appeal, no detailed list of offenses or definitions. If the Senate thinks that being a dick while in office is a 'high crime', then it is.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But they're all volunteers

That makes it all ok then!

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, you do realize that person would be Cheney don't you? And the next person would be someone Cheney appointed to be his VP. It's not someone the people choose.

Are you sure it's not the Majority Leader?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

After the sex scandal and perjury charges, Clinton's approval numbers dropped below 50%. If it were so simple as a no confidence vote, he would have been removed from office by the majority of Americans.

Are you ok with that too? Mob rule doesn't make for good government, no matter how badly you feel the guy is performing.

It would depend. I don't think we should only go by numbers or that we should be strict about a precise metric, but if there is an overwhelming sense of distrust and displeasure felt among the people affected by a significant issue, yes, I would be for removal of office, even if it was Clinton (I wasn't living in this country during that, so I don't really know how ugly it got)

Put it this way, if there was an election held tomorrow where people would overwhelmingly vote against the person in office, that person shouldn't be in office. The same could be said about a CEO or anybody else in an important position.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But they're all volunteers



Um, you do realize that person would be Cheney don't you? And the next person would be someone Cheney appointed to be his VP. It's not someone the people choose.

I don't think the VP should become president, I think we should call an election. Sorry if this was unclear.

Don't know what you mean by the volunteers remark, was that meant tongue-in-cheek?

[Shaddim]

According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, after the President:

* Vice President
* Speaker of the House
* President Pro Tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, you do realize that person would be Cheney don't you? And the next person would be someone Cheney appointed to be his VP. It's not someone the people choose.

Nope.

Bush > Cheney > Pelosi

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, after the President:

* Vice President
* Speaker of the House
* President Pro Tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs

I know all of this. I'm saying that I'm against this.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know all of this. I'm saying that I'm against this.

Then start a group and sponsor some amendments, because what you want isn't part of the Constitution.

[peeb]

Neither is stealing elections, illegal war, warrantless spying on Americans, and torture!

[BadKosh]

If Cheney became president, he could choose a VP (Remember Nixon chose Ford after Agnew resigned.) Ford had no VP however.

[Shaddim]

yes he did.

Nelson Rockefeller (1974-1977)

[Dork.]

If the President were to leave office for any reason, the Vice President would assume the office, leaving the office of the Vice President vacant. The new President can nominate a candidate for Vice President, who would have to be confirmed by the Senate, just like any other cabinet appointment, before taking office. If the new President leaves office for any reason while the office of the Vice President is vacant, succession would presumably fall to the Speaker of the House. Otherwise, the job falls to the Vice President, whether he was elected or confirmed by Congress.

I wonder if the President can make a Recess Appointment to the Vice Presidency if Congress does not approve his selection, and if so, whether that appointed person is in the line of succession. I imagine not, since this process is likely spelled out in the Constitution, and is likely different than appointing an ordinary cabinet member. I'm too lazy to look at the Constitution right now.

As for besson3c's thesis, most of what is known about Bush now was known in 2004, perhaps with less certainty. (Hurricane Katrina had not yet happened yet.) Yet, more people voted for him in 2004 than 2000. So many new voters voted for Bush that the election, while close, was not contested like it was in 2000. The moral of the story? Make all the mistakes you want in wartime, just make sure you pander to people who hate gay people, and you can still win elections in America!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

You guys voted for him TWICE when the whole world somehow saw it was an incredibly stupid idea so now you guys have to live with your mistakes.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

You guys voted for him TWICE when the whole world somehow saw it was an incredibly stupid idea so now you guys have to live with your mistakes.

You seem to be anti-american, what's up with that. Seems you revel in our of all problems and look down at us for every little thing.

Is that a Canadian insecurity thing or what

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But they're all volunteers

Who are all volunteers?

[Uncle Skeleton]

The "literally thousands of lives being lost" besson3c mentioned. You can't use them as your argument when they volunteered to do it, and if asked they'd be proud of their choice and do it again. I don't agree with them, but it's like asking smokers if cigarettes should be illegal.

[Chongo]

I have come to the conclusion that many of you are suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

The term BDS refers to a purported tendency by some American liberals to blame President George W. Bush for virtually every ill in the world.[9][10] It also purportedly refers to opposing a position advocated by the President just because he supports it, regardless of the position's merits.[11]

Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist who earned his M.D. from Harvard Medical School, defined BDS as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush".

[abbaZaba]

it is what it is. get over it and accept it. it won't be that much longer until there is a new president. jesus.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The "literally thousands of lives being lost" besson3c mentioned. You can't use them as your argument when they volunteered to do it, and if asked they'd be proud of their choice and do it again. I don't agree with them, but it's like asking smokers if cigarettes should be illegal.

Many have joined(or reenlisted) after the war started, knowing they would most likely be sent to Iraq (my nephew and niece did). Just like people who started smoking after the Surgeon General's warning came out, they knew the risks when they enlisted (started smoking)

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I wonder if the President can make a Recess Appointment to the Vice Presidency if Congress does not approve his selection, and if so, whether that appointed person is in the line of succession. I imagine not, since this process is likely spelled out in the Constitution, and is likely different than appointing an ordinary cabinet member. I'm too lazy to look at the Constitution right now.

I just got the time to take a look! The 25th Amendment holds that someone appointed by a new President to the office of the Vice President can only take office if confirmed by both houses of Congress (not just the Senate).

But the actual presidential line of succession is not explicitly stated in the Constitution past the Vice President, but is left to Congress to decide. The current list comes from the Presidential Succession act of 1947, as modified whenever new executive departments create new cabinet members.

As for analogue's comment, I totally agree, we had a chance to get rid of him in 2004, but more voters wanted to keep him. So it's all our fault!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The "literally thousands of lives being lost" besson3c mentioned. You can't use them as your argument when they volunteered to do it, and if asked they'd be proud of their choice and do it again. I don't agree with them, but it's like asking smokers if cigarettes should be illegal.

Sure you can! Even though they're all volunteers, they all are supposed to take orders from their chain of command, and Bush is at the top of that. Whether or not they are proud of their choice is irrelevant if the guy at the top is taking their sacrifices for granted.

(They should be proud of their choice, because they are risking their lives right now while I sit on the couch with my sick daughter and complain on the Internet.)

As a interesting side point, members the US armed forces swear an oath to obey the orders of their superiors, including the President, subject to law and regulations. But they also swear an oath to uphold the constitution, without any strings attached. I read this to mean that if enough of the Armed Forces think that the President is acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully, they are obligated to stage a coup. Not likely to happen, of course, but somethign to think about....

[peeb]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

it is what it is. get over it and accept it. it won't be that much longer until there is a new president. jesus.

It won't be that much longer until there is a new president, Jesus.
Bush fixed that for ya!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It won't be that much longer until there is a new president, Jesus.

Jesus wasn't born on American soil, though, so he's ineligible.

Unless you're talking about Steven Colbert, I get them confused sometimes....

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Jesus wasn't born on American soil, though, so he's ineligible.

Unless you're talking about Steven Colbert, I get them confused sometimes....

I thought we weren't paying attention to all that small-print these days? It's just a piece of paper, after all. Anyway, I guess he could be born again, again, on American soil.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The "literally thousands of lives being lost" besson3c mentioned. You can't use them as your argument when they volunteered to do it, and if asked they'd be proud of their choice and do it again. I don't agree with them, but it's like asking smokers if cigarettes should be illegal.

ummmm .... not all of the lives lost as a result of the American invasion of Iraq were volunteers. The vast majority weren't even American.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I have come to the conclusion that many of you are suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

That sounds like a similar affliction which many conservatives seem to suffer from: CDS

[MyMac8MyPC]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It won't be that much longer until there is a new president

The only problem with that is that with bush a LOT of bad things can happen in a day. For example; what if he tries to start another war? And in case you weren't aware of it bush/cheney are pushing for a new law that gives 'the president' the right to do whatever he wants to, without the approval of any other body of government.

[peeb]

I'm with you, my post was a joke about Bush promoting Jesus as president.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I thought we weren't paying attention to all that small-print these days? It's just a piece of paper, after all. Anyway, I guess he could be born again, again, on American soil.

Maybe the Bible needs updating, then? Retconning, even? Perhaps Jesus was really born in Bethlehem, PA? He would need a Southern or Western running mate in order to be viable, though. Who Would Jesus Choose?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MyMac8MyPC 

The only problem with that is that with bush a LOT of bad things can happen in a day. For example; what if he tries to start another war? And in case you weren't aware of it bush/cheney are pushing for a new law that gives 'the president' the right to do whatever he wants to, without the approval of any other body of government.

Maybe I'll push for a law to get me appointed King of the World and All Extraterrestrial Territories. Since I have just as much law-making power as the president, it's just as likely to get done.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Maybe the Bible needs updating, then? Retconning, even? Perhaps Jesus was really born in Bethlehem, PA? He would need a Southern or Western running mate in order to be viable, though. Who Would Jesus Choose?

The 'piece of paper' I was talking about was the Constitution...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The "literally thousands of lives being lost" besson3c mentioned. You can't use them as your argument when they volunteered to do it, and if asked they'd be proud of their choice and do it again. I don't agree with them, but it's like asking smokers if cigarettes should be illegal.

The question is: was it for a worthwhile cause, or was it in vain?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

it is what it is. get over it and accept it. it won't be that much longer until there is a new president. jesus.

If we all took that attitude about everything, we'd never fix things that are broken!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

As for analogue's comment, I totally agree, we had a chance to get rid of him in 2004, but more voters wanted to keep him. So it's all our fault!

Even so, we don't have to wait every 4 years to fire a badly performing CEO...

[besson3c]

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The 'piece of paper' I was talking about was the Constitution...

I know, but we're putting up fences to keep those dirty foreigners out, why would we want one of them to be our President? Jesus is much more electable if he's seen as the All-American alternative to Barack Obama.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Nope.

Bush > Cheney > Pelosi

Isn't this only the case if Bush and Cheney get whacked at the same time?

I mean, if Cheney becomes President, he has to pick Pelosi as veep?



Don't get me wrong, that'd be, like, sitcom funny.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Even so, we don't have to wait every 4 years to fire a badly performing CEO...

But we understand when we elect someone that they've got that job for a set term. I'm not sure if I want to subject an important job like that to the monthly whims of the populace. Four years seems an adequate term for someone in that position of power.

Keep in mind that even though less than 25% of people approve of the job Bush is doing, there are probably a higher proportion of voters in the 25% part than the 75% part. If you say you disapprove of Bush, but then don't vote, your opinion no longer counts.

As far as the CEO goes, what constitutes bad performance? If the CEO can make the case to the board that the reason the company is doing badly is due to external events that are not likely to recur, and that he has a plan to right the company moving forward, he'll likely keep his job. Most Boards of Directors are not chasing opinion polls.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean, if Cheney becomes President, he has to pick Pelosi as veep?

See my posts above. Cheney would nominate a new veep, and Congress has to approve before that person can take office. If President Cheney were somehow leave office before a new veep is confirmed, then Pelosi would be President (once she resigns from Congress, since you can't have both jobs.)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

See my posts above. Cheney would nominate a new veep, and Congress has to approve before that person can take office. If President Cheney were somehow leave office before a new veep is confirmed, then Pelosi would be President (once she resigns from Congress, since you can't have both jobs.)

she would not need to resign as she would assume the office upon taking the oath, just as Ford and Johnson did. If she were to resign prior to taking the oath it would fall upon the President Pro Tem of the Senate

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

she would not need to resign as she would assume the office upon taking the oath, just as Ford and Johnson did. If she were to resign prior to taking the oath it would fall upon the President Pro Tem of the Senate

I was going by the text of the Presidential Succession act, as listed in the Wiki article I linked to above.

If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Sure you can! Even though they're all volunteers, they all are supposed to take orders from their chain of command, and Bush is at the top of that. Whether or not they are proud of their choice is irrelevant if the guy at the top is taking their sacrifices for granted.

That's stupid. Everyone takes the military for granted to some extent, that's what it's there for. Same as the police and fire and coast guard and depending on your locality, bear patrol. To protect us while we sleep so we don't have to take shifts on our rooftops with a shotgun and a bottle of pep pills. If your only complaint is that Bush doesn't "respect" the military enough, then you're wrong because "enough" is only what the soldiers believe it to be, and if they thought you were right they wouldn't have volunteered.

As a interesting side point, members the US armed forces swear an oath to obey the orders of their superiors, including the President, subject to law and regulations. But they also swear an oath to uphold the constitution, without any strings attached. I read this to mean that if enough of the Armed Forces think that the President is acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully, they are obligated to stage a coup. Not likely to happen, of course, but somethign to think about....

Are you claiming that anything Bush has done has come close to being unconstitutional? That's insane. If he had, there would be no problem for people like besson3c to get him impeached through the normal method. The whole reason this thread exists is because he's done nothing so bad as to justify that.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ummmm .... not all of the lives lost as a result of the American invasion of Iraq were volunteers. The vast majority weren't even American.

If you read besson3c's statement in context there is no question he was referring only to the American soldiers.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The question is: was it for a worthwhile cause, or was it in vain?

If what's at stake, as you stated, was the soldiers' lives, then you would have to ask the soldiers that question, and I can guarantee you their answer would be no, it was not in vain. How can I know that? They volunteered! Can you put 2 and 2 together?

Look, it's one thing to complain about troop losses for the selfish reason that you wish we still had those 3000 more troops to defend our country. It's a petty reason, but at least it's logical. But if you're complaining on their behalf, you have to actually have them agree with you. And they don't.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you read besson3c's statement in context there is no question he was referring only to the American soldiers.

Really? Could you point to the part of his statement where there is no question he was referring only to American soldiers?