• on a comment on Impeaching Obama? over 4 years ago

    I think you have to keep in mind that there seems to be a big difference in the standards for convicting and imprisoning somebody and the one for impeaching a president from the Democratic Party.

    There's a law on the books (arguably) about this, and it would be foolish to discount the possibility of the GOP stretching it like crazy to impeach Obama. What, you think that a GOP Congress would seek out and listen to an honest, unbiased legal analysis of the law and then apply it fairly?

  • on a comment on Impeaching Obama? over 4 years ago

    i posted the law above.

    we don't know the fact of what happened. i doubt that the Obama admin. was stupid enough to be outright bribing him in explicit terms.

    but if it happened the way the wingnuts (and perhaps Sestak) say, then it could be illegal.

  • on a comment on Impeaching Obama? over 4 years ago

    lying about sex or being a Democrat.


  • comment on a post Impeaching Obama? over 4 years ago
    18 U.S.C. § 211 : US Code - Section 211: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office
    Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution,
    or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in
    consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in
    obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the
    United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
    more than one year, or both.
    Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration
    of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States
    either by referring his name to an executive department or agency
    of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because
    such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this
    title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 
    This section
    shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency
    pursuant to the written request of an executive department or
    agency of the United States.
  • on a comment on It happens all the time over 4 years ago

    what it "sounds to you like" and what it actually is might be two different things.

    I think it is unlikely to come to anything. But it's a bit early for people to be completely writing it off.

  • on a comment on It happens all the time over 4 years ago

    *If* there was something illegal done by our leaders, then we should all care.

  • comment on a post Financial reform update over 4 years ago

    "I have a sense of deja vu reading about the Merkley-Levin amendment; like the public health insurance option, Merkley-Levin has the stated support of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And as with the public option, these Democrats won't do what's necessary to get Merkley-Levin into the bill."

    Ok, lets set some ground rules up front, so that we are all on the same page about this:

    What qualifies as "doing what's necessary" to get it into the bill, as oppsed to just giving it lip service?

    In other words, can we, as a blog community, agree beforehand on what we are looking for from the president and congressional leadership to later assign them credit or blame for fighting for or not fighting for this important amendment?

  • I agree with you here.

    While of course the money could have been better tracked and targeted, come with more strings attached, etc, it seems that bailouts were necessary.

    Now, it obviously should have never gotten to that point, and it should be fixed now (which is not happening), but at that time, the bailouts were necessary.

  • yes, it's not even a close question.


    The ONLY reason CA got to have it's own limits is because Congress specifically autherized CA to be able to do it in the Clean Air Act (CA could get a waiver from the Federal preemption). The CAA also let other states do whatever CA wanted to do.

    But besides CA and states adopting CA's measures, states can't do what they want on this, and even with CA, they still have to get the waiver (which they always got until's Bush put a tobbacco guy at the head of the EPA).

  • ok, I can agree with what you say above. I think we have figured out that our views on the matters are closer than it may have seemed at first.

  • Again with the "[you people] believed he was a true progressive" and calling people "irrational".

    Stop it. Just stop it please.

    Again, Obama espoused a mix of centrist and progressive ideals during the campaign. Many of us just feel like the centrist parts are getting undue focus and vigor compared to the more progressive ideals. You are mischaracterizing many of our positions when you suggest that we thought he was a "true progressive".

  • "Maybe we can form our own little progressive country, and together we can impeach him."

    If you are going to say things like that, then I'm pretty sure you are not intersted in a real discussion. You are positioning yourself against an absurd argument I never made, to try to make yourself look sensible by comparison. 

    My argument has been that where Obama has deviated from where he was during the campaign, it has almost all been to the right. How you twist that into "Sure, some has been to the right...of you and me.", I do not know.

    I hope you are not willfully missing the distinction between Obama going rightward from himself during the campaign and him just being to the right of us.

    Again, the discussion was about the legitimacy of progressive dissapointment and whether those of us upset with the president are legitimately upset or have some sort of "PUMA, Obama-derrangement syndrome (as NoFortunateSon likes to say).

    To be clear, I don't want to start a new party, and I don't want to leave the Dems. I simply want the Dems to start feeling pressure from the left because I believe that politicians respond more to pressure than to no pressure.

    I don't understand why it is so controversial here to want to hold leaders accountable for taking positions we disagree with. As a voter/donor/volunteer, the way I can do that is threaten to (and actually do, if I must) withold my vote, money, and time. I simply don't see how calling people who want better policies "PUMA's, derranged, Obama-haters" or whatever, helps us entice our leaders to pursue better policies.

  • what's with people in this thread?

    "twice as stupid, as there is no slur" is right up there with Judy's "how dare you Obots slur me?!"

    Come on people. lets try to keep this civil.

  • you basically said that you were not going to entertain arguments that Obama had mostly been arm-twisting progressives instead of cnetrists/conservaves, because it is too "subjective".

    yes, declaring that the evidence is no good before being presented with the evidence is sticking your fingers in your ears.


    again, you are setting up and knocking down a big 'ole strawman. you are trying to frame the issue of whether any dissapointment is enough to stop supporting Obama. I've made it pretty darn clear that my problem is not that he has broken some promises or changed stances on some things; instead, the problem is that it has been in (almost) all in one direction - to the right.

  • in other words: "i'm going to ignore evidence I don't like" *sticks fingers in ears*


    ok, lets try this: if we colelctively list issues/policies where Obama is governing to the left of where he campaigned, and ones where he is governing to the right of where he campaigned, which column would you think is bigger?

    If you understand that, you will understand the problem some of us progressives have with him. We knew he wasn't reflecting what we wanted on every issue.

    But he seems to be fighting the hardest for, and moving toward the more rightward part of the spectrum of what he campaigned on. 


Advertise Blogads