Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

[speekinout]

People often talk about Conservatism as being the opposition to 0bama and the dims. It's not. There are more political views than just the far Left and far Right ends of the political spectrum. The dims have an easy time explaining what they are for, because they are all huddled at the far Left of the political spectrum. And they know who their voters are, and how to keep them loyal.

Since we are a two party system, any of us who don't like the liberal rule have to find a way to get enough votes for the GOP to defeat the dims. And those votes can come from anywhere else on the spectrum. Some countries have multiple parties, so they just form coalitions of parties to get a majority vote. We have to attract enough of the non-liberal vote to the polls to get a GOP win.

So far, we have people on the far right fighting with the more moderate people and people with a specific slant (for example, libertarians) fighting with other groups. It isn't so much a matter of convincing people to move to any particular place on the spectrum as it is a matter of convincing people with slightly different views that a coalition that defeats the dims is the best solution for all of us.

[truth_seeker]

Agreed.
Conservatives say they stand for something, but don't explain it well.
Establishment types stand for nothing, and that needs little explanation.

Oh, and you shouldn't presume to speak for truth_seeker, he seems to enjoy throwing bombs as much as anyone.

I do enjoy throwing bombs. Often intended to make one consider something differently.

But that isn't fertile ground, on conservative interwebs.

[Relic]

People often talk about Conservatism as being the opposition to 0bama and the dims. It's not. There are more political views than just the far Left and far Right ends of the political spectrum. The dims have an easy time explaining what they are for, because they are all huddled at the far Left of the political spectrum. And they know who their voters are, and how to keep them loyal.

Since we are a two party system, any of us who don't like the liberal rule have to find a way to get enough votes for the GOP to defeat the dims. And those votes can come from anywhere else on the spectrum. Some countries have multiple parties, so they just form coalitions of parties to get a majority vote. We have to attract enough of the non-liberal vote to the polls to get a GOP win.

So far, we have people on the far right fighting with the more moderate people and people with a specific slant (for example, libertarians) fighting with other groups. It isn't so much a matter of convincing people to move to any particular place on the spectrum as it is a matter of convincing people with slightly different views that a coalition that defeats the dims is the best solution for all of us.

As I said, my friend is moderate to left leaning. He would vote Republican if he had some idea of what that meant.

[Relic]

I do enjoy throwing bombs. Often intended to make one consider something differently.

But that isn't fertile ground, on conservative interwebs.

Bombs are one thing, insults are another. Perhaps you don't get people to engage with you because your posting style is that of an abrasive, arrogant twit lacking depth?

After all, there usually is two sides to a story. Consider that.

[speekinout]

As I said, my friend is moderate to left leaning. He would vote Republican if he had some idea of what that meant.

Yes, I have friends like that as well. But what Republican means in any general election is really where on the spectrum that specific candidate lies. I usually wait until after the primaries and discuss the specific GOP candidates vs. the dim one. That has been working pretty well in recent elections. And this Nov. is going to be an easy sell.

What I usually do is find out what issues my friends are concerned about and talk to them about GOP politicians who have similar views. It helps when they find prominent GOP Reps. or Senators who have ideas very like theirs. Even if that isn't their delegate, it encourages them to vote for a GOP majority. Which is what I think is most important this year.

[Relic]

Yes, I have friends like that as well. But what Republican means in any general election is really where on the spectrum that specific candidate lies. I usually wait until after the primaries and discuss the specific GOP candidates vs. the dim one. That has been working pretty well in recent elections. And this Nov. is going to be an easy sell.

What I usually do is find out what issues my friends are concerned about and talk to them about GOP politicians who have similar views. It helps when they find prominent GOP Reps. or Senators who have ideas very like theirs. Even if that isn't their delegate, it encourages them to vote for a GOP majority. Which is what I think is most important this year.

It doesn't help when a Republican runs to the right in the primary, moves to the middle for the general, and then does whatever the heck his or her money people require be done. How do you quantify that?

[EC]

It doesn't help when a Republican runs to the right in the primary, moves to the middle for the general, and then does whatever the heck his or her money people require be done. How do you quantify that?

Being human.

[speekinout]

It doesn't help when a Republican runs to the right in the primary, moves to the middle for the general, and then does whatever the heck his or her money people require be done. How do you quantify that?

They can only get away with that once, can't they? But it's always good to make sure they are doing what the "money" people want, and not what their constituents want. I don't really have a problem with someone who listens to constituents instead of sticking to a position that might not have been well thought out - or might be a problem with changing circumstances. Stubborness is not always a virtue.

[GourmetDan]

People complain that nobody stands up to Bambi.

Then when somebody does (Palin), people say, "Oh, not you!"...

[massadvj]

And in 2006 the Democrats took over control of the House, giving them unfettered control of Congress.

So what you are saying is that the Clinton impeachment had an 8-year delayed effect?

[Relic]

They can only get away with that once, can't they? But it's always good to make sure they are doing what the "money" people want, and not what their constituents want. I don't really have a problem with someone who listens to constituents instead of sticking to a position that might not have been well thought out - or might be a problem with changing circumstances. Stubborness is not always a virtue.

As long as it is in a reasonable consistent direction. When Republicans flop on positions that make no sense, that's usually a sign of money driving their votes.

[truth_seeker]

Bombs are one thing, insults are another. Perhaps you don't get people to engage with you because your posting style is that of an abrasive, arrogant twit lacking depth?

After all, there usually is two sides to a story. Consider that.

Itching to get into it with me? I made no offensive directed at you, or at anybody here personally.

I take it you are not equipped to deal with the substance and depth of my remarks, hence you slither into the personal.

[Relic]

Itching to get into it with me? I made no offensive directed at you, or at anybody here personally.

I take it you are not equipped to deal with the substance and depth of my remarks, hence you slither into the personal.

So, you easily morph from admittedly throwing bombs, that include insults, to pathetic, where you whine that I won't engage the substance of your post?

I do enjoy throwing bombs. Often intended to make one consider something differently.

But that isn't fertile ground, on conservative interwebs.

So, there is a substance there I should engage? And saying that people on conservative forums don't consider things, and this is a conservative forum of sorts, isn't an insult?

Do you work for Obama in some capacity, because it seems you're pretty good with the alternate reality thing.

Your style indicates you just like to stir things up and go away feeling all superior. I am just pointing out the obvious, because that seems to be where you have trouble.

[speekinout]

As long as it is in a reasonable consistent direction. When Republicans flop on positions that make no sense, that's usually a sign of money driving their votes.

Not necessarily. You do know, don't you, that your chances of ever getting an elected official that agrees with you all the time is zero. It will never happen. And most of the time, if they want to get something important done, they have to compromise on issues of lesser importance. So you also have to have priorities, and vote for the most important things. If you insist on everything, you get nothing.
 

[jmyrlefuller]

It's not time yet.

The fatal flaw is that the Senate Democratic Conference is a coconspirator in the administration's crimes, and they control the trial. The process is corrupted.

Expose the corruption, win the Senate, THEN impeach.

If there are enough honest Democrats in the Senate—we'd need about a third of them—the evidence on the President's crimes is enough to warrant a conviction.

There is a case for impeachment, a very strong one at that, but it cannot be rushed before it has a realistic chance of being fulfilled.

Until then, there are other options, such as censure, but not impeachment YET.

[Fishrrman]

Flowers wrote above:
[[ Be quite Sarah. I really liked you at one point ]]

Nope.
She's right.
Absolutely right.

The time finally -has come- to consider impeachment.

The charge: Obama has deliberately refused to carry out his Constitutional duties to protect the United States against "invasion", at the Southern Border, of course.

Other so-called "impeachable offenses" could be deemed political, but who would describe what's been going on at the border during Obama's term as anything BUT an "invasion"?

I don't care if blacks riot. Let them. If they choose to do so, they're going to discover very quickly that whites have been "preppin'" for such occurance for the last six years. Riots aren't going to last very long.

At the very least, the House should hold hearings and vote on a bill of impeachment.
Next year (assuming Republicans win the Senate), there should be a trial.

Sarah's right -- it's time.

[Fishrrman]

Relic wrote above:
[[ I had a vacation with my best friend, a union type Democrat moderate, (he actually does vote Republican sometimes). He complained of the same things that we do. Republicans stand for nothing. Vote for a Republican, and you have no earthly idea what they will do. He said Republicans used to stand for business, lower taxes, small government. Now... well, neither one of us could define a Republican. My friend has proven to be an excellent barometer of the mood in Ohio. ]]

Off-topic, but the Pubbies just chose -- you guessed it, Cleveland for the 2016 convention.

What a bunch of winners -- hold your convention in a blue city in a state that is increasingly blue.

Thinking about your "definition of a Republican" comment about, I'm reminded of that tv show, "Seinfeld" (which I never watched), which was once referred to as "a show about nothing".

If they keep goin' the way they're goin', the Republicans are on the verge of transforming into "a party about nothing"....

[evadR]

Quote from: Relic on Today at 04:21:55 PM
It doesn't help when a Republican runs to the right in the primary, moves to the middle for the general, and then does whatever the heck his or her money people require be done. How do you quantify that?

EC
Being human.

Duplicitous and two faced would be more like it.

[evadR]

((( Drudge Poll ))) SHOULD REPUBLICANS IMPEACH OBAMA?
Drudge Report ^ | 8 Jul 2014 | Drudge
Posted on 7/8/2014 9:47:52 PM by Texas Fossil

YES 72.2% (137,924 votes)

NO 12.98% (24,803 votes)

NOT NOW 14.82% (28,308 votes)

Total Votes: 191,035

[Oceander]

So what you are saying is that the Clinton impeachment had an 8-year delayed effect?

The effect wasn't delayed - it is a not unreasonable position to take that GWB did not win the 2000 election - by 2006 the GOP had simply accumulated so many stupid pony tricks - like impeaching Clinton - that it essentially gave the democrats supermajority control of Congress in 2006.

And now, after having finally overcome a lot of that idiocy, the GOP wants to wade right back in there and do it again.

Impeachment does not happen unless there is bipartisan support for it and there will never be bipartisan support to impeach Obuttocks.  Not.  Ever.  Period.  Impeaching Obuttocks would be the surest way of guaranteeing that President Clinton will have a solid democrat-dominated Congress when she takes office Jan. 20, 2017.

[massadvj]

The effect wasn't delayed - it is a not unreasonable position to take that GWB did not win the 2000 election - by 2006 the GOP had simply accumulated so many stupid pony tricks - like impeaching Clinton - that it essentially gave the democrats supermajority control of Congress in 2006.

And now, after having finally overcome a lot of that idiocy, the GOP wants to wade right back in there and do it again.

Impeachment does not happen unless there is bipartisan support for it and there will never be bipartisan support to impeach Obuttocks.  Not.  Ever.  Period.  Impeaching Obuttocks would be the surest way of guaranteeing that President Clinton will have a solid democrat-dominated Congress when she takes office Jan. 20, 2017.

I maintain that the failure to get political closure on Clinton benefited the GOP in 2000.  If there is widespread public outcry for impeachment, blocking it will be a political liability for the Democrats.  There is already a vast amount of discontent with OPapaDoc.  He is more unpopular than Carter.  Once irrefutable evidence of his crimes is public knowledge there will be public support for impeachment.  At that point, the GOP would benefit from pursuing it and forcing the Dems to block.

We aren't there yet, but we may be by this coming winter.

[evadR]

I maintain that the failure to get political closure on Clinton benefited the GOP in 2000.  If there is widespread public outcry for impeachment, blocking it will be a political liability for the Democrats.  There is already a vast amount of discontent with OPapaDoc.  He is more unpopular than Carter.  Once irrefutable evidence of his crimes is public knowledge there will be public support for impeachment.  At that point, the GOP would benefit from pursuing it and forcing the Dems to block.

We aren't there yet, but we may be by this coming winter.

The difference is that Obama has committed multiple, REAL crimes and impeachable offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors.
The American public never felt that Clinton committed real, impeachable crimes. Instead they felt it was all a witch hunt.

[GourmetDan]

If they keep goin' the way they're goin', the Republicans are on the verge of transforming into "a party about nothing"....

The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party...

[Fishrrman]

Evadr wrote above:
[[ The difference is that Obama has committed multiple, REAL crimes and impeachable offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors. ]]

Indeed. It's time:

[mountaineer]

The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party...

Not true.
True of some Republicans, but not all.