The Instigator
Jzyehoshua
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
EliasL
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Obama should be impeached

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 389 times Debate No: 63659
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Jzyehoshua

Pro

My position is that Barack Obama should most definitely be impeached; that he deserves impeachment. Opponent will argue that he should not be impeached. The following are some quick core arguments in support of this:

1. Obama spied on hundreds of millions of people via the NSA hacking the Google and Yahoo servers.[1] This is more serious than Watergate ever was as Watergate involved stealing the information of a few, and Nixon was impeached for the Watergate scandal.[2]

2. Obama's now-legendary "lie of the year" (according to PolitiFact) that people can keep their doctors, which he consistently repeated for years, caused millions to lose their insurance.[3] This is far more serious than Bill Clinton's claim that he did not sleep with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton's lie affected only himself, Obama's harmed millions.

3. Obama lied repeatedly about his votes against medical care for newborn children, until a 2008 CNN expose revealed he had voted against a bill word for word identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act.[4] Obama's spokesperson then claimed he'd just "misspoke" and that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect them.[5] However, the federal bill that passed the Senate unanimously to stop babies from being left to die called Illinois nurses (Jill Stanek and Allison Baker) specifically and Illinois law was central to the case.[6] Furthermore, Illinois transcripts show Obama knew babies were being left to die and opposed medical care for them anyway.[7]

4. The IRS targeted conservative groups under Obama. Despite the efforts of Democratic strategists to portray the scandal as targeting liberal groups as well, this claim is misleading since only 30% of progressive cases were singled out by the IRS to 100% of conservative ones.[8] This after Obama promised to "punish our enemies and reward our friends."[9]

In conclusion, Obama has committed high crimes and treason worthy of impeachment beyond even presidents who have been impeached in the past, e.g. Nixon and Clinton. What is more, 27 of the 35 articles of impeachment filed against Bush likewise apply to Obama.[10] Perhaps that is why Obama refused to pursue impeachment against Bush, he knew he'd repeat the same things contrary to his campaign promises.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.foxnews.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.politifact.com...
http://swampland.time.com...
[4] http://transcripts.cnn.com...
[5] http://www.nysun.com...
[6] http://thomas.loc.gov...;
[7] http://www.ilga.gov... (pp. 84-88)
http://www.ilga.gov... (pp. 29-35)
[8] http://www.politifact.com...
[9] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
[10] http://my.firedoglake.com...
EliasL

Con

I do not believe that Obama should be impeached. He has legally done nothing (that we know of) to be impeached. To be impeached, you must commit treason, bribery, or any illegal act. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )

Obama has no real jurisdiction over what the NSA does. He can petition to have them shut down, he can run a campaign, but he can't do anything to stop their actions that were kept so secret that it took illegal release of their records to the public to get them to admit it.

You also can't say that Obama "lied" about what the future of his campaigns might hold. When he created Obamacare, he of course had good intentions. The bad outcome is not a result of him lying, it is a result of a false PREDICTION. Obama is not a psychic, he is as human as you and me. He just makes $400,000 a year.

He has committed no real treason, he just does not have the public on his side.

Don't forget that a lot of people have done things that have overall resulted in bad things for the country. Bill Clinton outsourced jobs ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), Andrew Jackson the Trail of Tears. Neither of them were impeached. Obama pales in comparison.
Debate Round No. 1
Jzyehoshua

Pro

Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
EliasL

Con

EliasL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jzyehoshua

Pro

I already firmly established that Obama has not only repeated but outdone the same types of actions for which previous presidents were impeached. Richard Nixon was impeached for Watergate, for spying on the opposing political party's headquarters and stealing some private documents from them. However, this again pales in comparison to Obama's usage of the NSA to spy on hundreds of millions of people, not only Americans but those abroad as well, including world leaders. Geman chancellor Angela Merkel was only one of numerous leaders that was spied upon.

http://www.nytimes.com...

That pales in comparison the NSA's hacking of the Google and Yahoo servers to spy on hundreds of millions of people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...;

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but his crime was a localized one harming only his immediate family. Obama's infamous lie about letting Americans keep their health insurance harmed millions, and is arguably far more serious than Clinton's.

http://www.politifact.com...

Furthermore, Obama most definitely lied on Obamacare, which was why even PolitiFact, who generally tries to defend him, was forced to concede it was the most egregious lie of the year. Obama told other lies on Obamacare as well. He lied that he would put the process on C-Span, and when Brian Lamb pleaded with Obama to keep his promise on that, Obama refused to do so. As Nancy Pelosi put it in defending Obama at the time, "there were a lot of things he was for on the campaign trail." Obama also lied repeatedly that the bill was not about abortion, despite having told Planned Parenthood much differently back in 2007, and was accused by FactCheck.org of "fabricating" on the issue.

http://abcnews.go.com...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.factcheck.org...

If you want to go back to the only president ever impeached before Nixon, that would have been Andrew Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act by sidestepping the Senate with unilateral executive actions. Obama has done far more than Johnson ever did, skirting Congress in multiple ways and creating legislation apart from the will of Congress. Obamacare alone has been arbitrarily changed at least 35 times, 18 of them in major ways, apart from the bill Congress passed, by Obama.

http://www.forbes.com...;

That is the same kind of thing for which Johnson was impeached. Obama ironically criticized the Bush regime for using executive orders and then turned around used the same ones he criticized Bush for. This despite the fact that Bush's had statutory basis, in other words were based on laws Congress passed, rather than unconstitutionally making up new laws.

When examining past presidents who were impeached and what they were impeached for, it is crystal clear that Obama should most definitely be impeached. It is only the Democrat-run Senate protecting him right now from impeachment, as successful impeachment requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
EliasL

Con

EliasL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jzyehoshua

Pro

Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
EliasL

Con

EliasL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by FakeAmericansUr 2 years ago
FakeAmericansUr
With all due respect to the con here, but the Pro side is my man, Impeach that president :D We gta wake up. :) We need the pro side to win here sry but im biased I know the con side isn't Obama.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
On further thought I suppose acceptance as first round would make sense for another debate, but in this one I have already presented my core arguments in the first round, so naturally it would only be fair for an opponent to do so as well that the debate might start immediately.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
No, acceptance seems somewhat irrelevant as a first round. I thought about first round as acceptance but decided to just go ahead and present my core argument. The opponent is certainly free to do the same and present their argument immediately in the first round as well.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Is the first round acceptance?
No votes have been placed for this debate.