The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

President George W. Bush 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,572 times Debate No: 3955
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (15)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First, I would like to say to anyone who disagrees with my viewpoint, vote on the debate; not the topic.

Next, I would like to thank whoever accepts this debate.

Third, I would like to give my esteemed opponent the luxury of giving his or her constructive first, after I set a few parameters.

Before any prospective debater accepts, read these parameters, if you do not like these parameters, don't accept the debate. Voters must assume that you accept the parameters if you accept this debate.

Parameters: First, we are talking about the George W. Bush that is the current president of the United States of America, the nation founded in 1776, on planet Earth in North America.

Next, by impeach I mean the way it is used in the US Constitution. The constitution says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

should is pretty clear, but in case I get some weird semantics debater should is defined by Merriam-Webster as "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency" So, in this sense, Congress has an obligation to impeach Bush.

Any semantics arguments will be considered abusive. We can clear up any misunderstandings.
Kleptin

Con

There are four rounds to the debate and although my opponent has decided to graciously allow me to have the first statement, I must point out that it is my opponent who seeks the resolution and therefore, I as the contender, would have no reason to speak first.

I await my opponent's justifications and shall respond accordingly.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Alright, that's fine then.

My first contention is that Bush, by ordering military officials to use water-boarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques has committed a felony, which is cause for impeachment.
The UN General Assembly has passed and the United States has accepted this definition of torture: "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as:

* obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession
* punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed
* intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person
* or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind;

when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Water-boarding, which simulates drowning certainly causes mental pain, reported beatings in interrogation would be considered physical pain, there have also been reports of Korans being burned, which is mental pain for many devout Muslims. So, we must conclude that the Bush administration has been condoning torture of military detainees. Now, we must look at the legality of these actions, on a domestic and global scale. On the domestic scale, the most important arena for impeachment, Bush has effectively committed a felony. First, I would like to point out that in 1999 the United States in its Initial Report to the UN Committee Against Torture said the use of torture is "is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority…No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form…Every act of torture within the meaning of the [Convention against Torture] is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes." These criminal statutes include 18 U.S.C. 242, which makes it a criminal offense for any public official to willfully to deprive a person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Guantanamo Bay operation is violating prisoners habeas corpus, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights. Althoguh they are not citizens, this law still makes it illegal to deprive them of these rights. Also the US Supreme Court has condemned many methods of torture as illegal including whipping, slapping, depriving a victim of food, water, or sleep, keeping him naked or in a small cell for prolonged periods, holding a gun to his head, or threatening him with mob violence. Even if these techniques aren't considered torture, in Supreme Court cases such as Miranda v. Arizona and Blackburn v. State of Alabama it has been ruled that one cannot be forced to confess or inform police using physical or mental coercion techniques. In Miranda the Court said "coercion can be mental as well as physical…the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The argument that this is for national security holds no water either. According to the U.S. government, "U.S. law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a "state of public emergency") or on orders from a superior officer or public authority."

Now, onto the global legal scale. Although most global laws are not really that enforceable, some are considered jus cogens, meaning that any country can prosecute those who violate this law, regardless of the perpetrators nationality, where the crime was committed, where the victim was from, et cetera. Prohibitions against torture are jus cogens (HRW). That means that President Bush has not only committed a federal crime, but an international crime. The laws against it include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and most famously, the Geneva Conventions. The United States has ratified all of these treaties, the ICCPR was ratified by Bush's dad. Also, even if you don't think the international law is relevant, we have The War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes it illegal for any US national to violate the Geneva Conventions. Although some contend that torture of "enemy combatants" is not protected by the Conventions, it is in fact protected by Common Article Three to the Geneva Conventions, which protects all detainees from occupations from "[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." As it is clear that Bush has committed these crimes, he must be impeached.

Contention Two: Bush committed perjury, when asking for authorization for Iraq. He said many things such as:
1. "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."-George W. Bush. The documents supporting this fact were forged (another crime mind you)
2. Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. It later turned out that the Department of Energy had found it to be inaccurate evidence, before Bush used at evidence! (NY Times
3. There was of course the famous WMDs charge, but Bush's evidence consisted mainly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, tortured detainees, and vague satellite photos. (Plagiary is a crime, as well as forgery and torture)

I'll have more later, but as of now you vote PRO because Bush has committed the crimes of torture, forgery, plagiary, and perjury. These are all Felonies/Misdemeanors, so you vote PRO.
Kleptin

Con

I don't believe Bush should be impeached.

While my opponent brought up very good points, I want to focus on the big picture. In terms of global relations, I'm sure these "violations" look very bad on paper. But given the status of the United States, I think that the impeachment of a president would give an image that we really shouldn't give.

All these sleazy, underhanded tactics are expected of any country. Yes, we can pass a bill to say it's wrong, but that won't change the fact that they will always be used as black ops in order to achieve shady political agendas.

I'm sure that there exists many, many, many other reasons far worse than what my opponent stated that could be used against Bush if he is ever to be impeached.

But I find the entire process meaningless. Impeachment makes a joke out of our country. While it is nice to uphold the notion that no one is above the law, I personally believe that the president requires that leeway in order to run the country correctly.

These "atrocities" on human rights and acts to deceive the public are nothing compared to the welfare of the country. By my opponent's logic (at least, the way I read it) the "no admittance" signs on the cockpit of a plane would prevent the pilot and copilot from entering.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"But given the status of the United States, I think that the impeachment of a president would give an image that we really shouldn't give."
We shouldn't give the image that we uphold the law? Somehow I fail to see the problem with this. Our nation is being criticized for Iraq and for torture, and these criticisms stem from these crimes.

" All these sleazy, underhanded tactics are expected of any country. Yes, we can pass a bill to say it's wrong, but that won't change the fact that they will always be used as black ops in order to achieve shady political agendas."
They only occur because we turn a blind eye to them. A democracy cannot be effectively run by criminals. It is not acceptable to let criminals walk free, whether they are the president or a man living in a dumpster.

"These "atrocities" on human rights and acts to deceive the public are nothing compared to the welfare of the country. By my opponent's logic (at least, the way I read it) the "no admittance" signs on the cockpit of a plane would prevent the pilot and copilot from entering."
While pilots don't have to follow the "no admittance" signs on the cockpit door, they do have rules to follow, otherwise they lose their job. The same goes for leaders, yes, they have some leeway that others don't have, top secret security clearance, their finger on the red button, but that does not give them leeway to trample human rights or lie to the people they serve. When my opponent claims that these acts are nothing compared to the welfare of the country he forgets that these acts harm the welfare of the country.

An overview: My opponent claims that the welfare of the country must take precedence over upholding justice. He never supports this, and, even if this is true he never says why impeachment harms our welfare, especially in this instance, besides a brief mentioning of it making a joke out of the nation (which is never warranted). The actions we are punishing Bush for were not only illegal, but harmed the country, so we still are helping the country through impeachment.
Kleptin

Con

"We shouldn't give the image that we uphold the law? Somehow I fail to see the problem with this. Our nation is being criticized for Iraq and for torture, and these criticisms stem from these crimes."

Whose law? Our law? Or the arbitrary human rights laws that only a part of the world takes as a given? The backroom deals and political secrecy that go on in the upper levels of the government, of ANY government, are far above and beyond our concern. To impeach the president is an act of ignorance, like a group of children saying that their babysitter is violating the bed time rules she set for them.

"They only occur because we turn a blind eye to them. A democracy cannot be effectively run by criminals. It is not acceptable to let criminals walk free, whether they are the president or a man living in a dumpster."

Criminals by whose interpretation? It's easy to point at a murderer and call him a criminal. But what about a soldier? How about the assassin who takes down the head of a dictatorial regime? It all boils down to purpose, and who's pulling th strings, and for what reason. We don't know what goes on up there, but we can cling onto the propaganda and the mantras that we were taught (ironically, by the government) as children in order to point the finger back. It's ludicrous. In addition, this is not a democracy. At very best, we can call this a democratic republic, but it is more of an aristocracy. America is not the shining beacon of freedom for all mankind. We are not the land of the free, or the home of the brave. We're just like any other country, and we are run just like any other country, better than some, worse than others. Therefore, impeaching the president, the person who makes sure everything in the back rooms runs smoothly, in order to uphold nebulous ideals we have little to no objective justification for, is stupid.

"While pilots don't have to follow the "no admittance" signs on the cockpit door, they do have rules to follow, otherwise they lose their job. The same goes for leaders, yes, they have some leeway that others don't have, top secret security clearance, their finger on the red button, but that does not give them leeway to trample human rights or lie to the people they serve. When my opponent claims that these acts are nothing compared to the welfare of the country he forgets that these acts harm the welfare of the country."

And what my opponent needs to understand is that we are far too ignorant to even BEGIN to understand what is good and bad for the country. To further extend the analogy, imagine if you will a 10 year old trying to supervise his own surgery, criticizing his surgeon. This is the gap between the civilians being ruled and the president himself.

"An overview: My opponent claims that the welfare of the country must take precedence over upholding justice. He never supports this, and, even if this is true he never says why impeachment harms our welfare, especially in this instance, besides a brief mentioning of it making a joke out of the nation (which is never warranted). The actions we are punishing Bush for were not only illegal, but harmed the country, so we still are helping the country through impeachment."

My support is the argument that my opponent's definition of upholding justice (impeaching the president on ridiculously infantile charges) is merely an ignorant act based on ideals that have been forced on us since birth by our society.

I also clarify my point on impeachment harming our welfare: In my opinion, no impeachment will ever take place. The act carried out by congress will never be passed because it is purely symbolic. In order to give the illusion that the people have power over a president who "breaks the law", they include this act of impeachment. However, it's all for show. There have only been two prior attempts to impeach and both have failed. Thus, the only way an impeachment can ever go through is if the American populace itself, outside the know, decides to impeach the president as a group, without the aid of representatives. This is on the verge of revolution. It is also the ONLY way my opponent's proposal can go through. That is what I mean when I say that a call to impeach, should it ever be successful, is greatly harmful to our country. In the eyes of any other country leaders, this would be hilarious because the patriotism and propaganda used to keep us sheep docile would in turn destroy those who rule.

As for my opponent's final point, it is laughable to even ASSUME we can punish our president, even if there is anything to punish him for (which there isn't). My opponent naively assumes that the few examples of Bush's "improper behavior" are enough reason to impeach him and justify the act. I say with a great deal of confidence that the man is responsible for much, much worse, including and not limited to assassination, global political conspiracy, etc. And I also add that this is all fine and dandy because it is part of how a country is run. Civil rights, human rights, good, evil, morality in general, these things do not transcend all human life. They are merely on the level of day to day civilian life.

To impeach the president won't punish Bush, it will only punish us.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"Whose law? Our law? Or the arbitrary human rights laws that only a part of the world takes as a given? The backroom deals and political secrecy that go on in the upper levels of the government, of ANY government, are far above and beyond our concern. To impeach the president is an act of ignorance, like a group of children saying that their babysitter is violating the bed time rules she set for them."

Somehow, it seems that torture, lies, and turning our country into an international pariah are a little more serious than a babysitter violating bed time rules. This is more like the babysitter caring for the children while high, and physically abusing them. Do not listen to my opponent's attempts to make torture, perjury, forgery, and plagiary seem like trivial offenses. Bush's crimes are what led us to be so hated by much of the world. Impeaching him would show the world that we are respectable people. To often America is associated with Bush. Impeachment is throwing off that association. As for which crimes we are impeaching him for, federal crimes, crimes against humanity, and international violations. America's morality must be in the limelight in order to repair our image.

"Criminals by whose interpretation? It's easy to point at a murderer and call him a criminal. But what about a soldier? How about the assassin who takes down the head of a dictatorial regime? It all boils down to purpose, and who's pulling th[e] strings, and for what reason. We don't know what goes on up there, but we can cling onto the propaganda and the mantras that we were taught (ironically, by the government) as children in order to point the finger back. It's ludicrous. In addition, this is not a democracy. At very best, we can call this a democratic republic, but it is more of an aristocracy. America is not the shining beacon of freedom for all mankind. We are not the land of the free, or the home of the brave. We're just like any other country, and we are run just like any other country, better than some, worse than others. Therefore, impeaching the president, the person who makes sure everything in the back rooms runs smoothly, in order to uphold nebulous ideals we have little to no objective justification for, is stupid."
First, anyone who commits torture is a criminal. Not only does it not work, but it destroy the humanity of an individual. My opponent has cynicism as his argument, arguing that corruption and criminality are necessary, but he never supports this claim. He just keeps acting like Bush is a dictator who cannot be touched. He also claims Bush makes things run smoothly, but clearly he does not, he has destroyed America's image as the land of the free and the home of the brave. Whether that image is accurate is irrelevant for this point, it is a good image to have and a bad one to destroy.

"And what my opponent needs to understand is that we are far too ignorant to even BEGIN to understand what is good and bad for the country. To further extend the analogy, imagine if you will a 10 year old trying to supervise his own surgery, criticizing his surgeon. This is the gap between the civilians being ruled and the president himself."
My opponent needs to understand that we are a democracy (defined my Merriam-Webster as " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections") and that we have the power to take control into our own hands, and get our representatives to impeach Bush. We are a more or less free nation, Big Brother hasn't sent me in for re-education yet, and that in order for my opponent to claim otherwise he would need reliable evidence.

"My support is the argument that my opponent's definition of upholding justice (impeaching the president on ridiculously infantile charges) is merely an ignorant act based on ideals that have been forced on us since birth by our society."
He still hasn't supported this belief that that freedom and rights are nothing but propaganda. If he can prove that maybe you vote for him, but he can't prove that, because its not true.

"I also clarify my point on impeachment harming our welfare: In my opinion, no impeachment will ever take place. The act carried out by congress will never be passed because it is purely symbolic. In order to give the illusion that the people have power over a president who "breaks the law", they include this act of impeachment. However, it's all for show. There have only been two prior attempts to impeach and both have failed. Thus, the only way an impeachment can ever go through is if the American populace itself, outside the know, decides to impeach the president as a group, without the aid of representatives. This is on the verge of revolution. It is also the ONLY way my opponent's proposal can go through. That is what I mean when I say that a call to impeach, should it ever be successful, is greatly harmful to our country. In the eyes of any other country leaders, this would be hilarious because the patriotism and propaganda used to keep us sheep docile would in turn destroy those who rule."
He again never supports this unfounded claim that impeachment is a symbolic act, rather than something that actually works. My proposal can go through with a simple vote from Congress. Freedom and justice are not propaganda, and they will be upheld.

"As for my opponent's final point, it is laughable to even ASSUME we can punish our president, even if there is anything to punish him for (which there isn't). My opponent naively assumes that the few examples of Bush's "improper behavior" are enough reason to impeach him and justify the act. I say with a great deal of confidence that the man is responsible for much, much worse, including and not limited to assassination, global political conspiracy, etc. And I also add that this is all fine and dandy because it is part of how a country is run. Civil rights, human rights, good, evil, morality in general, these things do not transcend all human life. They are merely on the level of day to day civilian life."
I will say this time and time again, my opponent offers no support for this unfounded claim. Unless he can prove it, you vote PRO.
Kleptin

Con

"Somehow, it seems that torture, lies, and turning our country into an international pariah are a little more serious than a babysitter violating bed time rules. This is more like the babysitter caring for the children while high, and physically abusing them. Do not listen to my opponent's attempts to make torture, perjury, forgery, and plagiary seem like trivial offenses. Bush's crimes are what led us to be so hated by much of the world. Impeaching him would show the world that we are respectable people. To often America is associated with Bush. Impeachment is throwing off that association. As for which crimes we are impeaching him for, federal crimes, crimes against humanity, and international violations. America's morality must be in the limelight in order to repair our image."

It is important to keep a clear mind on what "reputation" means. To the rest of the world, any political head will seem like a criminal. But to other people ruling countries the same way Bush is (all of them) these are all typical tactics in maintaining strained political relationships and operating well above the heads of the citizens. In actuality, it doesn't really MATTER what the people of the world think, because all the other world leaders know that these little "offenses" are the way the world runs. To assume that any man or group of men can run a country by following ideals is naive and unrealistic. Laws and morality were created to keep people in order, and are a tool of the governing power to make sure things run correctly.

"First, anyone who commits torture is a criminal. Not only does it not work, but it destroy the humanity of an individual. My opponent has cynicism as his argument, arguing that corruption and criminality are necessary, but he never supports this claim. He just keeps acting like Bush is a dictator who cannot be touched. He also claims Bush makes things run smoothly, but clearly he does not, he has destroyed America's image as the land of the free and the home of the brave. Whether that image is accurate is irrelevant for this point, it is a good image to have and a bad one to destroy."

No one outside of America has that view of America anyway. Aside from those who have been influenced by more American propaganda, of course. I do not feel the need to PROVE a case against such an ideal. I find that my explanation is simply much more plausible because the cold hard fact is that a country is run like a business. Even before the advent of modern science, the Greek Atomists proposed that the entire universe is meaningless and solely made up of colliding bits of matter. Along came centuries of worshiping the soul, morality, good, evil, God, beauty, and all of these romantic ideals, and we're again convinced that the world is simply a large series of physical reactions with no inherent teleology or meaning. Why would you ever want to reduce yourself to assuming that a country can be run with dreams and fantasy as absolute law?

"My opponent needs to understand that we are a democracy (defined my Merriam-Webster as " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections") and that we have the power to take control into our own hands, and get our representatives to impeach Bush. We are a more or less free nation, Big Brother hasn't sent me in for re-education yet, and that in order for my opponent to claim otherwise he would need reliable evidence."

Of course we're "defined" as a democracy. I refer my opponent to his own definition: "supreme power is vested in the people". Do you honestly believe that we hold supreme power? Why is smoking still legal? The country is ruled by money, not by integrity or the common good. As long as our representatives are human, enough steak dinners and rounds at the country club and trips to Hawaii are enough to convince them to vote one way or another. The only NON corrupt form of democracy is a pure democracy, in which we would be led by a country of idiots. If everyone had his or her say, we would die out instantly. This is why our country is led by the rich and the intelligent, and why the rest of us are kept in the dark about the atrocities that allow our country to even stay together.

"He still hasn't supported this belief that that freedom and rights are nothing but propaganda. If he can prove that maybe you vote for him, but he can't prove that, because its not true."

I don't need to. The burden of proof does not rest on the skeptic. I'm only treating them as what they are worth.

"He again never supports this unfounded claim that impeachment is a symbolic act, rather than something that actually works. My proposal can go through with a simple vote from Congress. Freedom and justice are not propaganda, and they will be upheld."

My opponent's proposal will be discarded. Half of the media will not cover it because they are in the pocket of the government. Independent press will not reach a wide enough audience. The Bill Clinton case was a fluke, because it garnered too much press to be let go. That's why the "impeachment" had to take place. the ruling was, of course, against the impeachment and everyone was content because it went through the necessary symbolic process. And this is the way it should be. Impeachment has never worked before, nor will it ever work. Freedom and justice are very much propaganda, otherwise Bill Clinton would not have finished his second term.

"I will say this time and time again, my opponent offers no support for this unfounded claim. Unless he can prove it, you vote PRO."

And I will say this as much as need be: The burden of proof does not fall on the skeptic. Much like how many of us need no justification to believe God does not exist, I need no justification to believe that freedom and human rights do not exist. The fact that a pastor preaches God does not prove God. The fact that the government, our teachers, and our television sets preach freedom and justice, does not show that they exist.

Viewing the government as a maintenance organization that operates in black and white, we can understand that it will do whatever it takes to ensure that this country works. Viewing the government as operating under some set of ideals and unbreakable moral laws will create complications and restrictions that make this impossible.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Oh cool, now I'm on the far left. By war crime I mean acts in violation of the War Crimes Act, which punishes people who violate the Geneva Conventions. Also, there is a part of the Geneva Conventions that I think I mentioned that gives protection to insurgents. Also, he has ordered the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. I also mentioned the law that effectively gave non-citizens some rights.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
In order to commit war crimes, you have to BE at war. We are NOT at war with Iraq and haven't been for years. In fact, we are working hand in hand with that country to establish and protect their Government and citizens, to train their military and police, and to build an acceptable infrastructure. The fighting is not with Iraq, it's with common criminals. Far cry different from a war.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"My first contention is that Bush, by ordering military officials to use water-boarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques has committed a felony, which is cause for impeachment."

Bush ordered no such thing. Military commanders in the field make those decisions, and a technique in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean "torture". Circumstance also dictates what should or should not be acceptable. You are REALLY reaching by deeming taking away a Qu'ran as "torture". These are prisoners, not citizens having their civil rights abused. Further they aren't American citizens, hence they have no rights under American law. Even more than that, they aren't eligible for Geneva Convention protection either as they aren't soldiers working on behalf of a Government. They are criminals subject to the laws of the country in which they are detained. In fact, the majority of them aren't eligible for any legal protection of any sort.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Bush has not been accused of committing any "war crimes" by anyone other than the far left, nor will he ever be accused of such nonsense.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
re: mmadderom: You forgot the war crimes charge I got, I don't really care about the bush lied people died crap, it just looks bad on paper. war crimes however, are a reason to impeach him.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
lol, the debate down there is more interesting than the debate up here XD
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
For starters I don't like Bush at ALL. Many of his policies have pissed me off. You assume I'm a supporter of his simply because I'm not one of the uninformed out there calling for impeachment.

"Majority rules" is NOT a principle we embrace in national politics. In fact it's very possible the winner of the next Presidential election will NOT win the popular vote. That's why we have an electoral college determine the outcome of elections and not popular vote. You need look no further than the arcane primary process the democrats use for selecting a nominee to completely quash any notion of "majority rule" where Presidential elections are concerned.

"So if the US allows a president, that the majority of the population dislikes, to stay in office, it would be inconsistent with our democratic ways."

That is completely nuts. The populace ELECTED HIM...TWICE. A fall in popularity doesn't overrule the election process. When you cast your vote, you know you are giving the guy 4 years, not just until you get tired of him. To suggest impeachment of a President every time his approval ratings fall below 50% is inane. We'd have a new President every few months...

And, again, the majority of reasons people dislike Bush are beyond his control in the first place.

"On the contrary, I don't care about the popularity rating of congress."

That's about as hypocritical as you can possibly get. You do realize the Congress has FAR more power than the POTUS, right? If Bush's popularity rating is justification for removal from office, then Congresses rating HAS to be just as much justification for removing THEM from office. Majority rule, remember?
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
If you think Bush is some perfect little angel, who does no wrong, fine your entitled to your opinion.
I am simply stating the facts, MAJORITY of the population disagree's with you. Yes, I know this is not an absolute democracy, I learned that in grade school, thanks.
BUT we still go by many democratic principles, one being 'majority rule', that's the whole point of voting. So if the US allows a president, that the majority of the population dislikes, to stay in office, it would be inconsistent with our democratic ways.
On the contrary, I don't care about the popularity rating of congress. And please stop with your desperate attempt to cover up Bush's role in rising gas prices. We both know that arguement is covered in conservative b.s.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Once again, popularity ratings are worthless. Once again Congress rating is even lower. We are involved in an unpopular war and have a sagging economy, of course politicians of all ilk are going to bear the brunt of an unhappy public. We don't simply start removing them from office because the current political climate has the populace unhappy with the people THEY VOTED INTO OFFICE in the first place. That's why we have elections, for the electorate to change their mind at a latter date and vote someone out of office. Impeachment wasn't put into place to be used as so sort of bloodless coup when the natives get restless.

We aren't a Democracy, whoever told you we are, lied. No true Democracy could ever survive for very long.

And no, Bush has nothing to do with our gas prices. There isn't a single thing he can do as POTUS to affect the price of oil right now. Worldwide demand is sky high, production is low. OPEC is intentionally artificially driving the price of oil up for both monetary and political reasons. Unless you advocate starting a whole bunch more wars to take over OPEC nations, there is little Bush can do.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
In my defense,
In no way was what I commented the only reasons for as to why Bush should be impeached.
My point was to send the message that Clinton isn't responsible for all of Bush's mistakes and mismanagement..
But I digress, the site I posted was to show you that an outstanding 70% or more Americans oppose Bush. that's approx. 210,000,000 people. I run off the democratic principle which states, Majority rule, allowing Bush to continue his rein is inconsistent with our 'democratic' ways.

And I applaud you for your optimism. Bush plays a major role in our unnecessarily high gas prices, him and his advocates that is.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ahking 9 years ago
Ahking
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 9 years ago
LaSalle
LR4N6FTW4EVAKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30