2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

Number of times in the history of this country that a sitting President has been impeached: Twice

Number of times one has been impeached and removed from office because of it: zero

I rest my case.

The folks who want Mr. Obama impeached are sore losers who cannot accept reality.

[Roy Karrde]

Is it possible? Sure, just about anything is. But General Petraeus has never struck me as someone who's particularly interested in political convenience - his interest is in making sure the job gets done, and if he can't do it, then he'll let you know and point you in the direction of who can. His record speaks for itself in that regard.

Well that may be so, but if the President orders him to do something, he has no other choice but to accept it.

Meantime, both the FBI and senior officials have been rebutting what you suggest, and there's been no evidence yet that supports the theory. Unless anything else turns up, I think this is probably going to wind up being a dead end in which the president will barely even be involved.

What do you expect senior officials to say "Oh yeah we knew, we sat on it so Obama could get reelected". The thing is, the mere timing of it, and the fact that members of Congress apparently knew before Obama, should raise enough questions to warrant a investigation.

Number of times in the history of this country that a sitting President has been impeached: Twice

Number of times one has been impeached and removed from office because of it: zero

I rest my case.

The folks who want Mr. Obama impeached are sore losers who cannot accept reality.

Because impeachment is the only way a President can be punished?

[Heald]

This is jumping the gun a bit. There is not, at this moment in time, any hard evidence Obama has committed any specific offence here. You can't make accusations based on speculation and unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy. Talking of impeaching Obama and removing him from office is what you should be talking about after it has been established he is guilty of wrongdoing. Unless you can provide any watertight evidence of wrongdoing, as well as any specific law that has been broken, then such discussions are without merit and could lead one to suspect the accusations are only being made in hope that Obama is guilty of them based on your own personal feelings for him, rather than based on a legitimate process of inquiry.

[Roy Karrde]

This is jumping the gun a bit. There is not, at this moment in time, any hard evidence Obama has committed any specific offence here. You can't make accusations based on speculation and unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy. Talking of impeaching Obama and removing him from office is what you should be talking about after it has been established he is guilty of wrongdoing. Unless you can provide any watertight evidence of wrongdoing, as well as any specific law that has been broken, then such discussions are without merit and could lead one to suspect the accusations are only being made in hope that Obama is guilty of them based on your own personal feelings for him, rather than based on a legitimate process of inquiry.

Which brings me back to my original question.

A: What did Obama know, and when did he know it. If Obama knew Petraeus had been compromised week ago, and let him stay on until after the election to avoid a sex scandal. Then that opens Obama up to possible criminal prosecution.

Because of the timing, and the possibility of wrong doing, questions need to be answered under oath as to when exactly was Obama informed. Note I never once said he was guilty of it, merely that a possible investigation should be made.

[Heald]

Then that opens Obama up to possible criminal prosecution.

What specific offence? Please cite exactly which law he has possibly broken.

Because of the timing, and the possibility of wrong doing, questions need to be answered under oath as to when exactly was Obama informed.

Neither possibility of wrong doing nor the coincidence of the events being discussed mean there is a need for questions to be answered. Without any evidence that a) Obama has done anything wrong or b) there is a link between the date of the election and the announcement of the scandal, then this is no better than mere speculation. No one is required to answer for any wrongdoing that some speculate they may have committed if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing having taken place. I'm not defending Obama, but generally speaking no one is required to respond to wild speculation unless their position becomes untenable without an account of their actions. The President's position is, for now, quite tenable.

[Dark Sage]

Heald, he's just bitter.

Ironically, he compared Romney's campaign to the Death Star. I warned him, the Death Star was not truly a symbol of power, but was actually the symbol of the Empire's greatest weakness, their belief that technology could defeat human spirit and willpower. It failed miserably and was the biggest factor in bringing about their collapse.

And in a way, Romney's billion-dollar campaign is a symbol of the GOP's greatest weakness, their shallow belief that everything can be bought. Like the Death Star, it failed miserably, and it may well be a big factor in causing the GOP's swansong.

[Roy Karrde]

What specific offence? Please cite exactly which law he has possibly broken.

That would be up to Congress to decide

Neither possibility of wrong doing nor the coincidence of the events being discussed mean there is a need for questions to be answered. Without any evidence that a) Obama has done anything wrong or b) there is a link between the date of the election and the announcement of the scandal, then this is no better than mere speculation. No one is required to answer for any wrongdoing that some speculate they may have committed if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing having taken place. I'm not defending Obama, but generally speaking no one is required to respond to wild speculation unless their position becomes untenable without an account of their actions. The President's position is, for now, quite tenable.

You realize that Congress does not need a shred of evidence to create a investigation into something. Through their power of oversight of the executive branch they can create a investigation into anything. They could launch a investigation merely into Petraeus leaving, and force the White House to turn over documents and testimony on when the President found out about it.

Heald, he's just bitter.

How's that proof coming into Fox News' ratings?

[PNT510]

And... what does this have to do with Fox News' ratings other than merely being ANOTHER Red Harring?

Fox News' ratings are down from the last couple of years, but so are CNN's and MSNBC's. Also Fox News is still the highest rated cable news network.

[Dark Sage]

Okay Roy, I might as well say it now.

I don't want your opinion, because I don't respect it, and I never did.

And I don't have to prove anything to you any more.

Heald, PLEASE get rid of this festering cesspool of a thread. The election has been over for almost a week.

[Magmar]

Oh jeepers crow, Dark Sage, what is the big deal?? If Roy wants to challenge you on what you say, then let him. Granted, I tend to not believe a word that comes from Fox News personally because they just aren't credible, but I like when Roy comes up with stuff that doesn't come from Fox because it makes me think. I'd rather someone argued the right-wing perspective than the left-wing perspective be left unchallenged.

[Perfect Chaos]

OK seriously, it's been ONE WEEK since the election's been over...WHY can't you people just move on from this? Why is more fuel being thrown on this incessant "flame war"? (defined as so by a razor-thin line of what is and what isn't a flame war).

Roy, Romney lost, get over it. Enough with bringing up other information about Obama that you think might've changed the results of the election if it was brought up before. We'll never know, leave it at that.

Dark Sage, enough parading around that Obama won and that Romney can suck it. You're not a winner in the peoples' eyes if you can't accept it gracefully without continuing to demean the opposing party.

[Heald]

You realize that Congress does not need a shred of evidence to create a investigation into something. Through their power of oversight of the executive branch they can create a investigation into anything. They could launch a investigation merely into Petraeus leaving, and force the White House to turn over documents and testimony on when the President found out about it.

This may be true but given the complete lack of evidence of any wrongdoing, Congress would have no real reason to launch an investigation. The fact that one could speculate that Obama has done something wrong is not a good enough reason on its own. One could speculate Obama has done something wrong every day he has been President but that would not merit an investigation into each action he has taken since taking office. The incredibly minimal chance that any conspiracy to smother the news had taken place would not be worth the risk of launching a politically-charged investigation, one that would likely be lengthy and expensive and take up Congress' valuable time and resources only for it to uncover nothing of note. Whoever had launched the investigation would have to justify wasting the country's time on an investigation for which there was no material reason to start it in the first place. Given that Congress should be concentrating on the economy and creating a bipartisan solution to the country's problems, it would seem rather irresponsible for someone to start a politically-motivated investigation on the basis of wild speculation.

[Dark Sage]

If there is ANY evidence to convict Obama of anything, then there was enough to convict Bush and sentence him to life without parole.

[PNT510]

Okay Roy, I might as well say it now.

I don't want your opinion, because I don't respect it, and I never did.

And I don't have to prove anything to you any more.

Heald, PLEASE get rid of this festering cesspool of a thread. The election has been over for almost a week.

You don't have to keep posting in it if you hate it so.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, Romney lost, get over it. Enough with bringing up other information about Obama that you think might've changed the results of the election if it was brought up before. We'll never know, leave it at that.

Who says I am doing this for the election? If there was wrong doing in 2011 I would be pointing it out.

This may be true but given the complete lack of evidence of any wrongdoing, Congress would have no real reason to launch an investigation. The fact that one could speculate that Obama has done something wrong is not a good enough reason on its own. One could speculate Obama has done something wrong every day he has been President but that would not merit an investigation into each action he has taken since taking office. The incredibly minimal chance that any conspiracy to smother the news had taken place would not be worth the risk of launching a politically-charged investigation, one that would likely be lengthy and expensive and take up Congress' valuable time and resources only for it to uncover nothing of note. Whoever had launched the investigation would have to justify wasting the country's time on an investigation for which there was no material reason to start it in the first place. Given that Congress should be concentrating on the economy and creating a bipartisan solution to the country's problems, it would seem rather irresponsible for someone to start a politically-motivated investigation on the basis of wild speculation.

You realize the fact that Petraeus was potentially compromised and may have given this lady ultra secret information is in and of itself justification to launch a investigation into the entire ordeal.

[Heald]

You realize the fact that Petraeus was potentially compromised and may have given this lady ultra secret information is in and of itself justification to launch a investigation into the entire ordeal.

Into the Petraeus stuff, no doubt. Whether the investigation needs to be stretched to the realm of seeing if the President is guilty of any separate offence is something else entirely.

[RedStarWarrior]

No law was broken in regards to Petraeus. The real problem is that Broadwell had classified documents on her computer, but an investigation by the FBI shows that they did not come from Petraeus.

It's more an issue because he considered himself compromised.

By the way, House leader, Eric Cantor, was informed in October about the affair. He knew, due to a leak, before the head of National Intelligence did.

[Dark Sage]

By the way, House leader, Eric Cantor, was informed in October about the affair. He knew, due to a leak, before the head of National Intelligence did.

The GOP House Majority Leader knew about this?

Seems like its the GOP who has some explaining to do, huh Roy?

[Roy Karrde]

The GOP House Majority Leader knew about this?

Seems like its the GOP who has some explaining to do, huh Roy?

House GOP is not in charge of removing Holder?

[Dark Sage]

Given how much the GOP seem to hate Holder, you'd think that Cantor might have mentioned it.

At the very least, if keeping this whole deal secret is the crime that you suggest it is (which it isn't), I fail to see why Cantor is any less guilty of it than Mr. Obama.

I swear, at this point, when Mr. Obama makes the traditional Thanksgiving Pardon next week, Fox News is likely going to accuse him of being coerced into pardoning the turkey, and suspect that it had ties to Libya.

[Roy Karrde]

Given how much the GOP seem to hate Holder, you'd think that Cantor might have mentioned it.

What exactly does the Attorney General have to do with a FBI investigation into the CIA director?

At the very least, if keeping this whole deal secret is the crime that you suggest it is (which it isn't), I fail to see why Cantor is any less guilty of it than Mr. Obama.

Again because Cantor cannot remove him.

I swear, at this point, when Mr. Obama makes the traditional Thanksgiving Pardon next week, Fox News is likely going to accuse him of being coerced into pardoning the turkey, and suspect that it had ties to Libya.

You know when Bush pardoned Turkeys back in the day, there were more than a few liberals who attacked Bush for it, saying how stupid it was and how the turkey would die anyway because of how they were raised.

[Dark Sage]

You know when Bush pardoned Turkeys back in the day, there were more than a few liberals who attacked Bush for it, saying how stupid it was and how the turkey would die anyway because of how they were raised.

Yeah, a few animal rights groups did complain, and they got results. They started sending them to a petting zoo at Disneyland instead of the old one, where they had a better life expectancy. (Disney has a far bigger budget.)

[ChobiChibi]

1) Obama wins, Romney loses. Roy sulks, continuing to slate Obama, regardless of the fact people obviously like his leadership. Dark Sage gloats, with an "I told you so" like attitude. This thread still goes on for another couple of months.

Love how this still stands... And love how the two people mentioned were arrogant enough to get offended by the fact I called them both out on this.

I'll admit I missed the "close the thread" cries, but I'm still close

[RedStarWarrior]

Yeah, a few animal rights groups did complain, and they got results. They started sending them to a petting zoo at Disneyland instead of the old one, where they had a better life expectancy. (Disney has a far bigger budget.)

Yeah, but now they have to worry about stray blasts from Stormtrooper guns.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah, but now they have to worry about stray blasts from Stormtrooper guns.

The typical Imperial Stormtrooper can't hit the broad side of a barn, at least not in the original movies. That's a common joke among fans.

See Resolution #56 on the Evil Overlord List if you don't believe me.

[Heald]

I just read an interesting report in a British political magazine (the magazine does not publish its articles online, or at least not until the next issue is out so I can't post a link, sorry guys) that basically exposes pollsters for making their polls seem much closer than they actually were.

At the end of the day, Obama won a convincing victory, most people in positions that mattered expected Obama to win and, tellingly, the bookmakers never gave Romney any better than outside chances to oust Obama. However, pollsters constantly pointed to the race being the tightest race in decades, sometimes putting Romney ahead when, realistically, Romney was probably not going to win.

Basically pollsters have a range of tools at their disposal to give several projections as to what the likely result on that day would be. The difference between two projections using the same data can be up to a 10 point difference or even greater in exceptional circumstances, and although it isn't illegal or misleading, the poll the pollster does decide to put out is entirely at their discretion, as they have the data to back up that particular projection, even if the data has projected a different result that is significantly different (say over 5 points difference) to the one they publish. At the end of the day, a pollster can really only put out one poll.

Here is the motive behind pollsters publishing the projection that indicates that the race is far tighter than it probably is in reality, or that the underdog has taken a slight lead: pollsters make more money and gain more publicity when they publish such polls. Fox News, for example, was found to be far more likely to give more airtime and exposure to polls that indicated either a 'too close to call' or a slight Romney lead. Networks and other media outlets that are considered to be leaning towards Democrats, interestingly enough, were also more likely to use such polls, probably as a way of scaring Democrats into voting as they would be led to believe that if they didn't mobilise the Democrat vote, they'd sleepwalk into a Romney win. Such polls receive far higher exposure in the mass media and drive people to their websites, driving up their revenues from ads and subscriptions.

Just some food for thought there.

[Dark Sage]

Moral of the story: Don't believe polls. At all.

[RedStarWarrior]

The typical Imperial Stormtrooper can't hit the broad side of a barn, at least not in the original movies. That's a common joke among fans.

See Resolution #56 on the Evil Overlord List if you don't believe me.

Hence the use of the word 'stray'. I was implying exactly what you said, idget.

[Roy Karrde]

Well Israel seems to now be in a war with Palestine, Unemployment jumped, and the DOW is now on a slide. Makes you wonder if Obama wishes to take back the election results.

[Magmar]

Well Israel seems to now be in a war with Palestine,

That was inevitable.

Unemployment jumped,

*Hurricane Sandy

and the DOW is now on a slide.

Not Obama's fault that people are being sore losers.

Makes you wonder if Obama wishes to take back the election results.

Nah, I doubt we'd be any better off with R(money)

[Roy Karrde]

*Hurricane Sandy

Maybe, Maybe not, we will see in the next few weeks. Manufacturing slowed in New York for the 4th straight month, is that also Sandy's fault?

Not Obama's fault that people are being sore losers.

Actually it is, some of the biggest drives right now are the Fiscal Cliff brought on by the Sequestration, which was the Obama Administration's idea in the first place. And possibly the penalties that are now law from Obamacare.

Nah, I doubt we'd be any better off with R(money)

We wouldn't be seeing all these Obamacare related cutbacks.

[Heald]

Equally things could have been a lot worse under Romney.

I guess the world will never know...

[Dark Sage]

Unemployment jumped, and the DOW is now on a slide

VERY tough talk, considering that you refused to give him ANY credit at all when the DOW was doing well.

[Roy Karrde]

VERY tough talk, considering that you refused to give him ANY credit at all when the DOW was doing well.

When the DOW drops almost continuously since election day, I tend to see one big source as the cause of it.

[Dark Sage]

When the DOW drops almost continuously since election day, I tend to see one big source as the cause of it.

Yeah, sore losers and rich "job creators" who know that the President isn't going to cave to Boehnir this time.

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah, sore losers and rich "job creators" who know that the President isn't going to cave to Boehnir this time.

You honestly think people are pulling millions if not billions of dollars out of the stock market because they are sore losers? REALLY? How about more realistic things like the possibility of tax hikes on capital gains skyrocketing if we head over the Fiscal Cliff? How about another 4 years of a President that has no idea about business? Wouldn't that be a better explanation?

[Dark Sage]

Heald, please lock this thread already? Roy is having a hissy-fit here.

[Heald]

If you can go a week without begging me to lock it, I will.

[Dark Sage]

If you can go a week without begging me to lock it, I will.

Can I have that in writing?

If so, deal. Take note that it is November 15th, 6:30 PM, EST.

I expect this thread inaccessable on the 22nd at 6:31.

[Heald]

Can I have that in writing?

If so, deal. Take note that it is November 15th, 6:30 PM, EST.

I expect this thread inaccessable on the 22nd at 6:31.

Granted.

Oh, and since you hate this thread so much, I take it you won't mind if I delete all your posts from it before I lock it?