Impeached Obama WARNED Not to FLEE the Country

[BroilJAB]

His own closest advisors are now urging Obama to 'Resign Before Total
Disgrace' at Impeachment. Both the Senate Panel and even UN Commission
now confirm his recent Election was 'a total fraud'. Compounding this
was IRS Terrorism, Illegal Wiretaps...

[David Hartung]

So, if the re-election of Obama and Biden was a fraud, does this mean
that they ado no lawfully hold office? If so, who would be the lawful
president?

[wy]

Don't you know how your system works? The bronzed Boner would be
POTUS, the Speaker of the House. Terrible system you've got. A
Democrat president could become a Repugnant one in the course of a
term. You call that "will of the people"?

[Hell Stomper]

FUCK OFF CANADIAN, IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

[David Hartung]

It seems that Wy gets more and more ignorant every day.

[Vandar]

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. His VP and successor, Andrew Johnson,
was a Democrat.
William Henry Harrison, a Whig, died 32 days after taking office. His
VP, John Tyler, was an Independent.

[wy]

Hit you below the belt and inverted that shrimp of a limp dick of
yours, did I? Good.

[wy]

Can you say something meaningful and with substance sometime? You're
becoming increasingly vague.

[wy]

Snap, snap. We're in the 21st century. Try to keep up. And it's
still a stupid system in this century.

[Vandar]

Asked if the previous poster knows how our system works. That's how it's
worked in the past, worked today, and will continue to work in the future.
Why? Because unlike Obama, it works.

[David Hartung]

As I think this through, it seems that this could be more complex than
first appears. If the re-election of Obama and Biden was fraudulent,
then their first term would have expired without a replacement having
been legally chosen. Does the Constitutional line of succession apply here?

Just a thought.

[wy]

Hartung didn't know how it works, neither in the past, nor the present
and, I'm accurately assuming, in the future either. It's still a
stupid system. It's like you guys don't ever know what you want to be
or if your vote even counts at all. An unelected-for-president
Repugnant can take over an elected Democrat and Repugnants can win
control of the House even though a million more votes went to
Democrats. That's one mighty damn stupid system. At least it works
according to voters' wishes in Canada and remains focused on the party
in power. If our right wingnut Prime Minister drops out, he's taken
over by any one of at least a half-dozen right wingnuts in the elected
right wingnut government. The Speaker of the House and opposition
parties stay out of it. There's no cheating or jumping the line here,
it's all fair and square and of the people, by the people and for the
people until the term ends.

[Hell Stomper]

FUCK OFF AND DIE, CANADIAN. THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

[Vandar]

It beats a monarchy any day, especially the Canadian one, which is ruled
by a Briton.

> It's like you guys don't ever know what you want to be
> or if your vote even counts at all. An unelected-for-president
> Repugnant

He was elected.

> can take over an elected Democrat and Repugnants can win
> control of the House even though a million more votes went to
> Democrats.

So? You don't get vote for Queen of Canada, ever. Or Governor-General.

> That's one mighty damn stupid system. At least it works
> according to voters' wishes in Canada and remains focused on the party
> in power.

Who do you think is third in line in Canada?

> If our right wingnut Prime Minister drops out, he's taken
> over by any one of at least a half-dozen right wingnuts in the elected
> right wingnut government. The Speaker of the House and opposition
> parties stay out of it. There's no cheating or jumping the line here,
> it's all fair and square and of the people, by the people and for the
> people until the term ends.

And what happens if the top two, the PM and the Governor-General, are
incapacitated simultaneously?

[Vandar]

I'd think it does. The line of succession is to fill vacancies. If both
the POTUS and VP were suddenly out of office, the Speaker would assume
the presidency and appoint himself a new VP. SImilar to what Ford did
when Nixon resigned. If the VP was also removed, then the same thing
would occur, but the line would just reach one step further down the list.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in
news:yI6dna1Tg5bBkD3M...@giganews.com:

No.

Once a president is sworn in he is the president
until legally removed from office by an impeachment
vote in the Senate.

[wy]

No Briton rules Canada. Catch up on your history, will you? Oh, I
forgot. Americans don't bother with world history. They barely
bother with their own.

>
> > It's like you guys don't ever know what you want to be
> > or if your vote even counts at all.  An unelected-for-president
> > Repugnant
>
> He was elected.

Not as president. Or did you somehow go coma over the "unelected-for-
president" part?

>
> > can take over an elected Democrat and Repugnants can win
> > control of the House even though a million more votes went to
> > Democrats.
>
> So? You don't get vote for Queen of Canada, ever. Or Governor-General.

They don't run the country. The Prime Minister does. Boy, you're
stupid.

>
> > That's one mighty damn stupid system.  At least it works
> > according to voters' wishes in Canada and remains focused on the party
> > in power.
>
> Who do you think is third in line in Canada?

The House Leader - who is always of the same party as the one elected
to govern, not someone in opposition.

>
> > If our right wingnut Prime Minister drops out, he's taken
> > over by any one of at least a half-dozen right wingnuts in the elected
> > right wingnut government.  The Speaker of the House and opposition
> > parties stay out of it.  There's no cheating or jumping the line here,
> > it's all fair and square and of the people, by the people and for the
> > people until the term ends.
>
> And what happens if the top two, the PM and the Governor-General, are
> incapacitated simultaneously?

Look above, look way above....

[Vandar]

Impeachment, resignation, or death. There is no impeachment vote in the
Senate. There is a trial after an impeachment vote in the House.

[Vandar]

Canada has a Queen. Her name is Elizabeth II. She doesn't make law, or
do much of anything else, but she is the ruler and the Governor-General
is her lackey.

>>> It's like you guys don't ever know what you want to be
>>> or if your vote even counts at all. An unelected-for-president
>>> Repugnant
>>
>> He was elected.
>
> Not as president. Or did you somehow go coma over the "unelected-for-
> president" part?

He was elected into the line of succession.

>>> can take over an elected Democrat and Repugnants can win
>>> control of the House even though a million more votes went to
>>> Democrats.
>>
>> So? You don't get vote for Queen of Canada, ever. Or Governor-General.
>
> They don't run the country. The Prime Minister does. Boy, you're
> stupid.

He's the senior cabinet minister, not the Head of State.

>>> That's one mighty damn stupid system. At least it works
>>> according to voters' wishes in Canada and remains focused on the party
>>> in power.
>>
>> Who do you think is third in line in Canada?
>
> The House Leader - who is always of the same party as the one elected
> to govern, not someone in opposition.

Yet he also wasn't elected Prime Minister.
Hmm... how about that.

>>> If our right wingnut Prime Minister drops out, he's taken
>>> over by any one of at least a half-dozen right wingnuts in the elected
>>> right wingnut government. The Speaker of the House and opposition
>>> parties stay out of it. There's no cheating or jumping the line here,
>>> it's all fair and square and of the people, by the people and for the
>>> people until the term ends.
>>
>> And what happens if the top two, the PM and the Governor-General, are
>> incapacitated simultaneously?
>
> Look above, look way above....

Yeah. A person not elected as Prime Minister would become Prime
Minister. The same situation you're trying to claim is stupid in America.

Have some maple syrup and go to bed.

[David Hartung]

It would seem that the only mechanism for involuntarily removing the
President, is the impeachment process. To put it another way, even if
there is undeniable proof that the election was fraudulent, the
fraudulent election must still be put before the House and Senate in an
impeachment process. For the President to be removed, two thirds of the
Senate must still vote to convict.

[wy]

She rules nothing. She's just a figurehead who sometimes signs the
odd document, like the Constitution Act of 1982. She's very
accommodating to her peasants and demands nothing in return. The GG
is rightly so her lackey, merely a contact man, or woman, between the
PM and the Queen, just a go-between. It's all window dressing,
nothing substantial. It's painless and makes us feel British every
now and then, better than always feeling American.

>
> >>> It's like you guys don't ever know what you want to be
> >>> or if your vote even counts at all.  An unelected-for-president
> >>> Repugnant
>
> >> He was elected.
>
> > Not as president.  Or did you somehow go coma over the "unelected-for-
> > president" part?
>
> He was elected into the line of succession.

Not by the people. He was elected as a Repugnant representative, not
a House Speaker. He didn't campaign for Speaker among his
constituents. He was elected by the House and often, especially in
highly partisan times, it's the dominant party in the House that gets
the Speaker, which can be contrary to the party that an elected
president belongs to. Gawddammit, Jim, are you just as stupid as
Hartung about your own political system? You don't know the Canadian
system, you don't the American system, what the damn hell do you know?

>
> >>> can take over an elected Democrat and Repugnants can win
> >>> control of the House even though a million more votes went to
> >>> Democrats.
>
> >> So? You don't get vote for Queen of Canada, ever. Or Governor-General.
>
> > They don't run the country.  The Prime Minister does.  Boy, you're
> > stupid.
>
> He's the senior cabinet minister, not the Head of State.

Yeah? So? What's the real news you're trying to manically spin?

>
> >>> That's one mighty damn stupid system.  At least it works
> >>> according to voters' wishes in Canada and remains focused on the party
> >>> in power.
>
> >> Who do you think is third in line in Canada?
>
> > The House Leader - who is always of the same party as the one elected
> > to govern, not someone in opposition.
>
> Yet he also wasn't elected Prime Minister.
> Hmm... how about that.

Neither is the Vice President. Hmm... how about that. But the House
Leader is within the ranks of the party that was voted into power, so
that still makes him a legitimate replacement, unlike in the US where
someone in the opposition can take over power in unelected fashion for
just such a position. You somehow keep going into a coma over that
salient point that greatly differs from your flawed and inferior
system.

>
> >>> If our right wingnut Prime Minister drops out, he's taken
> >>> over by any one of at least a half-dozen right wingnuts in the elected
> >>> right wingnut government.  The Speaker of the House and opposition
> >>> parties stay out of it.  There's no cheating or jumping the line here,
> >>> it's all fair and square and of the people, by the people and for the
> >>> people until the term ends.
>
> >> And what happens if the top two, the PM and the Governor-General, are
> >> incapacitated simultaneously?
>
> > Look above, look way above....
>
> Yeah. A person not elected as Prime Minister would become Prime
> Minister. The same situation you're trying to claim is stupid in America.

There goes your coma again. Same party here, not same party where you
are. BIG difference.

>
> Have some maple syrup and go to bed.

Down a gallon of IQ juice, with luck you might be able to add 1+1 and
get 2 in the morning.

[Vandar]

Except numerous castles, adulation, and a free ride for life.

> The GG
> is rightly so her lackey, merely a contact man, or woman, between the
> PM and the Queen, just a go-between. It's all window dressing,
> nothing substantial. It's painless and makes us feel British every
> now and then, better than always feeling American.

Britain owns you.

>>>>> It's like you guys don't ever know what you want to be
>>>>> or if your vote even counts at all. An unelected-for-president
>>>>> Repugnant
>>
>>>> He was elected.
>>
>>> Not as president. Or did you somehow go coma over the "unelected-for-
>>> president" part?
>>
>> He was elected into the line of succession.
>
> Not by the people.

By the people of his district.

> He was elected as a Repugnant representative, not
> a House Speaker. He didn't campaign for Speaker among his
> constituents. He was elected by the House and often, especially in
> highly partisan times, it's the dominant party in the House that gets
> the Speaker, which can be contrary to the party that an elected
> president belongs to.

As it should be.

> Gawddammit, Jim, are you just as stupid as
> Hartung about your own political system? You don't know the Canadian
> system, you don't the American system, what the damn hell do you know?

I know you're an idiot and wrong more than 90% of the time, including
this one.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>> can take over an elected Democrat and Repugnants can win
>>>>> control of the House even though a million more votes went to
>>>>> Democrats.
>>
>>>> So? You don't get vote for Queen of Canada, ever. Or Governor-General.
>>
>>> They don't run the country. The Prime Minister does. Boy, you're
>>> stupid.
>>
>> He's the senior cabinet minister, not the Head of State.
>
> Yeah? So? What's the real news you're trying to manically spin?
>
>
>>
>>>>> That's one mighty damn stupid system. At least it works
>>>>> according to voters' wishes in Canada and remains focused on the party
>>>>> in power.
>>
>>>> Who do you think is third in line in Canada?
>>
>>> The House Leader - who is always of the same party as the one elected
>>> to govern, not someone in opposition.
>>
>> Yet he also wasn't elected Prime Minister.
>> Hmm... how about that.
>
> Neither is the Vice President. Hmm... how about that. But the House
> Leader is within the ranks of the party that was voted into power,

With 36% of the vote.

> so that still makes him a legitimate replacement, unlike in the US where
> someone in the opposition can take over power in unelected fashion for
> just such a position.

It can happen in Canada too, genius.

Here's a fun little hypothetical for you to consider: Everybody in the
Conservative party dies or resigns. Who takes over?
There's a system in place to cover that possibility in the US. You would
have chaos.

> You somehow keep going into a coma over that
> salient point that greatly differs from your flawed and inferior
> system.

Our system is most certainly flawed, but not nearly as much as Canada's
- or any other parliamentary system. Here, the Queen can't have her
lackey dissolve the legislative branch.

>>>>> If our right wingnut Prime Minister drops out, he's taken
>>>>> over by any one of at least a half-dozen right wingnuts in the elected
>>>>> right wingnut government. The Speaker of the House and opposition
>>>>> parties stay out of it. There's no cheating or jumping the line here,
>>>>> it's all fair and square and of the people, by the people and for the
>>>>> people until the term ends.
>>
>>>> And what happens if the top two, the PM and the Governor-General, are
>>>> incapacitated simultaneously?
>>
>>> Look above, look way above....
>>
>> Yeah. A person not elected as Prime Minister would become Prime
>> Minister. The same situation you're trying to claim is stupid in America.
>
> There goes your coma again. Same party here, not same party where you
> are. BIG difference.

There is a line of succession, thus there is a point where a member of
an opposition party would assume the role.

>> Have some maple syrup and go to bed.
>
> Down a gallon of IQ juice, with luck you might be able to add 1+1 and
> get 2 in the morning.

Does the Order of Precedence apply?

[Vandar]

The only legal mechanism.

> To put it another way, even if
> there is undeniable proof that the election was fraudulent, the
> fraudulent election must still be put before the House and Senate in an
> impeachment process. For the President to be removed, two thirds of the
> Senate must still vote to convict.

And there would be a bunch of Constitutional issues for the SCOTUS to
settle, one of which would be that the electors cast their ballots for
Obama/Biden and those are the two people who were confirmed.

This is all hypothetical, of course. Obama most likely isn't going
anywhere until January 2017.

[wy]

We have no castles to give her here. Adulation is voluntary, she
doesn't go where she's not welcomed, like Quebec. And her free ride
in life is thanks to Britons, who still like the idea of having a
Royal family around. Once they tire of it, they'll be history.

>
>  > The GG
>
> > is rightly so her lackey, merely a contact man, or woman, between the
> > PM and the Queen, just a go-between.  It's all window dressing,
> > nothing substantial.  It's painless and makes us feel British every
> > now and then, better than always feeling American.
>
> Britain owns you.

They own nothing. We're just a member state of the Commonwealth, like
the US is a member state of the UN. Does the UN own the US? Then
pull out if you think so.

>
> >>>>> It's like you guys don't ever know what you want to be
> >>>>> or if your vote even counts at all.  An unelected-for-president
> >>>>> Repugnant
>
> >>>> He was elected.
>
> >>> Not as president.  Or did you somehow go coma over the "unelected-for-
> >>> president" part?
>
> >> He was elected into the line of succession.
>
> > Not by the people.
>
> By the people of his district.

To represent his district as a representative, not be a House
Speaker. The people of his district don't vote for House Speaker.
What a babaloon you are.

>
> > He was elected as a Repugnant representative, not
> > a House Speaker.  He didn't campaign for Speaker among his
> > constituents.  He was elected by the House and often, especially in
> > highly partisan times, it's the dominant party in the House that gets
> > the Speaker, which can be contrary to the party that an elected
> > president belongs to.
>
> As it should be.

That it should go against the will of the people is as it should be?
No wonder you're trapped in a backwards, upside down, cock-eyed koo
koo universe of right wingnut making.

>
> > Gawddammit, Jim, are you just as stupid as
> > Hartung about your own political system?  You don't know the Canadian
> > system, you don't the American system, what the damn hell do you know?
>
> I know you're an idiot and wrong more than 90% of the time, including
> this one.

You haven't proven anything to support anything you say, so that makes
you 100% wrong. I win.

>
> >>>>> can take over an elected Democrat and Repugnants can win
> >>>>> control of the House even though a million more votes went to
> >>>>> Democrats.
>
> >>>> So? You don't get vote for Queen of Canada, ever. Or Governor-General.
>
> >>> They don't run the country.  The Prime Minister does.  Boy, you're
> >>> stupid.
>
> >> He's the senior cabinet minister, not the Head of State.
>
> > Yeah?  So?  What's the real news you're trying to manically spin?
>
> >>>>> That's one mighty damn stupid system.  At least it works
> >>>>> according to voters' wishes in Canada and remains focused on the party
> >>>>> in power.
>
> >>>> Who do you think is third in line in Canada?
>
> >>> The House Leader - who is always of the same party as the one elected
> >>> to govern, not someone in opposition.
>
> >> Yet he also wasn't elected Prime Minister.
> >> Hmm... how about that.
>
> > Neither is the Vice President.  Hmm... how about that.  But the House
> > Leader is within the ranks of the party that was voted into power,
>
> With 36% of the vote.

Just under 40%. But we also have 5 parties, not like your 2 puny ones
- that makes it reflective of a better representation of more diverse
political views which, in turn, creates generally saner and more
balanced legislation. Except when right wingnuts are in power. But
with the way the Senate scandal is going for them right now, I'm
encouraged by the distinct possibility that another election just
might take place this year, two years ahead of schedule.

>
> > so that still makes him a legitimate replacement, unlike in the US where
> > someone in the opposition can take over power in unelected fashion for
> > just such a position.
>
> It can happen in Canada too, genius.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, because you seem
to surpass your level of stupidity every time you type something else,
but the House Leader for the government is always chosen from within
the ranks of the party in power, he or she can never become Prime
Minister from the opposition ranks, the way it can be in the US. The
opposition has their own House Leader, but he or she never takes over
as Prime Minister when there's already a House Leader on the side of
the party in power. In fact, the Foreign Affairs Minister is second
in line, then House Leader, then Human Resources, then Defence
Minister, and so on and so on, until it's the last man or woman
standing in the ruling party, after which point the opposition can, I
suppose, technically take over. The line of succession all stays
within the ruling party to the last member. Get it? So no, it can't
happen in Canada too, doofus.

>
> Here's a fun little hypothetical for you to consider: Everybody in the
> Conservative party dies or resigns. Who takes over?

I just told you. But you have to wait till everybody dies. In your
case, everybody is still alive and the other side can take over.
Stupid system.

> There's a system in place to cover that possibility in the US. You would
> have chaos.

Well, you'd have chaos too if somebody decided to gun down each and
every Repugnant in Congress. Then you'd be just a one-party system.
We'd still be a four-party system. Who ends up still being
democratic? It's not a trick question.

>
> > You somehow keep going into a coma over that
> > salient point that greatly differs from your flawed and inferior
> > system.
>
> Our system is most certainly flawed, but not nearly as much as Canada's
> - or any other parliamentary system. Here, the Queen can't have her
> lackey dissolve the legislative branch.

She doesn't do it on her. She is requested by the Governor General to
dissolve parliament because of a called election. It's nothing but
tradition, a mere formality, it's all very painless. It works
smoothly every time, she has never denied a request. I only wish she
could dissolve it at will with this stupid right wingnut and now
scandal-ridden government we've got and also get rid of the separatist-
minded provincial government in Quebec. But sorry to disappoint, she
just doesn't have that power.

>
> >>>>> If our right wingnut Prime Minister drops out, he's taken
> >>>>> over by any one of at least a half-dozen right wingnuts in the elected
> >>>>> right wingnut government.  The Speaker of the House and opposition
> >>>>> parties stay out of it.  There's no cheating or jumping the line here,
> >>>>> it's all fair and square and of the people, by the people and for the
> >>>>> people until the term ends.
>
> >>>> And what happens if the top two, the PM and the Governor-General, are
> >>>> incapacitated simultaneously?
>
> >>> Look above, look way above....
>
> >> Yeah. A person not elected as Prime Minister would become Prime
> >> Minister. The same situation you're trying to claim is stupid in America.
>
> > There goes your coma again.  Same party here, not same party where you
> > are.  BIG difference.
>
> There is a line of succession, thus there is a point where a member of
> an opposition party would assume the role.

Broken record, broken record, broken record....

>
> >> Have some maple syrup and go to bed.
>
> > Down a gallon of IQ juice, with luck you might be able to add 1+1 and
> > get 2 in the morning.
>
> Does the Order of Precedence apply?

Be specific, I can't read your mind.

[wy]

You just ruined Hartung's next 3 years and 8 months by saying that.
Wouldn't it be funny if he died during the Obama administration, when
a black man would still be running things? I love the delicious irony
of a racist meeting his end while a black man is calling the shots. I
think I just gave him 3 years and 8 months' worth of daily and nightly
nightmares.

[David Hartung]

Very true.