Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Guess what george? You HAVE to stay two more years.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:10 PM
Original message
Guess what george? You HAVE to stay two more years.
No one is going to impeach you, no one is going to hide you or make you invisible, you have to hang around and take it for another two whole years jerkoff.

I bet you don't want to either at this point huh? It was fun for 5 years for you, playing president, the adoration, the military parades and uniforms, the strutting and swaggering, but look at you now. You look like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Now you've got the disastrous wars, mark foley stinking up the place, and nothing but bad news. Well that's tough shit pal, the fun has just begun.

We get two years to watch you sweat and shit your pants. Its going to be so much fun huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. If I were a betting person I say we will see him go into a complete
neurotic meltdown after the election....I predict he will call Americans that voted the Repugs out of power traitors.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Rolled out of the WH, strapped down to a gurney,
babbling incoherently. "I'M the Decider, I AM the Decider, I'm the DECIDER," interpersed with lots of profanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redphish Donating Member (296 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. They'll probably find him drunk off of his ass...
wandering the streets of DC muttering about libruls under his bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Another likely scenario posited by a DUer yesterday.
Dems sweep, and dimson vetoes every bill put forth. Impeachment might be the only option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. If he leaves we get Cheney -- I think that's even worse.
The next two years will be different for the chimp. For once in his life, it won't be easy for him. Whenever he's faced adversity before, he's cut and run. Let's see him try that now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Why not impeach Cheney first?
He is the brains of the organization after all. Leave Dimson to try and keep it together without his puppetmaster, that'd guarantee great tv for two solid years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I agree. Impeach Bush, Cheney, Condi and get rid of Rummy the rummy.
Any other criminal attached to these idiots, get rid of them , too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. I like the way you think~
Get rid of Cheney, hence we get the view of bushy flapping aimlessly in the cheney wake for two years. Pure Entertainment!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
3waygeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. You know, there's nothing that says
we can't impeach them simultaneously :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I think it can be proved that a package deal applies here.
From the blivet to Cheney to Rummy to Condi, I believe there's proof they've all done illegal things detrimental to our country. If not now, when? I would sincerely like to see them all go down in flames for their hand in ruining our country and our reputation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. All you have to do is get rid of Bush & Cheney
Then Pelosi becomes President, and by virtue of her new authority, she could fire Condi and Rumsfeld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Question - anyone know the answer?
If Pelosi became (acting) president, would she have to stand for re-election as the Dem candidate in '08? Or would she just hold the reins till the end of Bush**'s second term?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Great question I don't know the answer to. I can't imagine she'd
'have' to do anything. I imagine a vote would be involved, but don't know for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. She could run for re-election twice, I believe
I could be mistaken, but I believe that it's possible to be president for 10 years. If the VP takes over during the last two years, he's allowed to run twice more. I would assume that would hold true for the Speaker of the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. But is it a requirement?
Could Pelosi choose not to run for re-election in '08 and step aside for another Dem candidate? As I wrote below, it seems counter-intuitive to me that she would be forced to run seeing as she would in effect only be standing in for Bush** till the end of his second term.

There doesn't seem to be any info dealing with this particular question. At least, not in the Constitution. So I'm thinking if it's not covered then it may not be a requirement for her to run.

Oh, just fyi, I'm asking because another DUer presented this argument against impeaching Bush**/Cheney: we'd be stuck with Pelosi as the Dem candidate in '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I don't see why she would have to run for reelection
I would imagine the normal primary process would take place. She could choose to run if she wanted to, but any other Democrat could run against her. Or, she could choose not to run if she so desired. However, if she decided not to run, I don't think she would be allowed to keep her seat in Congress, as it would have already been filled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Oh, so there's the rub
Well, in that case I would expect her to take one for her country. She could always try to win her seat back in the next election cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. no, it is never a requirement
to run for office if one doesn't want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Pelosi would have to campaign for 2008
if she replaced bushy. Plus she could not run a second time in 2012, due to term limits.??

I did Not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, I'm just a housewife!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. LOL
Me too, and ditto! :)

I guess I don't understand why she'd have to run in '08. If true it's counter-intuitive. She'd be replacing (or actually standing in for) Bush**, who'd be out in '09; he can't run for re-election -- thank god -- so I'm not sure why Pelosi would have to.

Off the top of my head I don't know if we've ever run across this problem before, a president being removed from office before the end of his second term. We might be in uncharted waters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeggieTart Donating Member (698 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. Yes, she could
Chances are, the impeachment would be well after January 20, 2007. If by a very unlikely series of events, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and she ends up president, she could very well run in 2008 and 2012 because whoever takes over for the current criminal enterprise will serve less than two years of that term. The limit is 10 years. Lyndon Johnson could have run in 1968; he chose not to because of his declining popularity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. But she wouldn't have to run in '08 if she chose not to
At least, that's the sense of things I get from a conversation upthread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. why would anyone have to run?
you don't want to run for President, don't, even if you are already President. it's just rare that an incumbent doesn't run (see LBJ) but there is no obligation to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. That Pelosi would have to run was used as a reason not to impeach Bush**
See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It struck me as wrong afterwards, that whoever takes over for an impeached president is required to run for re-election, so I did a little research and asked here. From what you and others have told me, it's obvious this particular excuse for not impeaching Bush** is indeed wrong; we would not be stuck with Pelosi as the Dem candidate in '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. of course she would run again
that's the point of the post you linked to. just because there is no requirement to run, doesn't mean that someone gives up the oval office without a serious fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Well, that would be very short-sighted of her
But politicians putting their careers ahead of the best interests of the country is nothing new.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. That would work for me! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. That would never happen. If impeachment was likely, Cheney would
resign. Then Bush would appoint his new V.P., probably John or Jeb. Then Bush would resign and the V.P. , McCain or Jeb, would be the new President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Well, not quite
If the Dems take at least one house, and Cheney later resigns, then Bush can only nominate a replacement VP, that must be confirmed by a majority of each house of Congress. If the Dems can muster up a little unity (I know . . . HA!), the any eventual replacement would be pretty much a loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. You don't think John McCain would be easily confirmed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Again, party unity would be key.
It would benefit the dems best to have a new VP who would not be a strong contender in 2008. But given their track record so far, I expect you're right, McCain would be a shoo-in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. That scenario seems somewhat likely. With his signing statements,
he has been using a virtual line item veto on almost all the legislation passed by the Republicans already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. Over-ride.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. That was helpful. What do you mean? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. He could take a Nixonian approach.
I mean, departure:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. We'll get you my pretzel, and your little dog, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. I'd rather discharge 'em all early & then ship 'em to The Hague!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. Nah, I still want the fucker in the pen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
minnesota_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
26. 835 days until we're rid of him.
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 08:42 PM by minnesota_liberal
Can't wait.

Note to Secret Service: It's just an expression. I can and will wait, but I won't be silent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susu369 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
38. In two years, bu$h* will CUT AND RUN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
41. He sure looked like he wanted to head for the hills yesterday
when he had to give the blurb about North Korea. I think it's the first time I've seen his arrogance replaced by fear. ("Mama, what am I gonna do if they nuke us? All our soldiers are fightin' in a country that didn't attack us.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC