PMRC: Presidential Poll - Removal

[Simfan34]

Poll runs for three days. Sorry about the mixup.

[LastVoter]

"I can see the IRC precincts are reporting early in your poll".

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes to both

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Not sure.

[Kitteh]

If there's a recall, how does it work? Is it "do you wish to recall the president?" and then "who would you like to succeed him if a majority vote yes?".

[Barnes]

If there's a recall, how does it work? Is it "do you wish to recall the president?" and then "who would you like to succeed him if a majority vote yes?".

In Atlasia, impeachment (which is what this poll is) is considered by the senate and then passed on to the people for a public referendum for conviction or acquittal; it should work like a simple guilty/not guilty vote.

[Frodo]

Is this the first time we have ever impeached a sitting President?  I can't remember it ever happening before. 

[Oakvale]

Is this the first time we have ever impeached a sitting President?  I can't remember it ever happening before. 

It's worth noting that nothing to that effect has actually happened or begun to happen...

[Barnes]

Is this the first time we have ever impeached a sitting President?  I can't remember it ever happening before. 

It's worth noting that nothing to that effect has actually happened or begun to happen...

I do feel we've all jumped the gun on this...

But, to answer the question, it has happened before, I believe.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is the first time in my 5 years that I can remember it even being discussed.

[Barnes]

This is the first time in my 5 years that I can remember it even being discussed.

Me too, I came in 2009, and its never seriously been discussed since then. But, I seem to remember seeing something about impeachment on the wiki from quite a few years ago, I might be wrong.

[Talleyrand]

What exactly has Napoleon done to anger so many people? I haven't been paying as much attention to the federal government as I should be, but could someone clarify?

[Frodo]

Is this the first time we have ever impeached a sitting President?  I can't remember it ever happening before. 

It's worth noting that nothing to that effect has actually happened or begun to happen...

In the event we get there, I mean, assuming poll results hold...   

[Marokai Backbeat]

Being a bad President isn't reason for impeachment. I'm not happy with Napoleon lately, but you trivialize impeachment by arguing we should get rid of him just because he isn't doing what we'd like. Elections have consequences; if you want a good President, vote for a better one next time. This is a learning experience.

[Napoleon]

What exactly has Napoleon done to anger so many people? I haven't been paying as much attention to the federal government as I should be, but could someone clarify?

There's a lot of blame to go around.

Since October I have largely been inactive. I made about 15 posts in two weeks between Halloween and around Veteran's Day. This is unacceptable and does not meet my standards of activity. However, I think its only right to look at the fact that we had Hurricane Sandy, an election which prevented access to the forum, and a real life situation following that which prevented me from coming back.

When I came back, I vetoed a bill that didn't reach my desk until far later than it should have because the Senate fails to stick to any traceable time schedule. I tried to encourage the Senate to move along with business in a more timely manner.

I guess the 24 hours has elapsed.

It took Senate leadership five days when it should have taken twenty-four hours. And when people take issue with the fact that I vetoed it on the seventh day, but outside of seven twenty-four hour periods, I can't help but remind you that the same Senate leadership, for some reason or another, failed to address the exact same issue when it was previously raised. Vice President Kalwejt rightly advised the nation to address this dispute at the time, acknowledging that there is no clear cut interpretation.

Ok, I won't take a stance in this dispute because, it's appears, we're in a grey zone. I encourage Senators to specify this stuff, so it won't happen in future.

Yankee was around then, and he or someone else at that time could have addressed it properly. I'm not the one who kicked the can down the road on this. Now, I also take issue with the ridiculous accusations of obstructionism. As I've pointed out, this Senate has done a good enough job obstructing itself. I even came in to remind them to act on the bill and no one did anything about it!!!!!! For Yankee's credit, he's the only person to argue against me on the DREAM Act using a shred of logic. Even if I disagree with what he says, at least he has put forth a credible argument of opposition.

It's worth noting that Senator Ben has flip-flopped since last time the "day" issue was contested, but that was expected.

When I came back, I was quickly met with attacks and accusations that were disrespectful and thoroughly incorrect. For example:

I'm actually very much in favour of the President's proposed redraft, whatever the controversy it's caused.

Here's a breakdown of the controversy:

Action 1: President proposes a redraft in accordance with the Constitution
Reaction: Is accused of obstructionism, told to take action.

Action 2: President proposes a version of the bill that meets the concerns of the bill's opponent.
Reaction: Is said to be unwilling to compromise.

Action 3: President proposes slight modifications to the bill.
Reaction: Is accused of wanting to let everyone in the world stroll into the country (the bill only deals with people already in the country) and wanting the beneficiaries to fail (they are still required to serve in the military or complete college, each of which is more likely to lead to a successful future than high school gpa success by itself).

It's actually hilarious that the same people who want to accuse me of not cooperating are actively making the very bills being debated meaningless.

I know we should be voting on the merits of the re-draft itself, but there's definitely an elephant in the room here. What we decide with this vote will determine whether we validate or condemn Napoleon's recent attitude. If you ask me, there's no way we should send the message that his recent actions have been okay.

If the Senate is going to be petty because I happen to have a legitimate constitutional dispute that wasn't addressed because some of those very Senators failed to address it years ago, I will not accept responsibility for that. The President at the time then also happened to agree with my interpretation of "day".

I apologize for my inactivity again, but the attempts from Senators to make this something it isn't and make it personal are beyond my control. I returned to have a fair debate on the issues, and that's what I've been focused on. The attacks and accusations didn't come from my end.

[tmthforu94]

I'm not thrilled with his performance, but he certainly hasn't done enough to be impeached.

[Speed of Sound]

Disagreements with the Senate and questionable attitude in dealing with them does not, and has not ever, constituted an impeachable offense. Now this is just a silly notion, gentlemen. Surely you all see that. Want to take the issues at hand to the Supreme Court? Fine. Want to consider the President's actions late and act accordingly? I certainly did. Want to chastise him for his inactivity in Senate debate until it was inopportune? I applaud you. But this is a concept which has no bearing, it stands on no foundation, gentlemen.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Disagreements don't bother me. Attitude does.

Napoleon, when are you going to realize that it's not about the points you're making, but about how you are making them? Yes, there is a constitutional dispute over the veto period. Fine. That's not a license to be an ass.

What I'm afraid of is that you'll come in here with some well-reasoned defense of yourself and win people over. Unfortunately, most of the people you'll win over won't have seen exactly how it is that you deal with people in the moment. And that matters far more than how well you're able to rationalize your actions ex post facto.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Just because he's an ass doesn't mean you can impeach him. Again, why are we all shocked at his behavior? I, for one, could never understand the overwhelming support he's gotten, but that's not for me to really discern.

Next time pick a better president. You don't always have to vote for the Liberal Party.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just because he's an ass doesn't mean you can impeach him. Again, why are we all shocked at his behavior? I, for one, could never understand the overwhelming support he's gotten, but that's not for me to really discern.

Next time pick a better president. You don't always have to vote for the Liberal Party.

     Pretty much. I'm not even remotely surprised by these developments.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Just because he's an ass doesn't mean you can impeach him. Again, why are we all shocked at his behavior? I, for one, could never understand the overwhelming support he's gotten, but that's not for me to really discern.

Next time pick a better president. You don't always have to vote for the Liberal Party.

I enjoy how people connect the rage they have against one person to a political affiliation.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Just because he's an ass doesn't mean you can impeach him. Again, why are we all shocked at his behavior? I, for one, could never understand the overwhelming support he's gotten, but that's not for me to really discern.

Next time pick a better president. You don't always have to vote for the Liberal Party.

I enjoy how people connect the rage they have against one person to a political affiliation.

I don't have any rage at all. In fact, this whole "controversy" is much a do about nothing. This is Napoleon being himself. My point was, people knew how he is and did not have to vote for him. This whole idea we impeach him is silly.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Just because he's an ass doesn't mean you can impeach him. Again, why are we all shocked at his behavior? I, for one, could never understand the overwhelming support he's gotten, but that's not for me to really discern.

Next time pick a better president. You don't always have to vote for the Liberal Party.

I enjoy how people connect the rage they have against one person to a political affiliation.

I don't have any rage at all. In fact, this whole "controversy" is much a do about nothing. This is Napoleon being himself. My point was, people knew how he is and did not have to vote for him. This whole idea we impeach him is silly.

Okay.  Just as long as we're on the same page that the Liberal Party itself isn't responsible for this, because quite a few people have been taking a s**t on it the past couple weeks for some strange reason.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I would not support impeaching him- and this is coming from the man who did his best to prevent him from being President in the first place!

[Niemeyerite]

I don't support impeaching him.