Should Presidents be impeached for stupidity?

[Virgil]

Would that be possible? It is a serious question. If a president makes enough errors in judgement and his popularity falls below a certain point, should a president be impeached because the country's population have lost faith?

As evidence http://youtube.com/watch?v=mZD4oncCU...20Bush%20blind

he was a blind correspondent.

What do you guys think - should a president - any president, be able to be impeached because the nation has lost faith?

EDIT - its more of a should rather than a can he discussion.

[John Wayne]

No.

They have to do something that is against the laws of the nation.

Blatant stupidity is not one of them.

[RZZZA]

Yes, as far as I know a president can be impeached for any reason as long as congress is convincd and votes to impeach.

edit: but i could be wrong

[Omega]

If democracy is somewhere out there, then yes. If a man can't do his job properly and we have many more that could do it better then it is clear that the bad one should be removed and a better one should be brought into his position. A little bit of REAL democracy won't harm us, will it?

[Atheist Peace]

No, but someone who is as stupid as dubya should never be elected. There should be a law requiring something like a 120 or 125 IQ in all candidates, but of course, everyone will whine that IQ is inaccurate, blah blah, and so on.

As for the video, not knowing that the guy is blind doesn't make dubya stupid, it makes him ignorant. I doubt many people would have known though, the guy isn't exactly prominent. It's funny, but people are making far too big a deal out of it.

[Virgil]

No, but someone who is as stupid as dubya should never be elected. There should be a law requiring something like a 120 or 125 IQ in all candidates, but of course, everyone will whine that IQ is inaccurate, blah blah, and so on.

As for the video, not knowing that the guy is blind doesn't make dubya stupid, it makes him ignorant. I doubt many people would have known though, the guy isn't exactly prominent. It's funny, but people are making far too big a deal out of it.

Ah but see as the president - you CANNOT make fun of people. The responsibility of the office precludes it. Whether or not he knew he was blind or not, it doesnt matter - as a president of a world power - you cannot insult and make fun of others in public.

[RZZZA]

Thats part of the "likability" factor of G.W. that got him elected twice, he's "just like any guy. Boy, you could see someone like him at your BBQ." Yeah, someone like him, obnoxious and seemingly partially retarded.

[Atheist Peace]

Ah but see as the president - you CANNOT make fun of people. The responsibility of the office precludes it. Whether or not he knew he was blind or not, it doesnt matter - as a president of a world power - you cannot insult and make fun of others in public.

Uhh... he wasn't making fun of anyone. He was trying to be light-hearted and "likeable" by joking around with the reporters. If he'd known the guy needs to wear his glasses, I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything.

[Virgil]

Uhh... he wasn't making fun of anyone. He was trying to be light-hearted and "likeable" by joking around with the reporters. If he'd known the guy needs to wear his glasses, I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything.

But he was making fun of him. He was poking fun at the fact that this reporter was wearing sunglasses on a sunless day. Also, if he wasnt making fun of the reporter, why would he issue a public apology later?

[Tom Paine]

Would that be possible? It is a serious question. If a president makes enough errors in judgement and his popularity falls below a certain point, should a president be impeached because the country's population have lost faith?

As evidence http://youtube.com/watch?v=mZD4oncCU...20Bush%20blind

he was a blind correspondent.

What do you guys think - should a president - any president, be able to be impeached because the nation has lost faith?

EDIT - its more of a should rather than a can he discussion.

All leaders of a nation should be jailed on their assension to rulership to save time later (T. Pratchett) and only those who do not wish to lead should be allowed to (D. Adams). Therefore, yes, but so should all your leaders, bright ones included.

[Omega]

AP - There should not be such a law because that would be undemocratic. It's the rule of the people, not the rule of the intelligent who might be cheating on tests and be total idiots in real life. It'd be a type of oligarchy if such a law would ever be introduced. And I seriously doubt that anyone would knowingly elect a total retard for nothing.

Hoplite - The holder of any office in the state should not make fun of people, that's also against democracy. Even an owner of a burger stand should not and does not have the right to make fun of people who come to buy burgers. Privately is ok, but officially is never ok.

GS - All of those things were said by Socrates, Platon and Aristoteles in their works

[Tom Paine]

GS - All of those things were said by Socrates, Platon and Aristoteles in their works

Yeah, but I like the popular culture references more.

[Atheist Peace]

AP - There should not be such a law because that would be undemocratic. It's the rule of the people, not the rule of the intelligent who might be cheating on tests and be total idiots in real life. It'd be a type of oligarchy if such a law would ever be introduced.

It's absurd to suggest that someone who is unintelligent should be allowed to hold any kind of power. It's undemocratic not to allow felons and children to vote, but that's how it's done.

And I seriously doubt that anyone would knowingly elect a total retard for nothing.

Bush shows that your doubts are wrong.

But he was making fun of him. He was poking fun at the fact that this reporter was wearing sunglasses on a sunless day. Also, if he wasnt making fun of the reporter, why would he issue a public apology later?

Because he found out what he didn't know at the time.

[Virgil]

Because he found out what he didn't know at the time.

Ok - maybe. But, My statement stands the a President should not put himself in a situation where he needs to make an apology for making "lighthearted comments". Either he is really bad at it and needs to learn how to lighten a situation - or was was poking fun at him (as I maintain)

[Last Roman]

AP - There should not be such a law because that would be undemocratic. It's the rule of the people, not the rule of the intelligent who might be cheating on tests and be total idiots in real life.

if you think the people rule America, you are very mistaken

[Tom Paine]

if you think the people rule America, you are very mistaken

Mm... you are an elected dictatorship, electing the dictator every four years.

[Last Roman]

Thats part of the "likability" factor of G.W. that got him elected twice, he's "just like any guy. Boy, you could see someone like him at your BBQ." Yeah, someone like him, obnoxious and seemingly partially retarded.

thats why it boogles my mind why he was re-elected. I don't want an average joe running the country. There is a difference between a man of the people and just some man.

[Virgil]

thats why it boogles my mind why he was re-elected. I don't want an average joe running the country. There is a difference between a man of the people and just some man.

My thoughts exactly, shouldn;t we have a qualified person in office? I dont want my neighbor running the country - i want a person who knows what he is doing.

[Last Roman]

Mm... you are an elected dictatorship, electing the dictator every four years.

the president of the US, while having more power than most European PMs, is not a dictator. He can be removed and can also be held accountible. It's just that the majority American population is too apathetic to hold government accountible for anything these days.

[Evariste]

It's just that the majority American population is too apathetic to hold government accountible for anything these days.

Really? The American people have been holding the government accountable for everything since the Great Depression! Any time anything goes wrong the government is blame. The President and the government are blamed by the majority of the population for anything from rising oil prices to global warming. Maybe this is based on anecdotal evidence, but it always seems that the first to be blamed is the government.