The prime minister of South Korea was forced to resign because his administration didn't handle a boating accident properly. Meanwhile, the American president has carelessly given weapons to Mexican drug cartels and al-Qaeda operatives in Syria, while simultaneously trying to disarm his own people. As if that wasn't enough, he's also signed into law a bill that allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens, used the IRS to target political groups and can't even negotiate with his own government. He's also hurt relations with our allies in Europe, Southeast Asia and Israel; not to mention botching the Benghazi attack and the Crimean crisis.
Just like in South Korea, most developed countries quickly dispose of leaders who prove to be ineffectual (i.e. can't get anything done) or incompetent. If Jung Hong-won is being deposed over a boating accident, then why isn't Obama being held accountable for everything that his administration has done? This isn't an anti-Obama thread, Bush got off scotch free for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War as well.
Part of it has to do with most developed countries having a parliamentary system, where the parliament can dismiss their head of government with relative ease. However, the United States also has a system where Congress can eliminate a president, known as impeachment, and there certainly are enough reasons to warrant an impeachment of President Obama. This isn't about impeaching any particular president, however, this is about why Americans and their elected officials hold their leaders to lower standards than those in developed countries.
Why isn't America more like the rest of the free world and more open to the idea of Congress removing their head of government? Certainly the Founding Fathers intended for ineffectual and incompetent presidents to be replaced by Congress, especially given that most of the Founding Fathers were opposed to a strong executive branch.
[Infracted]