[gwnn]

Winston, you shouldn't multiply the 66% with 33%. That number makes no sense. You should take one or the other. Alternatively, you can divide 33/66 to get 50% which would tell us that 50% of Americans are Republican, assuming all pro-impeachers are Republican.

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-14, 22:45, said:

what would be the charges under which they envisage that Obama might be impeached?

There is a widespread fear that the abolishment of don't-ask-don't-tell will make relay systems legal.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-15, 15:34, said:

My point - a quite small percentage of Americans are being given a quite loud voice by the media, etc.

Perhaps you would have done better to say that in the first place.

[mycroft]

I thought that was don't-ask-only-tell?

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on 2014-July-16, 01:35, said:

Winston, you shouldn't multiply the 66% with 33%. That number makes no sense. You should take one or the other. Alternatively, you can divide 33/66 to get 50% which would tell us that 50% of Americans are Republican, assuming all pro-impeachers are Republican.

thx

FWIW, my take was that the polling was flawed, and to simply report it as "news" without investigating the numbers is becoming too much the norm for media. If 2/3 of Republicans truly support impeachment, then (to me) the 1/3 of Americans is a deeply suspicious number. To come to a more reasonable number it might be best to think that reality is that only 22% of Republicans really support impeachment, and the other 11% that comprise the 1/3 of Americans represents independents and Democrats.

If we assume Dems and Republicans split roughly 50-50, then 2/3 of 50% would be still be 33%, meaning that only Republicans support impeachment.

I doubt this. However, math is not my strong suit, as is well demonstrated by these posts.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-15, 05:14, said:

Governing while black...

Winstonm, on 2014-July-15, 06:24, said:

This would be the funniest post of the decade if it weren't for the fact that it is sadly all too true.

Honestly I think this is silly. The Rs also impeached the last D president for no good reason, and he was white. I see no need to trot out the race card.

Trinidad, on 2014-July-15, 05:26, said:

Meaning: Whoever wants to impeach Obama will always find a charge.

This is more like it.

kenberg, on 2014-July-15, 04:24, said:

My view in a nutshell: This is all silly. There is a reason Sara Palin is involved in it.

+1

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-July-16, 12:39, said:

Honestly I think this is silly. The Rs also impeached the last D president for no good reason, and he was white. I see no need to trot out the race card.

Bill Clinton actually made statements under oath. He really did have some sort of escapade with an intern.

If you don't recognize the racial bias inherent in the right wing's stances and actions, I fear your head is in the sand to some degree. It may not exactly be "governing while black" but it is most assuredly "governing while not fitting the right's image of a leader, a white dominant male".

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-16, 13:50, said:

Bill Clinton actually made statements under oath. He really did have some sort of escapade with an intern.

If you don't recognize the racial bias inherent in the right wing's stances and actions, I fear your head is in the sand to some degree. It may not exactly be "governing while black" but it is most assuredly "governing while not fitting the right's image of a leader, a white dominant male".

I still think you are tilting at windmills. Being a D who does not dance to the Rs tune is more than enough reason by itself. I just don't see any reason to think that race is a factor here.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2014-July-16, 14:31, said:

I still think you are tilting at windmills. Being a D who does not dance to the Rs tune is more than enough reason by itself. I just don't see any reason to think that race is a factor here.

Consider it an additonal factor if not a primary factor. The R's would probably be trying to impeach any democrat unless for some reason he was doing what they wanted to be done.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-16, 13:50, said:

Bill Clinton actually made statements under oath. He really did have some sort of escapade with an intern.

If you don't recognize the racial bias inherent in the right wing's stances and actions, I fear your head is in the sand to some degree. It may not exactly be "governing while black" but it is most assuredly "governing while not fitting the right's image of a leader, a white dominant male".

I don't speak for "the right", but my image of a leader is someone who leads, and white, black, green, or purple, Obama does not fit that image.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 18:12, said:

I don't speak for "the right", but my image of a leader is someone who leads, and white, black, green, or purple, Obama does not fit that image.

Couple quick observations:

1. Obama's first term had an enormous number of legislative accomplishments. You might not approve of what was done, but its ridiculous to accuse him of not leading

2. Over the past four years, the administration's ability to pass legislation has been crippled by the highly Gerrymandered House of Representatives. Obama has tried to compensate for a completely dysfunctional House by using executive action. (The end result of which is all this talk of impeachment and lawsuits by the House)

In any case, I know that your unable to process political thought unless there is a Heinlein quote involved.
I have one for you:

Quote

Well, we shoot mad dogs, don't we?

I'm not directly called you a mad dog.
Nor am I advocating that you be shot.

I am saying that at a certain point, it makes sense to cut your losses.

From the perspective of a organized, civilized society, I don't see much reason why we should care what some nut job Libertarian has to say about "leadership", the "government", whatever. Far easier to just leave you sitting alone off in the wilderness, living off your government provided pension and government provided health care, screaming about how you're being oppressed.

[billw55]

Quote

Obama has tried to compensate for a completely dysfunctional House by using executive action.

I wonder how far this logic may be carried before you think it is too far.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2014-July-17, 08:33, said:

I wonder how far this logic may be carried before you think it is too far.

According to Wikipedia, the number of executive orders issued by each president from FDR to the present is as follows:

Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 6071 - 9537
Harry S. Truman 907 9538 - 10431
Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 10432 - 10913
John F. Kennedy 214 10914 - 11127
Lyndon B. Johnson 325 11128 - 11451
Richard Nixon 346 11452 - 11797
Gerald R. Ford 169 11798 - 11966
Jimmy Carter 320 11967 - 12286
Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667
George H. W. Bush 166 12668 - 12833
William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197
George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488
Barack Obama 180 13489 - 13668

So, while Barack Obama has had to compensate for the inaction of this dysfunctional Congress by issuing Executive Orders, it still appears that he has issued fewer executive orders in his 6 years in office than all of the presidents from 1933 to the present except for Gerald Ford, who served 2 years in office, and George H. W. Bush, who served 4 years in office. In fact, he has issued about one-half as many executive orders as Richard Nixon did in his 6 years in office.

Seems like he has not gone far enough.

[akwoo]

There are some people who think government's job is to organize us into an efficient gang to beat up on all the other gangs and take their stuff. With the beating up part optional if there is some other way of taking their stuff.

If that's your vision of America or American government - as the most badass gang of robbers - then of course you're not going to be happy with Obama.

Some of these people (not all) think "us" means white (male) Americans. For these people, it is obvious that no black person could lead a white gang when part of the purpose of the white gang is to beat up black people.

[billw55]

Thanks for the data Art, that is interesting.

I wasn't implying that Obama has gone too far. I was considering a more general question.

For that question, the number of executive orders by itself is not necessarily a good indication. A president may just have (or have not) an inclination to use this tool for minor matters, or in ways that are entirely within their legal authority. On the other hand, if such orders circumvent constitutional checks and balances, then something is wrong. I don't claim to know if this is the case for any particular president, including the current one. I just think that brushing aside congress by executive order - if indeed that happens - is something to pay attention to.

[ArtK78]

The primary purpose of executive orders is to implement existing laws, not to circumvent Congress. There are many laws on the books that require implementation but Congress has avoided providing necessary funding or other action needed to implement them. Most of the executive orders issued by Obama do just that. I am sure there are some that skirt the issues in order to accomplish goals which would be better served by Congressional action. But up to a certain point that is the prerogative of the President.

[barmar]

I think the theory behind looking at summary statistics like that is that there's a baseline of routine executive orders that all Presidents will need to issue, and on top of that there will be a number of diescretionary orders that are done to circumvent Congress, and that significant differences in the number of XO's are presumably due mostly to the latter.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2014-July-17, 10:01, said:

I think the theory behind looking at summary statistics like that is that there's a baseline of routine executive orders that all Presidents will need to issue, and on top of that there will be a number of diescretionary orders that are done to circumvent Congress, and that significant differences in the number of XO's are presumably due mostly to the latter.

Also, there is a lot of misinformation being spewed forth from various sources stating that the number of executive orders issued by President Obama is MUCH higher than the facts would indicate. One source claims that Obama has issued 923 executive orders.

[1eyedjack]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 18:12, said:

I don't speak for "the right", but my image of a leader is someone who leads, and white, black, green, or purple, Obama does not fit that image.

I don't think that a president is supposed to lead. He is supposed to preside.

Our beloved leader, Kim Jong Un - now he is supposed to lead.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-July-17, 09:38, said:

A president may just have (or have not) an inclination to use this tool for minor matters, or in ways that are entirely within their legal authority. On the other hand, if such orders circumvent constitutional checks and balances, then something is wrong. I don't claim to know if this is the case for any particular president, including the current one. I just think that brushing aside congress by executive order - if indeed that happens - is something to pay attention to.

It would be difficult, if not impossible for an executive order to circumvent checks and balances as Congress can always pass a law to counteract the executive order while the Supreme Court can find a particular executive order unconstitutional and thus illegal.

But a president has the right to execute orders to the executive branch, meaning almost all federal employees, and with George Bush it seems that providing an in-house executive branch attorney's opinion is enough justification for a president to operate outside the boundaries of checks and balances.