50%+ of Americans say impeach and remove, stupid fuck. Get your lazy ass on Google and type "Impeach and remove"
You won't because you're a lazy assed, willfully ignorant moron that avoids the truth at all cost. Just like Orangetweet.
Poll; Impeach & Remove.
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
50%+ of Americans say impeach and remove, stupid fuck. Get your lazy ass on Google and type "Impeach and remove"
You won't because you're a lazy assed, willfully ignorant moron that avoids the truth at all cost. Just like Orangetweet.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
50%+ of Americans say impeach and remove, stupid fuck. Get your lazy ass on Google and type "Impeach and remove"
You won't because you're a lazy assed, willfully ignorant moron that avoids the truth at all cost. Just like Orangetweet.
I have looked at EVERY poll that has cited 50% or greater and unlike you, I know how about statistics and how to interpret polls. You just take what they feed you.
As I said, they are samples with the wrong polling demographic and oversample democrats.
But, hey if the polls are behind Nancy she would be holding a real vote. Not a fake one
New Film Explores Obama's War on Whistleblowers and the Free Press
By Dana Liebelson at Mother Jones
Four cases reveal the administration's extraordinary crackdown on national-security whistleblowers.
Americans love the idea of the whistleblower: one brave person willing to stick their neck out for the greater good, even in the face of severe blowback. Many American high school students read On Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau's classic treatise that urges Americans to take a stand against government's ills. But more than 160 years later, legal protections for whistleblowers haven't caught up with Thoreau's ideals. Americans who disclose government misconduct risk losing their jobs and their homes—and some are prosecuted under the Espionage Act, a 1917 law originally intended for dealing with foreign spies. That's life for national-security whistleblowers under the Obama Administration, according to a new documentary premiering next week titled War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
The film, a project of the Brave New Foundation, focuses on four whistleblowers: Michael DeKort, a former project manager for Lockheed Martin; Thomas Drake, a former senior executive at the National Security Agency; Franz Gayl, an adviser for the Marine Corps; and Thomas Tamm, a former attorney to the Department of Justice. Each exposed grave misconduct, and each faced severe reprisals from their employers and the government. The film also includes commentary from one of the most famous whistleblowers of all time: Daniel Ellsberg, a Vietnam War analyist for the military who released the "Pentagon Papers," which detailed US mistakes in Vietnam.
"It's extremely dangerous in America right now to be right as a whistleblower when the government is so wrong," says Drake, who was charged under the Espionage Act for disclosing secret warrantless surveillance of Americans by the National Security Agency (the major felony charges were eventually dropped after an outpouring of public support for Drake.) "Speaking truth to power is now a criminal act." Jane Mayer, a staff writer for The New Yorkerwho won the George Polk Award for her coverage of the Drake case, explains the unusual measures she had to take during the course of reporting the story. She and Drake couldn't talk on the phone because he was being charged with leaking and there was concern of eavesdropping, so she had to meet sources in unmarked hotel rooms. "It does not feel like America, land of the free press," she says in the film.
The filmmakers take great care to emphasize the difference between leakers and whistleblowers, framing their subjects as the latter. As Jesselyn Radack, national security and human rights director at the Government Accountability Project, explains, whistleblowers are employees that disclose information they "reasonably believe evidences fraud, waste, abuse or a danger to public health or safety" while leakers simply make secret information public (in many cases, whistleblowers take extreme care not to divulge classified information).
It's a distinction the Obama Administration hasn't always made, mounting an aggressive campaign against Drake and spearheading a multiyear investigation against Thomas Tamm, who went to the New York Times with information about George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
In November 2012, Obama signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), a law that improves protections for federal employees and makes it easier for the government to discipline employees who retaliate against whistleblowers—a crucial provision, given that many whistleblowers lose their jobs. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 also includes a section that strengthens protections for government contractors—a law that would have greatly helped DeKort's case.
"We've never had a president more supportive of federal workers who blow the whistle—except when it comes to national security," Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project On Government Oversight
https://www.bravenewfilms.org/motherjones_041013
By Dana Liebelson at Mother Jones
Four cases reveal the administration's extraordinary crackdown on national-security whistleblowers.
Americans love the idea of the whistleblower: one brave person willing to stick their neck out for the greater good, even in the face of severe blowback. Many American high school students read On Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau's classic treatise that urges Americans to take a stand against government's ills. But more than 160 years later, legal protections for whistleblowers haven't caught up with Thoreau's ideals. Americans who disclose government misconduct risk losing their jobs and their homes—and some are prosecuted under the Espionage Act, a 1917 law originally intended for dealing with foreign spies. That's life for national-security whistleblowers under the Obama Administration, according to a new documentary premiering next week titled War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
The film, a project of the Brave New Foundation, focuses on four whistleblowers: Michael DeKort, a former project manager for Lockheed Martin; Thomas Drake, a former senior executive at the National Security Agency; Franz Gayl, an adviser for the Marine Corps; and Thomas Tamm, a former attorney to the Department of Justice. Each exposed grave misconduct, and each faced severe reprisals from their employers and the government. The film also includes commentary from one of the most famous whistleblowers of all time: Daniel Ellsberg, a Vietnam War analyist for the military who released the "Pentagon Papers," which detailed US mistakes in Vietnam.
"It's extremely dangerous in America right now to be right as a whistleblower when the government is so wrong," says Drake, who was charged under the Espionage Act for disclosing secret warrantless surveillance of Americans by the National Security Agency (the major felony charges were eventually dropped after an outpouring of public support for Drake.) "Speaking truth to power is now a criminal act." Jane Mayer, a staff writer for The New Yorkerwho won the George Polk Award for her coverage of the Drake case, explains the unusual measures she had to take during the course of reporting the story. She and Drake couldn't talk on the phone because he was being charged with leaking and there was concern of eavesdropping, so she had to meet sources in unmarked hotel rooms. "It does not feel like America, land of the free press," she says in the film.
The filmmakers take great care to emphasize the difference between leakers and whistleblowers, framing their subjects as the latter. As Jesselyn Radack, national security and human rights director at the Government Accountability Project, explains, whistleblowers are employees that disclose information they "reasonably believe evidences fraud, waste, abuse or a danger to public health or safety" while leakers simply make secret information public (in many cases, whistleblowers take extreme care not to divulge classified information).
It's a distinction the Obama Administration hasn't always made, mounting an aggressive campaign against Drake and spearheading a multiyear investigation against Thomas Tamm, who went to the New York Times with information about George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
In November 2012, Obama signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), a law that improves protections for federal employees and makes it easier for the government to discipline employees who retaliate against whistleblowers—a crucial provision, given that many whistleblowers lose their jobs. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 also includes a section that strengthens protections for government contractors—a law that would have greatly helped DeKort's case.
"We've never had a president more supportive of federal workers who blow the whistle—except when it comes to national security," Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project On Government Oversight
https://www.bravenewfilms.org/motherjones_041013
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
don't care.
it isn't a relevant sample of the US population so it tells you nothing even if it said NO, it is meaningless
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Democrats are attempting to remove him from office because they know they can't beat him in 2020, even with support from dead people and illegals...
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Laughing is not an argument.
50%+ of AMERICANS say impeach and remove, dumbfuck. Whether you like it or not.
Even FOX, you stupid fucking moron.
Deny all you want, asswipe. It doesn’t alter the truth.
rofl2:
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
The relevant sampling of AMERICANS says >50%.
rofl2:
I can't stop you from believing bogus data
Remember that is what led you to believe that Hillary couldn't lose. If you don't want to learn from your mistakes, that is on you
Even FOX, stupid fuck.
The polls were accurate on Clinton, moron.
Here’s your ignorant RW logic, asswipe.
A guy gets up to bat for the first time. He strikes out. Your logic says he will strike out every time.
A poll conducted years ago on an entirely different subject has NOTHING to do with current polls.
But, you’re too fucking stupid to realize that
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Depends how you define "leftist." But one thing is for sure. If you oppose Fascism, you oppose Trump. If you don't oppose Fascism, you oppose America and Western ideals.
Do you know what Fascism is? I surely don't support it and I support our president on most things. I support American culture, traditions and the constitution. What about you?
Cancel 2020.2
Canceled
Dumb as a rock Stoney has NO idea what Fascism is. Typical for those who have been brainwashed by mainstream media. They have NO clue.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
It's one thing to support Trump's positions, but he's a criminal who is trying to rig the next election, like he rigged the last one. If you support him as a person, then you don't believe in democracy. Blind loyalty to one politician, especially a criminal, is essentially Fascism.
I also support American culture and some traditions, as well as democracy, checks and balances, and government transparency.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
you're so full of shit.
Cancel 2020.2
Canceled
She sure is. Fascism is exactly what the Democratic party has been guilty of since Trump was elected. They've been trying to stop free speech. They won't listen to anything they don't agree with. They've been using violence against those they disagree with. THESE are prime examples of Fascism. And it's ALL coming from the Left.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Prove it.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
stone is definitely an operative.
stone by stone, the masons build their deluded path to a false god.