MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing

  • News
  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Poll
In summary, it appears that 87% of the population wants Bush to be impeached. I hope it isn't set up so people can vote twice or more. That would be too much like the 04 election.
  • #1
edward
62
166
I don't know about the demographics of those who voted in this poll, but it appears that 87% want Bush to be impeached. I hope it isn't set up so people can vote twice or more. That would be too much like the 04 election.:rolleyes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

I am not a Bush fan, but I don't think that impeachment would be good for the country at this point. Perhaps he could just go into rehab with Ann Coulter.:wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think that impeachment would be a good thing for this country. Perhaps it would generate some unpleasantness in the short term, but it would serve as a reminder to arrogant jerks that if they are elected president they are not automatically the emperor or the king of this country. Bush has trampled on our rights, traditions, and constitution for years with NO oversight from the Republican dominated Congress. After 9-11, the majority of the country was willing to give him a lot of latitude to address terrorism and security issues. Instead, he used 9-11 as an excuse to rampage into Iraq (that had NOTHING to do with 9-11 despite Cheney's recent lies) and destabilize an oil-producing region for the benefit of his friends and donors. That alone justifies impeachment and he's been piling on offenses ever since. He is absolutely the worst president in our history - he makes Nixon look like a piker.
 
  • #3
Whats "not good for the country" about impeachment?

As Mclaughin loves to say, "bye byeeeeeeeeee"

I think impeachment is a great thing for the country. It shows that no one is above the law.
 
  • #4
Surely no one can honestly say that Bush's crimes against state haven't far exceeded any presidential hanky panky on Clinton's part. If nothing else it might recapture some credibility in the world that US democracy works. My concern is that it should be a double impeachment, (do we really want Cheney?) if it were to go to completion.
 
  • #5
cyrusabdollahi said:
Whats "not good for the country" about impeachment?

As loves to say, "bye byeeeeeeeeee"

I think impeachment is a great thing for the country. It shows that no one is above the law.

We are already in sh#t up to our ears. As much as I would like for it to happen, too many people who have other things to do would be tied up with an impeachment proceeding.

Now if we could impeach Bush/Cheney that would make it worth it.
 
  • #6
And? Thats exactly why you should have an impeachment. What are they doing, they always do nothing anyways. They should do something for a change, instead of sitting back quietly like they always do.
 
  • #7
cyrusabdollahi said:
And? Thats exactly why you should have an impeachment. What are they doing, they always do nothing anyways. They should do something for a change, instead of sitting back quietly like they always do.
Thank you, Cyrus! Our lawmakers ought to be working on our behalf instead of playing "wait and see" games with the parties and sucking up money from special interest groups. The offenses are public knowledge.
 
  • #8
It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.
 
  • #9
loseyourname said:
It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.

Perhaps, but it might serve notice to this lame duck president that he needs to get control of himself. Otherwise the implicit message is he can carry on as usual until the bitter end, a somewhat dangerous proposition IMO.
 
  • #10
loseyourname said:
It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.
They could still impeach him, and if convicted, disallow his pension and other benefits.

Probably won't happen though.

Bush can still pardon Libby and others who have violated the laws.
 
  • #11
we should blame the imbeciles who actually voted for him. no one has ever been so up front as bush about his opinions and lack of expertise. the public knew exactly what they were getting. that's what scares me. what hope is there when the electorate cannot recognize a total incompetent like george bush? of course this ignores the fact that he apparently stole the first election and was not really the choice of the majority.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
mathwonk said:
we should blame the imbeciles who actually voted for him. no one has ever been so up front as bush about his opinions and lack of expertise. the public knew exactly what they were getting. that's what scares me. what hope is there when the electorate cannot recognize a total incompetent like george bush? of course this ignores the fact that he apparently stole the first election and was not really the choice of the majority.

For a long time I was more angry with US voters than Bush. I felt like the enemy has taken over the country; you know, people who support the use of torture and spying on innocent Americans. Yes, impeach him at any cost and no matter how long it takes. There is nothing more important; not even the war on terror. Bush has done far more damage than the terrorists of 911 did.

The actions of this administration cannot go unanswered. The Constitution and all that it stands for - the reason that people give their lives for this country - demands that Bush and Cheney be removed from office, and by force if needed.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
btw, that poll is meaningless. Clearly the people most motivated are most likely to vote. IIRC, over 30% of this nation still supports Bush.
 
  • #14
Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?
 
  • #15
What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.
 
  • #16
denverdoc said:
Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

I want to say that is correct but I can't say for sure... I think that's what I heard as well.
 
  • #17
ShawnD said:
What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

Many of us are firmly convinced that any appearance of legality is only an illusion brought to you by a highly corrupt Republican party.

According to pollingreport.com, a nonpartisan compendium of polls, Bush's average approval rating for April 2007 is 34.6[%].[continued]
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5696819
 
  • #18
ShawnD said:
What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is why it was so important when the Democrats took control of the Congress. Now they can now investigate the activities of this administration -hear testimony as with the fired attorneys, and subpoena documents and other witnesses. While the Republicans held control, there was no chance of legitimate investigations. For example, this whole Gonzales business never would have come up because the testimony that led to the hearings never would have been allowed.
 
  • #19
Denverdoc said:
Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?
Ivan Seeking said:
I want to say that is correct but I can't say for sure... I think that's what I heard as well.
Excuse me? Jimmy Carter has had the lowest in US history I believe. He may have been beat by Andrew Johnson, but he was even lower than Nixon after Watergate.
 
  • #20
Mk said:
Excuse me? Jimmy Carter has had the lowest in US history I believe. He may have been beat by Andrew Johnson, but he was even lower than Nixon after Watergate.
He may not have been wildly popular as president, but he is widely regarded as an honest and earnest president, who did his best to fulfill the duties of his office. The same cannot be said of "W".

Jimmy Carter advocates for world peace, monitors elections, and domestically helps build homes for poor people. When Bush leaves office, he will join the Carlisle Group with his father, suck up up money from energy and defense businesses and enrich himself under the tutelage of James Baker.
 
  • #21
denverdoc said:
Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

Lowest was Harry Truman at 23%
Second lowest was Nixon at the time of his resignation: 24%
Carter was 28%
Bush I was 29%

Highest poll ratings by a President?

Bush II at 90% (right after 9/11)
Bush I at 89% (during Gulf War I)
Truman at 87% (right after FDR's death during final stages of WWII)
FDR at 84% (after Pearl Harbor)

Could be worse. In an Israeli poll, 3% would pick Olmert as Prime Minister ... with 3% margin of error.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
turbo-1 said:
He may not have been wildly popular as president, but he is widely regarded as an honest and earnest president, who did his best to fulfill the duties of his office. The same cannot be said of "W".

Jimmy Carter advocates for world peace, monitors elections, and domestically helps build homes for poor people. When Bush leaves office, he will join the Carlisle Group with his father, suck up up money from energy and defense businesses and enrich himself under the tutelage of James Baker.

Ironically by current definition, Jimmy Carter was the only true born again Christian president in recent history. His greatest failing was that he thought people were as honest as he was, especially his CIA director GHW Bush.
 
  • #23
ShawnD said:
What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

It would need to be proven that he personally broke a law, which is probably impossible to do unless he either admits to it or gets ratted out by one of his top officials. It should be possible to prove that his administration broke many laws, but that isn't a ground for impeachment and in fact happens to almost every administration, though the current one is probably only matched by Harding's.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

30% disapprove of him, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for him. That all depends on who he is running against. If they approve of him more than they do of the other guy, he'll get the vote without having any meaningful level of approval.
 
  • #24
but who would do something to get rid of him? when i waS YOUNG I pUT MY LIFE ON THE LINE TO END THE WAR IN VIETNAM, now i don't even want to risk my retirement plan.

and sadly, the younger generation is pretty much the same.

none of us really wants to risk much. we do it when there is a reason. the move to a volunteer army was the primary smart move to reduce opposition to war.

when i was a kid i learned that draft deferments were granted to students and clergy to reduce their opposition to war.

now we have granted essentially everyone deferments, which removes almost all opposition to war. there was an antiwar demonstration at my campus friday, and not one person from my class went to it, even though i granted everyone immunity.

in fact even the one kid who helped organize it didn't show up. he said he didn't have a car and his ride didn't come.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Just to throw this out there again but maybe his approval is the same as during the election if you account for low voter turnout. Say maybe 60% of people vote, he wins with 50% of the vote (this part is true), that would leave 30% of the country wanting him in.

I'm not trying to thread crap, I'm just thinking that his support was never exactly high. An impeachment process shouldn't start just because the vast majority of people don't like the president; I would go as far as saying most people don't support their current governments simply because most people did not vote for the current government. For example, Canada's current government won with a minority lead meaning they won less than 50% of all seats (there's more than 2 parties). Even if you said Canada had a 100% voter turnout, that still leaves the majority of the country not liking the current prime minister. Should we impeach him simply because he's not popular? No. He may not be popular, but he's the most popular.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
ShawnD said:
I'm not trying to thread crap, I'm just thinking that his support was never exactly high. An impeachment process shouldn't start just because the vast majority of people don't like the president;

Bush's approval rating has been high at times. He screwed that up by what he has done. Invading Iraq based on lies and trying to run the constitution through Gonzo's paper shredder, among other things, have finally caught up with him.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
One cannot impeach a president or federal/state official for being unpopular.

One can impeach a president or federal/state official for criminal misconduct, or various offenses (e.g. high crimes and misdemeanors), as prescribed by the appropriate legal documents.

To proceed with impeachment requires the initiation by a member of the appropriate government institution. Anyone in the population can claim that a president or government official has committed some act which would subject that president or official to impeachment. Various people have already drafted 'articles of impeachment' against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, . . ., however it is up to member of Congress to act upon one or any of those charges.

The other side of that is that members of congress may be reluctant to rush into impeachment based on political considerations, e.g. aspirations of being president themselves or stability of the government, or lack of support in the general population, or lack of substantial evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Astronuc said:
The other side of that is that members of congress may be reluctant to rush into impeachment based on political considerations, e.g. aspirations of being president themselves or stability of the government, or lack of support in the general population, or lack of substantial evidence.

That's why multiple party countries (Canada) try to avoid non confidence votes. Sure the conservative government in Canada could be thrown out, but the amount of hatred towards the party(s) responsible for causing another election would probably make them lose seats overall. I think back in the earlier 1900s prime minister McKenzie's government had to call an election due to a non confidence vote, and the result was that he got re-elected, but with an even stronger government than he had before (he won more seats). The same thing could very easily happen to the republican party in the US if the democrats can't come up with a better candidate. Impeach bush and some other neocon will take his place; no real gains there.
 
  • #29
The subpoenas have only just begun. Many of us will remember that not that long before he left office, no one believed Nixon would go down. And he was never even tried for a crime.
 
  • #30
Ivan Seeking said:
The subpoenas have only just begun. Many of us will remember that not that long before he left office, no one believed Nixon would go down. And he was never even tried for a crime.
Faced with the possibility of impeachment, Nixon resigned. If had had stayed in office, he would likely have been impeached.

IIRC, the president enjoys some immunity from prosecution, even after leaving office, for acts committed while serving as president.
 
  • #31
Astronuc said:
Faced with the possibility of impeachment, Nixon resigned. If had had stayed in office, he would likely have been impeached.

I think Nixon shows us that given a smoking gun, things can happen very quickly. In his case it wasn't even necessary to go through the impeachment or trial. And Bush is far worse than Nixon.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
What gets me the most is how much is right up front

...Bush has indicated that he does not intend to enforce laws or parts of laws or whatever he thinks interferes with his powers as president. In effect, he's vetoing Congress without vetoing," Greco said.

In doing so, Greco said, Bush is denying Congress its authority to enact laws and exercise oversight of the executive branch, "because there's no veto to override."

I asked Greco for his response to the contention of some Bush supporters that the signing statements merely comment on the laws being enacted and are not a vow to ignore them at will. I asked: Are the signing statements more of a theoretical than actual threat to the separation of powers?

"The proof is what he's doing," Greco replied. He cited Bush's signing statement to the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Defense Department appropriations bill, which prohibits the torture of prisoners. Bush added the caveat that as commander in chief he can waive the torture ban if he thinks harsh interrogation techniques are needed to prevent terrorist attacks. [continued]
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1150967122583

Time and time again Bush has acted as if above the law. Only now can we actually investigate all that has occurred over the last six years. But they must act quickly, that's for sure. I also now believe that the power of the Presidency must be significantly curtailed. It seems that given the right conditions, one can nearly rise to the level of a dictator.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
edward said:
Bush's approval rating has been high at times. He screwed that up by what he has done. Invading Iraq based on lies and trying to run the constitution through Gonzo's paper shredder, among other things, have finally caught up with him.

Congress gave the vote to goto war so if you want to impeach Bush on these terms we need to impeach several sitting members of congress, and arrest and try several members that are no longer in office.

What part of the Constitution did Bush try to erase and other things. As far as I can see and several other people have stated everything his administration has done has been legal.

Where as our 110th congress has been the "do nothing" congress that got in on a pack of empty promises. With there endless investigations, non binding garbage, armchair quarterbacking, trying to take powers that are not theres, stabbing our troops in the back, ,and appeasement to a very dangerous enemy that wants to put the entire world back to the late 13th century. There doing all of this for what? So they can look good in the 2008 presidential election. This political garbage is what is killing this country, not G.W.B.
 
  • #34
Twilight zone post. Sure all politicians are opportunists, its in their blood. Would they have collectively decided invasion was a good thing w/o pressure?
I doubt it. The problm in this country is appearing weak. There was lots of rage going about, and GWB figured out how to harness it, as have many past presidents. He lied about a connection to Iraq and sucked the media into the drumbeat for war for ulterior motives, and has repeatedly desecrated the constitution and checks/balances to say nothing of a thumb in the nose for any other decision vs his own, whether by treaty, his own joint chiefs, the american public, various world bodies... Reminds me of Cho, a man who has never been able to succeed and has a bunch of rage.
 
  • #35
Also, Congress only knew what they were told.
 
<h2>1. What is the MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing?</h2><p>The MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing refers to a recent survey conducted by the news network which found that a majority of Americans support the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.</p><h2>2. How was the poll conducted?</h2><p>The poll was conducted by surveying a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United States via telephone. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 3.1 percentage points.</p><h2>3. What were the specific findings of the poll?</h2><p>The poll found that 53% of Americans approve of the impeachment inquiry, while 44% disapprove. Additionally, 49% of respondents believe that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 46% do not.</p><h2>4. How does this compare to previous polls on impeachment?</h2><p>This poll shows an increase in support for the impeachment inquiry compared to previous polls. A similar poll conducted by MSNBC in September found that 49% of Americans supported the inquiry, while 46% did not.</p><h2>5. What does this mean for the impeachment process?</h2><p>The results of this poll suggest that there is growing support for the impeachment inquiry and potential removal of President Trump from office. However, it is important to note that polls are just one factor in the overall impeachment process, and the ultimate decision rests with Congress.</p>

1. What is the MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing?

The MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing refers to a recent survey conducted by the news network which found that a majority of Americans support the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

2. How was the poll conducted?

The poll was conducted by surveying a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United States via telephone. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

3. What were the specific findings of the poll?

The poll found that 53% of Americans approve of the impeachment inquiry, while 44% disapprove. Additionally, 49% of respondents believe that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 46% do not.

4. How does this compare to previous polls on impeachment?

This poll shows an increase in support for the impeachment inquiry compared to previous polls. A similar poll conducted by MSNBC in September found that 49% of Americans supported the inquiry, while 46% did not.

5. What does this mean for the impeachment process?

The results of this poll suggest that there is growing support for the impeachment inquiry and potential removal of President Trump from office. However, it is important to note that polls are just one factor in the overall impeachment process, and the ultimate decision rests with Congress.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
238
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
59
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
29
Replies
1K
Views
84K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
99
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top