Preemptive Chart about "ABUSE OF POWER!" From the right in response to Obama's pledge to use more executive orders.
That's a pretty crappy chart IMO. The X axis should be time, either forwards or backwards. Not just presidents in ascending order of number of orders. At first glance makes it look like it's been increasing hugely, since the typical arrangement is time ascending.
Its the annual average of executive orders, having it have a time axis wouldn't make any sense.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It would actually be tougher to grok if you arbitrarily put time in there. You'd have spikes up and down the Y axis and it makes it tough to compare presidents who are close to executive order usage.
The chart is fine, X does not always equal time. I like it better showing the presidents in increasing order of executive order usage average.
That's a rather useless metric. The change as a function of time is far more relevant since so much has changed over the years and comparisons will be made between more closely related presidents anyway.
Preemptive Chart about "ABUSE OF POWER!" From the right in response to Obama's pledge to use more executive orders.
That's a pretty crappy chart IMO. The X axis should be time, either forwards or backwards. Not just presidents in ascending order of number of orders. At first glance makes it look like it's been increasing hugely, since the typical arrangement is time ascending.
Its the annual average of executive orders, having it have a time axis wouldn't make any sense.
Thing is there actually is a downward trend there, so for someone worried about the steady march towards tyranny it would comforting to see it decreasing.
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
This is a dumb tangent, lets talk about that whole SOTU thing. I hear Rand Paul's response was so embarrasing libertarians are going back to being called republicans.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
The goal of the graph is to show that Obama used fewer executive orders than everybody else, the best way to quickly convey that point is to set it up the way they did
If the point was to let you easily compare him to other specific presidents (rather than all other presidents as a group) then they would have set up the graph with the presidents across the bottom in chronological order
But that wasn't the point, so they set up the data in the simplest and most visually striking way possible
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
It seems like reading the names of the predecessors would be adequate to the task.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
President Barack Obama delivered his annual State of the Union address last night, making numerous claims about his accomplishments in office and agenda for the year ahead. The Onion clarifies several of the president’s erroneous and ambiguous claims below:
“Women earn 77 cents on the dollar”: Our studies found that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar, but only truly earn about 56.
“Already, 23 people have signed up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act”: This statement is true.
“My wife, Mackenzie”: The president’s wife is named Michelle.
“The American people are capable of great things”: The American people are capable of things.
“I”: By positing the existence of a fixed, independent self that is distinct from the group, Obama succumbs to a classic existential misconception: reifying the ego, that illusory, shifting entity that is not apart from, but of, the whole.
“Today, the federal minimum wage is worth about 20 percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here”: We didn’t bother looking this one up. It sounds right, though.
“Men tend to have bigger hands than women”: This is patently true.
“I vow to [some bullshit about income inequality]”: Not even fucking close to the truth. You think that when the Wall Street puppet masters pull the strings, he won’t dance for them? Open your eyes!
“This statement is a lie”: Upon investigation, it was found that this statement is in fact true.
“We’re going all the way to state”: While we have a pretty fair shot at beating the Pierce Panthers this year, at this point in the season it’s anybody’s game and we’re definitely going to have to hustle a hell of a lot harder now that they’ve got C.J. “Cyclone” Kenner at quarterback. Go Bulldogs!
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
The goal of the graph is to show that Obama used fewer executive orders than everybody else, the best way to quickly convey that point is to set it up the way they did
If the point was to let you easily compare him to other specific presidents (rather than all other presidents as a group) then they would have set up the graph with the presidents across the bottom in chronological order
But that wasn't the point, so they set up the data in the simplest and most visually striking way possible
If the goal is to just show that, you don't need all the other presidents. IT's a statement that doesn't require a graph.
The point instead is to show the extent to which he's made less executive orders then other presidents. To compare him to all the other presidents on an individual basis. EAnd that means identifying specific presidents and that means an order where that can be easily done.
If you don't want to compare him to each individually, to show each president in relation to each other one, then why are all the presidents on the graph as individual data points in the first place? And the answer is "because you are supposed to be comparing him to the other presidents".
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
The goal of the graph is to show that Obama used fewer executive orders than everybody else, the best way to quickly convey that point is to set it up the way they did
If the point was to let you easily compare him to other specific presidents (rather than all other presidents as a group) then they would have set up the graph with the presidents across the bottom in chronological order
But that wasn't the point, so they set up the data in the simplest and most visually striking way possible
If the goal is to just show that, you don't need all the other presidents. IT's a statement that doesn't require a graph.
The point instead is to show the extent to which he's made less executive orders then other presidents. To compare him to all the other presidents on an individual basis. EAnd that means identifying specific presidents and that means an order where that can be easily done.
If you don't want to compare him to each individually, to show each president in relation to each other one, then why are all the presidents on the graph as individual data points in the first place? And the answer is "because you are supposed to be comparing him to the other presidents".
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
It seems like reading the names of the predecessors would be adequate to the task.
If all you want is "adequate to the task", you just make a list. The point of a graph is making data visually easier to consume.
The order is Least to Most. That's what the graph does. Least on the left. Most on the right.
The President who used Executive Orders the Least is on the left side of the graph, and the President who used Executive Orders the Most is on the right side of the graph.
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
The goal of the graph is to show that Obama used fewer executive orders than everybody else, the best way to quickly convey that point is to set it up the way they did
If the point was to let you easily compare him to other specific presidents (rather than all other presidents as a group) then they would have set up the graph with the presidents across the bottom in chronological order
But that wasn't the point, so they set up the data in the simplest and most visually striking way possible
If the goal is to just show that, you don't need all the other presidents. IT's a statement that doesn't require a graph.
The point instead is to show the extent to which he's made less executive orders then other presidents. To compare him to all the other presidents on an individual basis. EAnd that means identifying specific presidents and that means an order where that can be easily done.
If you don't want to compare him to each individually, to show each president in relation to each other one, then why are all the presidents on the graph as individual data points in the first place? And the answer is "because you are supposed to be comparing him to the other presidents".
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
It seems like reading the names of the predecessors would be adequate to the task.
If all you want is "adequate to the task", you just make a list. The point of a graph is making data visually easier to consume.
The order is Least to Most. That's what the graph does. Least on the left. Most on the right.
The President who used Executive Orders the Least is on the left side of the graph, and the President who used Executive Orders the Most is on the right side of the graph.
Yes, congrats, you can read. We're all happy for you.
0
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
The goal of the graph is to show that Obama used fewer executive orders than everybody else, the best way to quickly convey that point is to set it up the way they did
If the point was to let you easily compare him to other specific presidents (rather than all other presidents as a group) then they would have set up the graph with the presidents across the bottom in chronological order
But that wasn't the point, so they set up the data in the simplest and most visually striking way possible
If the goal is to just show that, you don't need all the other presidents. IT's a statement that doesn't require a graph.
The point instead is to show the extent to which he's made less executive orders then other presidents. To compare him to all the other presidents on an individual basis. EAnd that means identifying specific presidents and that means an order where that can be easily done.
Everything looks better on a graph though, and having him be the smallest bar at the end of a sweeping curve of bars looks even better than a graph where the curve spikes up and down
The reason I know the point of the graph is to quickly show Obama has the lowest number of executive orders rather than provide a reference tool for easily comparing him to other presidents is that they laid it out the way they did
They is no reason to graph that data in that way except to drive home that singular point
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
The goal of the graph is to show that Obama used fewer executive orders than everybody else, the best way to quickly convey that point is to set it up the way they did
If the point was to let you easily compare him to other specific presidents (rather than all other presidents as a group) then they would have set up the graph with the presidents across the bottom in chronological order
But that wasn't the point, so they set up the data in the simplest and most visually striking way possible
If the goal is to just show that, you don't need all the other presidents. IT's a statement that doesn't require a graph.
The point instead is to show the extent to which he's made less executive orders then other presidents. To compare him to all the other presidents on an individual basis. EAnd that means identifying specific presidents and that means an order where that can be easily done.
If you don't want to compare him to each individually, to show each president in relation to each other one, then why are all the presidents on the graph as individual data points in the first place? And the answer is "because you are supposed to be comparing him to the other presidents".
The chart is to show compared to his predecessors Obama has done less executive orders than anyone, not some general trend away from executive orders.
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
It seems like reading the names of the predecessors would be adequate to the task.
If all you want is "adequate to the task", you just make a list. The point of a graph is making data visually easier to consume.
The order is Least to Most. That's what the graph does. Least on the left. Most on the right.
The President who used Executive Orders the Least is on the left side of the graph, and the President who used Executive Orders the Most is on the right side of the graph.
Yes, congrats, you can read. We're all happy for you.
So if you wanted to order something from Least to Most
This graph argument is stupid. Yet I can't help diving into the stupid.
It should be arranged in chronological order. It's how people naturally think about presidents - the order they held office.
Also, when ordered in chronological order, it's going to sweep down naturally, and - with a few minor variations - basically be the same graph except flipped. There might be some ups and downs, but it's going to be clear that the trend has been decreasing. If nothing else, do a horizontal bar across the timeline to show where Obama falls / compares.
so what about the other responses to the SOTU? we've had the official response and Rand Paul's response, but wasn't there supposed to be 4 of them in total? ok, maybe we don't need to hear the Spanish language response* but that still leaves a nice dose of derp unaccounted for.
*though it could be interesting to see how close it is to the official GOP response. my guess would be 'not very' considering we got more of an abridged autobiography than a genuine counter to the President's speech.
Apparently Marc Thiessen thinks Obama is plagiarizing him now
Appearing on Fox News Channel with anchor Megyn Kelly after President Barack Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union address on Tuesday night, former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen said the president’s speech sounded uncannily similar to him.
“Did the president crib off of George W. Bush?” Kelly asked.
“It was eerily familiar,” Thiessen replied.
”There were lines like ‘Our job is to help Americans build a future of hope and opportunity, a future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy, a future of hope and opportunity requires that all citizens have affordable and available healthcare, extending opportunity and hope depends on a stable supply of energy,’ all of that came from the 2007 State of the Union from George W. Bush.”
“Barack Obama has gone from blaming George W. Bush to plagiarizing George W. Bush,” he added.
So, how about the State of the Union? Some speech, eh?
Good speech, but needed more graphs and charts.
You should have been watching the White House feed. It really did end up adding impact to what he was saying. So much so that I wish he would have just said the things he was showing, or showed them to everybody in the room on a big screen.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
This is the dumbest god damned argument.
If we did it the other way we'd be having the same argument.
so what about the other responses to the SOTU? we've had the official response and Rand Paul's response, but wasn't there supposed to be 4 of them in total? ok, maybe we don't need to hear the Spanish language response* but that still leaves a nice dose of derp unaccounted for.
*though it could be interesting to see how close it is to the official GOP response. my guess would be 'not very' considering we got more of an abridged autobiography than a genuine counter to the President's speech.
Republican - Tea Party - that Paul guy, said something I think - I'm not sure if there is another or if the Spanish one accounts for that.
Uhhh god damn it that's going to hurt my brain. I mean I know a former bush speach writer will be a lying prick, but jesus dude concepts like making america better are not unique to GWB, one could make the argument his presidency was the opposite even.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Its the annual average of executive orders, having it have a time axis wouldn't make any sense.
pleasepaypreacher.net
SO fucking awesome.
the contrast between Biden and Boehner there is amazing.
Onion Biden is real!
Boehner is literally the same color as his chair.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He was pointing at you
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
pleasepaypreacher.net
EDIT: This'll do.
Neil MacDonald remains a fucking moron I see.
That's a rather useless metric. The change as a function of time is far more relevant since so much has changed over the years and comparisons will be made between more closely related presidents anyway.
Thing is there actually is a downward trend there, so for someone worried about the steady march towards tyranny it would comforting to see it decreasing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, and if you want to compare him to his predecessors, you put it in temporal order so we know where his predecessors are.
No, it's showing which Presidents have used it the least vs. the most. This is exactly the way the graph should look when looking for that data.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Except everyone universally groups president by order of appearance. If I want to compare Obama to another president, you put them in order so I can fucking find the presidents.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If the point was to let you easily compare him to other specific presidents (rather than all other presidents as a group) then they would have set up the graph with the presidents across the bottom in chronological order
But that wasn't the point, so they set up the data in the simplest and most visually striking way possible
I haven't heard anyone anywhere talk about it at all.
Exactly.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It seems like reading the names of the predecessors would be adequate to the task.
If the goal is to just show that, you don't need all the other presidents. IT's a statement that doesn't require a graph.
The point instead is to show the extent to which he's made less executive orders then other presidents. To compare him to all the other presidents on an individual basis. EAnd that means identifying specific presidents and that means an order where that can be easily done.
If you don't want to compare him to each individually, to show each president in relation to each other one, then why are all the presidents on the graph as individual data points in the first place? And the answer is "because you are supposed to be comparing him to the other presidents".
If all you want is "adequate to the task", you just make a list. The point of a graph is making data visually easier to consume.
The order is Least to Most. That's what the graph does. Least on the left. Most on the right.
The President who used Executive Orders the Least is on the left side of the graph, and the President who used Executive Orders the Most is on the right side of the graph.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yes, congrats, you can read. We're all happy for you.
Everything looks better on a graph though, and having him be the smallest bar at the end of a sweeping curve of bars looks even better than a graph where the curve spikes up and down
The reason I know the point of the graph is to quickly show Obama has the lowest number of executive orders rather than provide a reference tool for easily comparing him to other presidents is that they laid it out the way they did
They is no reason to graph that data in that way except to drive home that singular point
So if you wanted to order something from Least to Most
how else would you do it
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It should be arranged in chronological order. It's how people naturally think about presidents - the order they held office.
Also, when ordered in chronological order, it's going to sweep down naturally, and - with a few minor variations - basically be the same graph except flipped. There might be some ups and downs, but it's going to be clear that the trend has been decreasing. If nothing else, do a horizontal bar across the timeline to show where Obama falls / compares.
*though it could be interesting to see how close it is to the official GOP response. my guess would be 'not very' considering we got more of an abridged autobiography than a genuine counter to the President's speech.
Good speech, but needed more graphs and charts.
If you believe in socialism!!!
I do like how Obama was still trying to be bipartisan, that man is like a dog with a bone.
pleasepaypreacher.net
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
You should have been watching the White House feed. It really did end up adding impact to what he was saying. So much so that I wish he would have just said the things he was showing, or showed them to everybody in the room on a big screen.
If we did it the other way we'd be having the same argument.
Both graphs are the same so vote Republican.
Republican - Tea Party - that Paul guy, said something I think - I'm not sure if there is another or if the Spanish one accounts for that.
pleasepaypreacher.net