I think a Biden Bernie ticket would be interesting. Bernie obviously would have to be in the vp spot. I think he would do it. Think of the ground they would be able to cover while campaigning. They would both draw huge crowds at rallies and that would reach a lot of voters. Would be like a 2 for 1. If Biden/Bernie is as close as Hillary/Bernie were in 2016, Biden would have to offer the vp to Bernie, right?
Yeah, Bernie would have to be VP, because I doubt Biden is interested in that spot again. Would he do it, though? And that certainly doesn’t reassure those wanting a one term Biden and then a passing of the torch to a younger nominee.
The whole Biden one term thing makes no sense. If he is just, “handing over the baton after one term” to the vp, or whoever, why wouldn’t the voters just pick that person now? It’s like Biden is gonna be the middle man. I have no idea if Bernie would do it. I think he would. Why not? Biden obviously isn’t going to be vp again. That is a hilarious thought though. Biden lifetime vp appointment, lol.
Post edited by Hi! on
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
We might have to put the past behind us and go with Beto. I haven’t seen enough of him to form much of an opinion except for 15 minutes of the first debate against Cruz. I thought Cruz killed him in the little I saw. I do remember seeing or reading about the second debate and Beto faired much better because he actually fought back. I’ll maybe rewatch the debates to form a better opinion on how I think he would fair in a national race. He ain’t no Obama, but if we get Beto from debate #2, he could be a challenger.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,297
The smart thing to do is go with which ever Dem has the greatest chance of beating Trump. Why on earth that doesn't include "any of the above" is beyond me, but it's not so I hope one of them has a strong chance. My gut feeling is Biden has the best chance as it stands right now. Polls seem to indicate he's the most popular at this point. But there's a long way to go. 2020 is, after all, still almost two years away.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think his “anger” comes off as a little forced like he’s putting on a show a little bit. I think when people get to know him he’ll be more likable. I don’t mind angry though, we need passion and intensity. A fighter if you will.
You need to feel the person behind the anger is genuine, but at you say it comes off as theater. All rhetoric - no passion.
I think Obama, Beto, Bernie, Warren and Biden comes off as a lot more neutral.
But that's just my impression.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
Check yourself before you Trump yourself.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
Check yourself before you Trump yourself.
I understand what you are saying, but I don;t think you understand how hard it is.
For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company. At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards. Well guess what? Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation. And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out. With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof. But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
Check yourself before you Trump yourself.
I understand what you are saying, but I don;t think you understand how hard it is.
For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company. At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards. Well guess what? Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation. And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out. With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof. But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.
Guy one: Oh wait... can a President sit more than two terms or not? Guy two: I don't know. These old, dusty texts from the 1800s are not as self-explanatory as they thought... Guy one: Okey. Then let fix that. "A President can only serve for two terms period". Lets vote on that. Everyone in agreement? Everyone: Yes. Guy one: Done... oh wait, what does it say here about everyone owning guns like we're stuck in the 1800s? Lets change that too.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
Check yourself before you Trump yourself.
I understand what you are saying, but I don;t think you understand how hard it is.
For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company. At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards. Well guess what? Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation. And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out. With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof. But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.
Guy one: Oh wait... can a President sit more than two terms or not? Guy two: I don't know. These old, dusty texts from the 1800s are not as self-explanatory as they thought... Guy one: Okey. Then let fix that. "A President can only serve for two terms period". Lets vote on that. Everyone in agreement? Everyone: Yes. Guy one: Done... oh wait, what does it say here about everyone owning guns like we're stuck in the 1800s? Lets change that too.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
Check yourself before you Trump yourself.
I understand what you are saying, but I don;t think you understand how hard it is.
For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company. At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards. Well guess what? Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation. And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out. With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof. But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.
Guy one: Oh wait... can a President sit more than two terms or not? Guy two: I don't know. These old, dusty texts from the 1800s are not as self-explanatory as they thought... Guy one: Okey. Then let fix that. "A President can only serve for two terms period". Lets vote on that. Everyone in agreement? Everyone: Yes. Guy one: Done... oh wait, what does it say here about everyone owning guns like we're stuck in the 1800s? Lets change that too.
Alrighty then, nevermind.
I remember when that one time in college I wrote a Constitution that would be used to govern a republic for over 200 years. It wasn't that hard, honestly. I managed to cover everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries, so I feel good it's bullet proof. No need for a third branch for me.
Obama can definitely be vice-president. If he was and the president died or resigned, he would be passed over in favor of the Speaker of the House for succession. Though technically, the 22nd amendment says you can't be elected twice, but doesn't specifically say you can't serve more than two terms...so maybe he would be able to finish out the term of the president if he was VP.
While this notion of Obama as VP is sorta silly, it's actually the type of outside-the-box thinking that I want to see out of the Democrats for the 2020 election. Not necessarily this, but something other than the status quo.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
America again with it's weird and badly written laws.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
What seems normal and easy to understand can certainly have some different interpretations over hundreds of years.
Then keep it updated.
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
Check yourself before you Trump yourself.
I understand what you are saying, but I don;t think you understand how hard it is.
For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company. At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards. Well guess what? Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation. And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out. With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof. But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.
Guy one: Oh wait... can a President sit more than two terms or not? Guy two: I don't know. These old, dusty texts from the 1800s are not as self-explanatory as they thought... Guy one: Okey. Then let fix that. "A President can only serve for two terms period". Lets vote on that. Everyone in agreement? Everyone: Yes. Guy one: Done... oh wait, what does it say here about everyone owning guns like we're stuck in the 1800s? Lets change that too.
Alrighty then, nevermind.
I remember when that one time in college I wrote a Constitution that would be used to govern a republic for over 200 years. It wasn't that hard, honestly. I managed to cover everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries, so I feel good it's bullet proof. No need for a third branch for me.
Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.
Just a thought.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.
Just a thought.
We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world. Our document has stood the test of time. So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century. It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles. The rest would be left to the branches of gov't. This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2. If only Jefferson were as smart as you...
Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.
Just a thought.
We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world. Our document has stood the test of time. So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century. It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles. The rest would be left to the branches of gov't. This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2. If only Jefferson were as smart as you...
Thank you for clarifying your earlier statement for me. I was unsure if you were being sarcastic. I agree constitutions should not be re-written on whims.
Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.
Just a thought.
We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world. Our document has stood the test of time. So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century. It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles. The rest would be left to the branches of gov't. This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2. If only Jefferson were as smart as you...
Thank you for clarifying your earlier statement for me. I was unsure if you were being sarcastic. I agree constitutions should not be re-written on whims.
Or, if you are not weirdly ignorant. You would understand that things (like a society) change with time, and you might have to update, change or clarify it in the future and the things you cover might not be everything that will come up in the next couple of centuries. Like for example, if a President can be president for two terms or if he can be elected for two terms.
Just a thought.
We don't re-write our Constitution and form new governments ever 30 years like most of the rest of the world. Our document has stood the test of time. So you'll have to excuse the weirdly ignorant Founding Fathers in favor of the geniuses that can't write a Constitution that survives a half century. It was structured in such a way that they understood times would change, only setting down concrete principles. The rest would be left to the branches of gov't. This is what Cincy tried to explain to you, which you somehow think is counter-argued by a a conversation with Guy 1 and Guy 2. If only Jefferson were as smart as you...
We don't re-write our "fundamental laws" that often either, but we adjust and add to them when we feel it is needed. So that questions don't need to be up in the air or things written for a different time needs to be forced into being applied to a modern world. It is not done "on a whim" though.
The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by.
If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.
OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
The whole Biden one term thing makes no sense. If he is just, “handing over the baton after one term” to the vp, or whoever, why wouldn’t the voters just pick that person now? It’s like Biden is gonna be the middle man.
I have no idea if Bernie would do it. I think he would. Why not?
Biden obviously isn’t going to be vp again. That is a hilarious thought though. Biden lifetime vp appointment, lol.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
I haven’t seen enough of him to form much of an opinion except for 15 minutes of the first debate against Cruz. I thought Cruz killed him in the little I saw. I do remember seeing or reading about the second debate and Beto faired much better because he actually fought back. I’ll maybe rewatch the debates to form a better opinion on how I think he would fair in a national race. He ain’t no Obama, but if we get Beto from debate #2, he could be a challenger.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/01/thirteen-democrats-just-stopped-bernie-sanders-ame.html
I think Obama, Beto, Bernie, Warren and Biden comes off as a lot more neutral.
But that's just my impression.
Definitely a gray area:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/
The Founding Fathers placed no limits in the U.S. Constitution regarding how many times any one person could be elected (or otherwise serve) as President of the United States. However, in 1947 (after Franklin D. Roosevelt had broken with tradition and the Democrats won five consecutive presidential elections), Congress passed the 22nd amendment, ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951, which created a two-term limit for future Presidents. That amendment (along with earlier constitutional restrictions) would seem to disqualify Barack Obama from ever again attaining the office of President or Vice President of the United States, as he was elected to, and served, two full terms in that office between 2009 and 2017.
However, the wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t literally say that no one can be President for more than two terms; only that no one can be elected President more than twice.
Presumably this still leaves open the loophole (intended or not) that one who had already been elected twice could still serve as President again by attaining that office through other means — particularly, by being elected or appointed Vice-President (and thus becoming next in the line of presidential succession) when the sitting President dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns.
"We don't know if Trump can be arrested while being President" etc etc.
This is Ross and Rachel level of interpretation:
"Be elected two times" or "Be the president for more than two terms" - it should be pretty clear what the people figuring out the rule meant?
(Would be cool to have Obama Bidens VP with the soul purpose of Biden wanting the US to get another term of Obama)
I get fighting over how to play Monopoly. But a countries foundation shouldn't be less clear than Monopoly.
Check yourself before you Trump yourself.
For example; I do a specific line of work and I move to different locations within the same company. At each of these companies I am in charge of working with site leadership to develop a certain set of rules/standards. Well guess what? Each time we work through the same issues of interpretation. And if you try to be too prescriptive you end up with a ridiculously long document that still leaves situations out. With humans, I do not think there is anyway to make stuff full proof. But then again, the founding father's knew that...hence the supreme court as a separate branch.
Guy two: I don't know. These old, dusty texts from the 1800s are not as self-explanatory as they thought...
Guy one: Okey. Then let fix that. "A President can only serve for two terms period". Lets vote on that. Everyone in agreement?
Everyone: Yes.
Guy one: Done... oh wait, what does it say here about everyone owning guns like we're stuck in the 1800s? Lets change that too.
"And this time around, I will be Joes bitch"
*Obama laughs*
*Everyone laughs*
*Pearl Jam plats the inaugural*
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/433461-biden-atop-dems-pack-in-michigan-poll-followed-by-sanders
While this notion of Obama as VP is sorta silly, it's actually the type of outside-the-box thinking that I want to see out of the Democrats for the 2020 election. Not necessarily this, but something other than the status quo.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Just a thought.
The "form new governments"-thing I don't understand what you mean by.
If your constitution with these "concrete principles" are instead of concrete - diffuse, and there are these branches deciding how to interpret the text and set precedent - then Obama should stress-test that part to figure out those concrete/diffuse principles. Haha. I just think that is one fundamental thing that should have been clarified sometime during all this time -- the same with if a president can be arrested for a crime. Write some god damn amendments people.
OBAMA TWENTYTWENTY