The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
Not every country can have clear cut rules like Sweden.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Read the last page. This is just what we have been discussed - because the US don't know it's own rules. Regarding Obamas third term.Meltdown99 said:
What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency? I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?mrussel1 said:
You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis. What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe. That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession. The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line. I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.Meltdown99 said:
Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP. And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in. I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...OnWis97 said:
I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in. This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like. But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd. It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later. But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.Meltdown99 said:
Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on. All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALLSpiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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...Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.
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
Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP. That said, it would be a terrible move. Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.
Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway? Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking. Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election? Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.
It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:
Might have a chance against Trump:OnWis97 said:Might have a chance against Trump:- Beto O'Rourke: Most Obama-like in terms of a personality that will attract moderate voters (and voters in general to hit the polls).
No chance against Trump:- Booker
- Buttigieg
- Castro
- Delaney
- Gabbart
- Gillibrand
- Harris
- Hickenlooper
- Inslee
- Klobuchar
- Sanders
- Warren
- Williamson
- Weld
- Yang
- Joe Biden
- The Starbucks guy with the "I want my taxes lower" platform.
- Beto O'Rourke: Most Obama-like in terms of a personality that will attract moderate voters (and voters in general to hit the polls).
- Biden
- Bernie
No chance against Trump:- Booker
- Buttigieg
- Castro
- Delaney
- Gabbart
- Gillibrand
- Harris
- Hickenlooper
- Inslee
- Klobuchar
- Warren
- Williamson
- Weld
- Yang
- The Starbucks guy with the "I want my taxes lower" platform.
Strongly disagree about Biden. He will get much better support than Hillary from White moderates in the midwest (and elsewhere) which is the exact demo that Trump did so well to pull off his huge upset. Also disagree with an * about Sanders, but will save that for later
Biden well only have to change about 40,000 minds in this region, something he can easily accomplish.
Trump will have the power of the incumbency, but many things had to fall perfectly into place for him to pull off his unexpected 2016 upset...
Things like the Comey letter, drip drip daily email leaks, secret Putin help will not be available this time
Also, Trump is only interested in governing to his base. A smart Democrat will exploit this as a major Campaign issue in 2020.
Uh oh, oxymoron, smart Democrat candidate.
0 -
Yes he is a professor of Constitutional law, and yes to everything else you say. I agree with all of it. It's nice to dream about, but it's not happening. I would love to see Barack and Michelle on the trail though. They will draw some audiences.Meltdown99 said:
Obama was a professor of constitutional law? am I correct, or was that someone else. I agree he is not breaking precedent. And whether some on here like to admit it or not, I'm not so sure Obama would want to be VP, after 8 years as president. And once again, outside the few star-struck people, I have not heard his name come up for a return to politics.mrussel1 said:
I'm not a proponent of the strategy, I'm just opining that it is possible from the plain reading of the amendment. I don't see Obama as one who would break precedent and create a challenge to an amendment that has not been challenged. It would be a distraction that he would not want to be part of, in my opinion.Meltdown99 said:
What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency? I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?mrussel1 said:
You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis. What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe. That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession. The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line. I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.Meltdown99 said:
Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP. And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in. I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...OnWis97 said:
I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in. This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like. But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd. It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later. But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.Meltdown99 said:
Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on. All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALLSpiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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...Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.
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
Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP. That said, it would be a terrible move. Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.
Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway? Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking. Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election? Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.
It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...0 -
oftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
Bingo.
Biden/ Beto
Book it!
Sorry Booker.0 -
Could Georgia be in play with Carter in the vp slot? Wonder if he would be interested.
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 -
That’s how I’m leaning today. I’m worried about not having a woman or minority on the ticket though.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
Bingo.
Biden/ Beto
Book it!
Sorry Booker.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 -
I changed my mind already: Biden/ Abrams 2020
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 -
Yeah I don’t understand. There is a constitutional amendment that says a person may only be elected president 2x. So it’s there.mrussel1 said:
It was ratified in the 50's after FDR was elected 4x.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Change Obama to President-who-has-served-two-terms-X then, if it helps you. Not having a plainly understandable rule about how long a President can be President seems a bit broken. However amazing those 1800s papers with your constitution is.Meltdown99 said:
Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP. And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in. I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...OnWis97 said:
I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in. This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like. But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd. It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later. But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.Meltdown99 said:
Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on. All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALLSpiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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...Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.
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
Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP. That said, it would be a terrible move. Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.
Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway? Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking. Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election? Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.
It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
But that's kiind of off topic in this thread.
BERNIE 2020
Now strict view would allow a former president to take over as president if they were the VP when the president had to leave office. But they couldn’t run for election. It seems written plainly clear.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
Boot egde edge seems smart AF. Seriously.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180
-
That is not an excuse.Meltdown99 said:
Not every country can have clear cut rules like Sweden.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Read the last page. This is just what we have been discussed - because the US don't know it's own rules. Regarding Obamas third term.Meltdown99 said:
What would be the point of Biden/Obama presidency? I thought Biden was interested in only one term, so why would he have a running mate that has no chance to elected president when Biden is finished?mrussel1 said:
You both bring up good points, and it stands to reason that it was written the way it was in order to not be overly restrictive and create a new Constitutional crisis. What I mean by that is that line of succession is set, and the intent was to allow that to take place in the event of catastrophe. That means a former president can be Speaker or VP without changing the line of succession. The fact that it is written "elected twice" is the plain language that Obama can be VP or Speaker without interrupting the line. I don't know how you would interpret it any other way without inventing words or intent that doesn't exist in the words.Meltdown99 said:
Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP. And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in. I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...OnWis97 said:
I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in. This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like. But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd. It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later. But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.Meltdown99 said:
Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on. All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALLSpiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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...Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.
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
Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP. That said, it would be a terrible move. Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.
Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway? Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking. Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election? Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.
It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Biden will choke.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
Bingo.
Biden/ Beto
Book it!
Sorry Booker.
Bernie/Beto the airdrummer"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I, for one, cannot wait to see Bernie and Beto hash it out in the primaries.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Biden will choke.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
Bingo.
Biden/ Beto
Book it!
Sorry Booker.
Bernie/Beto the airdrummer0 -
I do like Beto but I would like to see him with a little more experience and run in 2024.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
-
Haha. Agree. I just want Beto, Biden and Bernie to be in the debates. With 10 different people taking up time, zzz.PJPOWER said:
I, for one, cannot wait to see Bernie and Beto hash it out in the primaries.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Biden will choke.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
Bingo.
Biden/ Beto
Book it!
Sorry Booker.
Bernie/Beto the airdrummer"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Change Obama to President-who-has-served-two-terms-X then, if it helps you. Not having a plainly understandable rule about how long a President can be President seems a bit broken. However amazing those 1800s papers with your constitution is.Meltdown99 said:
Well, for starters, I doubt Obama is interested in being VP. And I guess you'd need a constitutional expert to the weigh in. I have not heard anyone suggesting Obama is re-entering politics other than the star-struck 10 club members who can not move on...OnWis97 said:
I do think Spiritual Chaos has a point here...not as to whether it's time to move on or the pros/cons of Obama weaseling back in. This is a strangely written rule. There are things in our constitution that are open to interpretation and law kind of has to be more often than some would like. But this "not elected more than twice" business is really, really odd. It almost seems like it was intentionally written to be less-restrictive so we could use common sense to determine what's right later. But if the idea was truly to avoid something like Obama becoming VP (and, potentially) president after serving two full terms, then it was really poorly done.Meltdown99 said:
Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on. All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALLSpiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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...Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.
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
Per the letter of that rule, I'd say Obama can be elected VP. That said, it would be a terrible move. Yes, Obama was reasonably well-liked, moreso than Trump. But I think most people would see it as trying to weasel a candidate in on a technicality and it would backfire with the middle-of-the-road voters and those on the fence about Trump for whatever reason.
Why the hell is the 22nd written that way anyway? Maybe it's so someone like Obama can still do something that would put him in the Line of Succession without anyone balking. Could one interpret "elected to the office of the President..." as including the VP election? Maybe, but if that was the intent, it was not well-written.
It wasn't that long ago so maybe history records why it shook out this way, but I'm supposed to be working...
But that's kiind of off topic in this thread.
BERNIE 2020
1. Biden makes it through his term, and since Obama has been elected for President twice, he would not be eligible to run after Biden's first term. The DNC would have to nominate other candidates.
2. Biden doesn't make it through his term, and though Obama has been elected twice, a transfer of power due to an incapacitated/otherwise unable to serve President is not an election. I see no problem.
Am I missing something?
BTW, as for the rationale behind two term limits, if a President somehow convinced Congress and Senate to bow to the will of the Executive Branch (something which can't be outright prevented) unilaterally, how would you fix that situation without a term limit? That's just one thought I have which would make me not even entertain that notion.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
He could probably beat Don, Jr.mcgruff10 said:I do like Beto but I would like to see him with a little more experience and run in 2024.
I kinda see where you're coming from...this was, though, a thought that people had about Obama in 2008. I did. But he was able to win (which is all I really care about in 2020) and I don't think the "lack of" experience really hurt him too badly.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
Brought to you byoftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
I SAW PEARL JAM0 -
I prefer "Oops I Crapped My Pants". It's a superior product, holds a gallon of feces according to the research.dankind said:
Brought to you byoftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/oops-i-crapped-my-pants/n11128
0 -
John Mulaney apparently tried to get this on SNL as far back as 2009.mrussel1 said:
I prefer "Oops I Crapped My Pants". It's a superior product, holds a gallon of feces according to the research.dankind said:
Brought to you byoftenreading said:
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.Hi! said: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?
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/oops-i-crapped-my-pants/n11128
https://youtu.be/_9BjJkqybz8
I SAW PEARL JAM0 -
Friggin' hysterical.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help