The Democratic Candidates

12467194

Comments

  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,287
    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?
    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. 


    Bingo.

    Biden/ Beto

    Book it!

    Sorry Booker.
    Biden will choke. 

    Bernie/Beto the airdrummer
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 5,281
    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?
    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. 


    Bingo.

    Biden/ Beto

    Book it!

    Sorry Booker.
    Biden will choke. 

    Bernie/Beto the airdrummer
    I, for one, cannot wait to see Bernie and Beto hash it out in the primaries.  
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 20,052
    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......
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,287
    PJPOWER said:
    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?
    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. 


    Bingo.

    Biden/ Beto

    Book it!

    Sorry Booker.
    Biden will choke. 

    Bernie/Beto the airdrummer
    I, for one, cannot wait to see Bernie and Beto hash it out in the primaries.  
    Haha. Agree. I just want Beto, Biden and Bernie to be in the debates. With 10 different people taking up time, zzz.
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,855
    edited March 11
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 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. 
    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


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    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.

    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...
    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...
    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.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

    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 1
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,885
    mcgruff10 said:
    I do like Beto but I would like to see him with a little more experience and run in 2024.  
    He could probably beat Don, Jr.

    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
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 14,344
    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?
    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. 
    Brought to you by

    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,967
    dankind said:
    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?
    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. 
    Brought to you by

    I prefer "Oops I Crapped My Pants".  It's a superior product, holds a gallon of feces according to the research.  
    https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/oops-i-crapped-my-pants/n11128
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 14,344
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    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?
    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. 
    Brought to you by

    I prefer "Oops I Crapped My Pants".  It's a superior product, holds a gallon of feces according to the research.  
    https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/oops-i-crapped-my-pants/n11128
    John Mulaney apparently tried to get this on SNL as far back as 2009.



    :rofl:
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,967
    Friggin' hysterical.  
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,500
    “A person's worth should not be measured by their regularity, nor their control.”
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,389
    benjs said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 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. 
    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


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    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.

    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...
    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...
    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.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

    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. 

    It seems far fetched that Obama would want to return to the executive branch, but if he was to become Biden's VP,  my understanding is he would be able to serve as president for an additional 2 years if something were to happen to Biden. I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet:

    "
    president is limited to serving for 10 yearsin office. He or she can only be elected to two full terms according to the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. However, if an individual becomes president through the order of succession, then they are allowed to serve an additional two years."
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,500
    edited March 12
    Post edited by Hi! on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,967
    benjs said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 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. 
    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


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    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.

    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...
    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...
    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.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

    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. 

    It seems far fetched that Obama would want to return to the executive branch, but if he was to become Biden's VP,  my understanding is he would be able to serve as president for an additional 2 years if something were to happen to Biden. I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet:

    "
    president is limited to serving for 10 yearsin office. He or she can only be elected to two full terms according to the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. However, if an individual becomes president through the order of succession, then they are allowed to serve an additional two years."
    I don't think that second sentence is right.  It's not in the amendment.  I think they are taking one piece of it out of context.  The amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once".  

    I don't read that a person maxes at 10 years, it means that if you become President by order of succession, and there is more than 2 years left in that term, you can only be elected once more.  A great example is Johnson, who became President in '63, deep into Kennedy's term.  He could be elected twice more.  If Kennedy were killed in '61, then only once more.  So Obama could become president by order of succession regardless of when it took place in a term, but could never be elected again period. 
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,734
    mrussel1 said:
    benjs said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 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. 
    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


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    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.

    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...
    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...
    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.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

    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. 

    It seems far fetched that Obama would want to return to the executive branch, but if he was to become Biden's VP,  my understanding is he would be able to serve as president for an additional 2 years if something were to happen to Biden. I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet:

    "
    president is limited to serving for 10 yearsin office. He or she can only be elected to two full terms according to the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. However, if an individual becomes president through the order of succession, then they are allowed to serve an additional two years."
    I don't think that second sentence is right.  It's not in the amendment.  I think they are taking one piece of it out of context.  The amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once".  

    I don't read that a person maxes at 10 years, it means that if you become President by order of succession, and there is more than 2 years left in that term, you can only be elected once more.  A great example is Johnson, who became President in '63, deep into Kennedy's term.  He could be elected twice more.  If Kennedy were killed in '61, then only once more.  So Obama could become president by order of succession regardless of when it took place in a term, but could never be elected again period. 
    Yup, that’s why Johnson waited to have him killed. 




    ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,855
    mrussel1 said:
    benjs said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 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. 
    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


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    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.

    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...
    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...
    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.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

    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. 

    It seems far fetched that Obama would want to return to the executive branch, but if he was to become Biden's VP,  my understanding is he would be able to serve as president for an additional 2 years if something were to happen to Biden. I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet:

    "
    president is limited to serving for 10 yearsin office. He or she can only be elected to two full terms according to the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. However, if an individual becomes president through the order of succession, then they are allowed to serve an additional two years."
    I don't think that second sentence is right.  It's not in the amendment.  I think they are taking one piece of it out of context.  The amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once".  

    I don't read that a person maxes at 10 years, it means that if you become President by order of succession, and there is more than 2 years left in that term, you can only be elected once more.  A great example is Johnson, who became President in '63, deep into Kennedy's term.  He could be elected twice more.  If Kennedy were killed in '61, then only once more.  So Obama could become president by order of succession regardless of when it took place in a term, but could never be elected again period. 
    Thanks for teaching me something new - I need to brush up on my Constitution/Amendments clearly. In any case, unlike what was suggested before, it seems the Constitution yet again clearly defines what to do in this hypothetical and unlikely situation. 
    '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 1
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,500
    So let’s do Carter/ Obama 2020. Carter resigns with two years left, then Obama becomes President naming Bill Clinton as his vp. Obama resigns with one year remaining. Clinton takes over with one year remaining, naming Biden as vp. 2024 election we have Biden run for President with Obama in the vp spot.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,967
    Hi! said:
    So let’s do Carter/ Obama 2020. Carter resigns with two years left, then Obama becomes President naming Bill Clinton as his vp. Obama resigns with one year remaining. Clinton takes over with one year remaining, naming Biden as vp. 2024 election we have Biden run for President with Obama in the vp spot.
    All that would have worked, except you don't get to name your VP after the election.  But I like where your head is!! 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,967
    mrussel1 said:
    benjs said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 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. 
    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


    Obama served his 2 terms, time to move on.  All politicians should be placed on term limits...ALL
    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.

    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...
    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...
    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.

    But that's kiind of off topic in this thread. 

    BERNIE 2020
    Seems to me there are two clear outcomes to this hypothetical and implausible situation.

    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. 

    It seems far fetched that Obama would want to return to the executive branch, but if he was to become Biden's VP,  my understanding is he would be able to serve as president for an additional 2 years if something were to happen to Biden. I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet:

    "
    president is limited to serving for 10 yearsin office. He or she can only be elected to two full terms according to the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. However, if an individual becomes president through the order of succession, then they are allowed to serve an additional two years."
    I don't think that second sentence is right.  It's not in the amendment.  I think they are taking one piece of it out of context.  The amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once".  

    I don't read that a person maxes at 10 years, it means that if you become President by order of succession, and there is more than 2 years left in that term, you can only be elected once more.  A great example is Johnson, who became President in '63, deep into Kennedy's term.  He could be elected twice more.  If Kennedy were killed in '61, then only once more.  So Obama could become president by order of succession regardless of when it took place in a term, but could never be elected again period. 
    Yup, that’s why Johnson waited to have him killed. 




    ;)
    Johnson was a commie?
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,500
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    So let’s do Carter/ Obama 2020. Carter resigns with two years left, then Obama becomes President naming Bill Clinton as his vp. Obama resigns with one year remaining. Clinton takes over with one year remaining, naming Biden as vp. 2024 election we have Biden run for President with Obama in the vp spot.
    All that would have worked, except you don't get to name your VP after the election.  But I like where your head is!! 
    I was wondering about that. How is vp picked during a transition of power when the president dies, resigns, or whatever?
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,500
    Hi! said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    So let’s do Carter/ Obama 2020. Carter resigns with two years left, then Obama becomes President naming Bill Clinton as his vp. Obama resigns with one year remaining. Clinton takes over with one year remaining, naming Biden as vp. 2024 election we have Biden run for President with Obama in the vp spot.
    All that would have worked, except you don't get to name your VP after the election.  But I like where your head is!! 
    I was wondering about that. How is vp picked during a transition of power when the president dies, resigns, or whatever?
    If the vp becomes president then he picks his vp with congressional approval, so I believe my scenario would be doable.
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,500
    Beto/Abrams 2020
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 13,967
    Hi! said:
    Hi! said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    So let’s do Carter/ Obama 2020. Carter resigns with two years left, then Obama becomes President naming Bill Clinton as his vp. Obama resigns with one year remaining. Clinton takes over with one year remaining, naming Biden as vp. 2024 election we have Biden run for President with Obama in the vp spot.
    All that would have worked, except you don't get to name your VP after the election.  But I like where your head is!! 
    I was wondering about that. How is vp picked during a transition of power when the president dies, resigns, or whatever?
    If the vp becomes president then he picks his vp with congressional approval, so I believe my scenario would be doable.
    Good research. I didn't know that.  Said that they need the majority of both chambers.  Evidently Rockefeller went through that.  
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,431
    Interesting article covering how the 9 Dem candidates at SXSW presented and what sort of reception they got.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47504477
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,759
    edited March 12
    Hi! said:
    Hi! said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hi! said:
    So let’s do Carter/ Obama 2020. Carter resigns with two years left, then Obama becomes President naming Bill Clinton as his vp. Obama resigns with one year remaining. Clinton takes over with one year remaining, naming Biden as vp. 2024 election we have Biden run for President with Obama in the vp spot.
    All that would have worked, except you don't get to name your VP after the election.  But I like where your head is!! 
    I was wondering about that. How is vp picked during a transition of power when the president dies, resigns, or whatever?
    If the vp becomes president then he picks his vp with congressional approval, so I believe my scenario would be doable.
    Yes.... though Biden will be 81 years old by then. He looks pretty young, but he's not. I think it's now or never for Biden! And for Bernie. And for Warren.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,500

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3141334002
    I wonder if Biden would pardon Trump. If that scenario is even possible.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,939
    mrussel1 said:
    I'm not laughing...I believe he can win. 
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,855
    BS44325 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I'm not laughing...I believe he can win. 
    I'm curious to hear - if you believe he can win, do you believe this is just the next pendulum swing and part of the typical cycle, or do you see this as a move to the left (or none of the above)?
    '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 1
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,939
    benjs said:
    BS44325 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I'm not laughing...I believe he can win. 
    I'm curious to hear - if you believe he can win, do you believe this is just the next pendulum swing and part of the typical cycle, or do you see this as a move to the left (or none of the above)?
    Not part of the cycle per se because generally the incumbent candidate wins. Bush 41 was an exception in a three person race. Trump has that advantage built in as much as people here don't want to admit it. That being said I have written previously that Trump had to thread a needle last time and will have to thread the very same needle again which will not be easy to do. I don't think he'll pick up another state that he didn't win before. New Hampshire is a maybe but I think Bernie blocks him there. So It is essentially a battle for Wisconsin no matter who the Democratic candidate is. That means if Bernie can win the nomination (which I think he will based on the current field) then he can win the general.
This discussion has been closed.