Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

It's true that if VP Harris assumed the Presidency less than two years into her term as VP, then she would be eligible to run for election to the office of President twice, for a potential 10 years and a day (or more). That's according to the 22nd Amendment: "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."

The "conspiracy theory" is that Harris (and various Dem supporters, with or without the connivance of President Biden) have plotted and agreed that Biden will step-down/die/be declared gaga on or before Harris has served the two years as VP.

I doubt Biden has agreed to die. So that would be without his connivance. Presumably. Not so sure about gaga.

It's not much of a conspiracy since it's Constitutional, possibly useful and the putative two further terms are subject to the will of the USian voter. Neither Harris nor anybody else is likely to be wanted around after 6 years plus of presidenting.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Crackpot »

Unless they are doing a pretty good job.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Crackpot »

If it’s planned it would be a conspiracy even if it’s legal. The real thing is such a plan would only be surpassed in its bad faith and evil intent by its sheer stupidity.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:08 pm
It's true that if VP Harris assumed the Presidency less than two years into her term as VP, then she would be eligible to run for election to the office of President twice, for a potential 10 years and a day (or more).
The gist of your argument is correct, Meade except that you have that bit backwards. If she assumes the Presidency more than two years into her term - i.e., Biden is declared gaga after 12 noon on January 21, 2022 - then she could run in 2024 and 2028. That's why LBJ could have decided to run in 1968, and if he had done and won, he would have served just over 9 years as president.

Interestingly, Johnson died on Jan 22 1973; had he run and won in 1968 he would have expired one day after his successor was inaugurated. Other things being equal - and of course they are not - his failing health in 1972 might have meant that he would have resigned the presidency and his VP - HHH (???) - would have taken over under the 25th Amendment. Nixon against President Humphrey in 1972 would have been interesting.

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Jarlaxle »

Crackpot wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:40 pm
If it’s planned it would be a conspiracy even if it’s legal. The real thing is such a plan would only be surpassed in its bad faith and evil intent by its sheer stupidity.
Not that level of planning...just wanting to keep Biden propped up until AFTER 1/21/23.

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Jarlaxle »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:08 pm

It's not much of a conspiracy since it's Constitutional, possibly useful and the putative two further terms are subject to the will of the USian voter. Neither Harris nor anybody else is likely to be wanted around after 6 years plus of presidenting.
Offhand, I can think of two presidents just in my lifetime (Reagan & Clinton) who would likely have won third terms had they been able to run.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Crackpot »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 3:12 pm
Crackpot wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:40 pm
If it’s planned it would be a conspiracy even if it’s legal. The real thing is such a plan would only be surpassed in its bad faith and evil intent by its sheer stupidity.
Not that level of planning...just wanting to keep Biden propped up until AFTER 1/21/23.
Why?! What purpose would it serve? If he isn’t run things the way they should be run getting him out ASAP would better your election chances. And if he is running things the way you want why not have him run point at least into a second term? There is just no rational reason for it. Every conceivable “pro” of a death in office comes with just as many if not more “cons” especially if you are not planning on orchestrating it to maximize your position.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Scooter »

It's just an extension of the Trumptard narrative that Biden is too senile to actually be running things, and Harris is behind the scenes pulling the strings. You're expecting that anything they say to actually make sense?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Jarlaxle »

Crackpot wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 3:45 pm

Why?! What purpose would it serve? If he isn’t run things the way they should be run getting him out ASAP would better your election chances. And if he is running things the way you want why not have him run point at least into a second term? There is just no rational reason for it. Every conceivable “pro” of a death in office comes with just as many if not more “cons” especially if you are not planning on orchestrating it to maximize your position.
Nobody but you has mentioned Biden dying in office.

I can explain it to you...but I cannot understand it for you.

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Jarlaxle »

Scooter wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:11 pm
It's just an extension of the Trumptard narrative that Biden is too senile to actually be running things, and Harris is behind the scenes pulling the strings. You're expecting that anything they say to actually make sense?
OK, now you're just making shit up, considering I never actually said that.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Scooter »

Your "Slow Joe" comment and the "prediction" about Harris becoming president midway through the term fits into that narrative.

As to making shit up, that certainly describes said "prediction".

You're sounding awfully cranky. Has your wife been withholding sex again?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Bicycle Bill »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:02 pm
Interestingly, Johnson died on Jan 22 1973; had he run and won in 1968 he would have expired one day after his successor was inaugurated. Other things being equal - and of course they are not - his failing health in 1972 might have meant that he would have resigned the presidency and his VP - HHH (???) - would have taken over under the 25th Amendment. Nixon against President Humphrey in 1972 would have been interesting.
Boy, that's a whole bunch of 'what-ifs' you've piled up there... starting with
  • 1) "what if Johnson had run again in 1968?" — and then, if that were a 'yes', assuming that he'd have
    2) stayed with Humphrey as his Veep and
    3) been able to hold off Nixon (or if not Nixon, whoever the Republicans would have thrown up against a Johnson/whoever ticket).
Then you're asking that
  • 4) Johnson step down in favor of Humphrey and in sufficient time for Humphrey to do something other than just hold the reins until the 1972 election,
    5) the Dems go with the incumbent Humphrey, and
    6) the Repubs then throw Nixon up against him.
And remember, that if Humphrey HAD defeated Nixon in '68 that would have made Nixon a two-time loser when it came time for the Presidential sweepstakes in 1972.  I think the Repubs would have passed him over for someone else at that point.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Econoline »

Scooter wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:38 pm
Your "Slow Joe" comment and the "prediction" about Harris becoming president midway through the term fits into that narrative.
Plus your use of the the phrase "wanting to keep Biden propped up" shows that you believe Biden can't function as POTUS without somebody (who? Harris??? the usual mysterious "them"???) propping him up.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Crackpot »

I think he’s hinting about Joe abdicating his office. It may be possible but is an incredibly stupid gambit to play.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

"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 need a smart person to tell me how that translates to "if Harris is VP for MORE THAN 2 years before assuming the Presidency, then she is eligible to run for another two terms"

NO person (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 . . . shall be ELECTED more than once.

If the "conspiracy" existed, then the conspirators want Joe OUT and Harris IN before either have been in office for two years or more. So January 19, 2023 is the deadline for Harris to do a double-dip. After that, she will have served as VP for more than 2 years and can only run once.

:shrug
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Bicycle Bill »

You've got it backwards, Meade.  If Harris remains as VP until 19 January 2023 she is not 'holding the office of President ... or acting as President' per the 22nd Amendment; she is merely holding her own office as VICE-President.

But the easier way to think of the Presidential tenure is — ten years at a time, max (no more than two years of their predecessor's term, plus two four-year terms of their own).  I presume that if someone were to be elected to non-consecutive terms, as was the case with Grover Cleveland, the clock would reset back to 'zero' with the start of the second non-consecutive term... however, Cleveland notwithstanding, I doubt that we will ever see someone elected to non-consecutive terms again.  I don't think even Trump, with all his whack-job supporters and the vast financial resources he seems to be able to conjure up out of thin air, would be able to pull it off in 2024.

So if Biden resigns/dies/is determined "by two-thirds vote of both Houses that [he] is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and removed under provisions of Section Four pf the 25th Amendment (and just think how difficult that would be!) BEFORE 19 January 2023, then you are correct because Harris would be is assuming the office of POTUS for more than two years, and can only run for election on her own in 2024.  But if Harris were to take over as POTUS, for any reason, AT ANY TIME AFTER THAT, she is good to run for election as the incumbent in November 2024, as well as (assuming she would win that election) again in 2028, and be able to hold office until Inauguration Day in January 2033.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Yes, I remain seated but corrected.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Big RR »

BB--the 22nd amendment is pretty clear that no person may be elected more than twice to the office of president, and provides for the more/less than two years of a dying/resigning president's term. Nonconsecutive terms should likely not make any difference to the maximum.

A more interesting wrinkle is whether a two term president (like Obama or W) could run as VP; I would think so (there is nothing I see which would bar it), but I doubt they could become president if they were elected and the running mate died (the presidency would then go to the Speaker of the House); however, what if the term interruption occurred after 2 years into the term? Under the amendment, the two term president would have been entitled to the presidency for the tenure of the remainder of the term plus 8 more years (if (s)her were elected), so why couldn't (s)he become president for that less than two years now? The amendment is a bit unclear regarding this possibility (I guess we could look to the legislative history), so I am not certain. It would be an interesting discussion, but I'd lean toward not permitting him/her to take the office.

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Big RR, I would tend to disagree.  To use your example, let's say Obama had served his two terms, then ran as Hillary's VP running mate.  In a perfect world she would have kicked Trump's ass and been inaugurated in January 2017.  AT THAT POINT Obama's eight-year term as POTUS would have ended and he would have taken over his new role as Vice-President.

Now, let's say something would have happened to Hillary.  Per the order of succession in Section 1 of the 25th Amendment, Obama would immediately assume the presidency (as the Amendment is written, I see nothing that says he could not do this,despite having already served as POTUS).

NOW we go back to Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment which says, in so many words, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."   I would assume there would be some who would say that this means that, since he had already been elected twice (in 2008 and 2012), he is precluded from running again, but there are others (like myself) who feel that the clock resets once someone leaves office — otherwise we have a lame-duck in office and gridlock in the halls of government, since everyone already knows that he/she will be replaced as part of the next election cycle.

This would undoubtedly end up in front of the SCOTUS, who would then have to deliver the definitive interpretation.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Universal health care would get these fruitcakes the psychiatric help they so desperately need

Post by Big RR »

BB--while I do not agree with your analysis, it is a bit murky and I agree the Supreme Court would have to decide it. It could be interesting to see the analysis; key to it would be the legislative history and whether this was addressed during the debate.

But let me throw you another hypothetical: Obama becomes the Speaker of the House after his two terms and the president and VP are killed. Could he assume the presidency? Under your analysis, I would guess so, but is the Speaker elected to the Office? I think the 22nd amendment treats a VP as being elected since it provides specifically for assumption of less than half the term as an exception to the elected to more than two terms, but what about the Speaker (or anyone else in the line of succession)?

ETA: one other thing to add to your VP analysis, the 12th amendment says that no one ineligible to be president may run for VP; this makes it questionable if a two term president could even run as a VP candidate.

Post Reply