October 30Oct 30 11 hours ago, DBW said:Illegal fireworks.See the reason we use coast guard is because there are laws, they need to board and identify the people on the boats when they stop them. Not just kill people And try to identify remains later. International laws exist for a reason and your boy is committing cold blooded murder. Think about that for a second and how would you explain that you’re ok with it to your kids. It’s a Sick, demented act.You are talking to the most edgy little guy around though!
October 30Oct 30 8 hours ago, vikas83 said:You should really consider being less poor.I know that's your bit but it's also my point. How many people in here actually were hot and bothered over the price of eggs? But there's pages upon pages of bishing about it.
October 30Oct 30 35 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:I know that's your bit but it's also my point. How many people in here actually were hot and bothered over the price of eggs? But there's pages upon pages of bishing about it.eggs were just a focal point of contention on a broader issue. everything is higher.
October 30Oct 30 1 hour ago, DBW said:Yeah I mean doesn’t the fact that he’s been elected to two terms therefore make him constitutionally ineligible to be elected again? That’s the two term limit. So he’s not eligible to be president and therefore cannot be elected as VP and take over. That seems pretty clear to me and this whole discussion is like a cows opinion, it’s moo.This post highlights the distinction that you’re missing in Vikas’ point. The constitution establishes 2 sets of criteria - 1 to hold the office of president and 1 to be elected as president. The only requirement for being elected as vice president is that a person meet the criteria for holding the office of president. And if the vice president meets that criteria, there is nothing to prevent them from taking over as president since they would not be elected to that position. So the 2nd set of criteria is irrelevant. I don’t know the details of the constitution, but I haven’t seen any argument or reference to language in the constitution that would refute Vikas’ point. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court i think it is likely that they would rule in favor of the law as written rather than in the spirit or intent of the laws to appease Dear Leader.
October 30Oct 30 12 hours ago, DBW said:Speedboats that would take 3 days running non stop at 70mph and would require 2 or more refuels to reach the US from even the closest point in Venezuela. The boats can’t carry enough fuel For that along with the drugs and people. It’s all a show.No use brother, they will pass the daily loyalty test with flying colors. Dehumanizing murder and having them clap at these atrocities is part of the long game. They are all in.
October 30Oct 30 36 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:eggs were just a focal point of contention on a broader issue. everything is higher.Yeah but nice crap is way, way higher but the media acts like prudes and doesn't talk about that. I have a specialty market a block away walk in and grab some some pricey but nice stuff, obviously a lot of the stuff is from Europe and it all skyrocketed.
October 30Oct 30 The thing with the constitution is that it’s not wordy. So there’s a whole lot of interpretation that needs to be done. When the amendment was drafted and passed, what was the intent?Was the intent to be narrowly focused on an election, or was it broader.
October 30Oct 30 4 hours ago, Bill said:I think this is one of those letter of the law vs. spirit of the law things.2 hours ago, DBW said:Yeah I mean doesn’t the fact that he’s been elected to two terms therefore make him constitutionally ineligible to be elected again? That’s the two term limit. So he’s not eligible to be president and therefore cannot be elected as VP and take over. That seems pretty clear to me and this whole discussion is like a cows opinion, it’s moo.The problem is when dealing with the law, intent or spirit of the law only comes into play when there is ambiguity in the language. There is none here. The 22nd Amendment clearly says "elected," while the 12th refers to Constitutional eligibility, which at the time the Amendment was passed, was being 35 and a natural born citizen. If the intent was to say no person may serve as President for more than 10 years, then the drafters of the 22nd should have said that.At the end of the day, the Constitution is a contract and this is how contract law works. It's black and white -- he can't be elected, but he CAN serve. What if Obama was speaker - he would be 3rd in line and would assume the Presidency if both the President and VP resigned/died. And there's no prohibition on who can be speaker. So make Trump speaker, run Vance/Don Jr., and then they both resign. Boom - Trump's the President again.The issue is the Constitution assumes a basic decency level among elected officials. They never considered someone who wouldn't have that.
October 30Oct 30 1 hour ago, Bill said:The thing with the constitution is that it’s not wordy. So there’s a whole lot of interpretation that needs to be done.When the amendment was drafted and passed, what was the intent?Was the intent to be narrowly focused on an election, or was it broader.Look at THIS court and how they rule -- they do not infer intent in the words, but are textualists.This will be 6-3 in Trump's favor.
October 30Oct 30 1 hour ago, vikas83 said:Look at THIS court and how they rule -- they do not infer intent in the words, but are textualists.This will be 6-3 in Trump's favor.I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who is rational and reasonable. I get where you’re going on this, and I get where we’re headed.
October 30Oct 30 3 hours ago, Imp81318 said:This post highlights the distinction that you’re missing in Vikas’ point. The constitution establishes 2 sets of criteria - 1 to hold the office of president and 1 to be elected as president. The only requirement for being elected as vice president is that a person meet the criteria for holding the office of president. And if the vice president meets that criteria, there is nothing to prevent them from taking over as president since they would not be elected to that position. So the 2nd set of criteria is irrelevant.I don’t know the details of the constitution, but I haven’t seen any argument or reference to language in the constitution that would refute Vikas’ point. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court i think it is likely that they would rule in favor of the law as written rather than in the spirit or intent of the laws to appease Dear Leader.It’s a twist of logic that I thought only a cult member would try, but I guess I was wrong. Trump even finally admitted that he can not. Has the last sentence of 12A been mentioned in this twist of logic? "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
October 30Oct 30 6 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:It’s a twist of logic that I thought only a cult member would try, but I guess I was wrong. Trump even finally admitted that he can not.Has the last sentence of 12A been mentioned in this twist of logic?"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”Which of the criteria for serving as president does Trump not meet?
October 30Oct 30 Kennedy says data is insufficient to show Tylenol causes autismyou f'ng morons fall for it, every .......single.......time. 🤣
October 30Oct 30 Not that anything wind surprise me at this point but I seriously doubt he tries the VP swap thing. I think it would be much more likely he tries to act as a "special advisor" in some capacity and essentially pulls the puppet strings behind the scene in exchange for being "kingmaker". Easier to do, essentially the same endgame. Plus the right gets to pull a false equivalent "both sides" for any time Obama made any kind of contribution to Biden or other campaigns. Their favorite move.
October 30Oct 30 32 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:Not that anything wind surprise me at this point but I seriously doubt he tries the VP swap thing. I think it would be much more likely he tries to act as a "special advisor" in some capacity and essentially pulls the puppet strings behind the scene in exchange for being "kingmaker". Easier to do, essentially the same endgame. Plus the right gets to pull a false equivalent "both sides" for any time Obama made any kind of contribution to Biden or other campaigns. Their favorite move.That's definitely easier, but it doesn't assuage Donnie's gargantuan ego. And that's really all this Presidency is about.
October 30Oct 30 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/snap-cuts-are-likely-to-harm-more-than-27000-retailers-nationwide/I made this point earlier but I didn't provide numbers. There's other good data in this but this is one of the bigger points:"SNAP is a lifeline for rural economies and small grocersCuts to food assistance will have strong negative impacts on families’ budgets and will lead to decreases in spending on food and other household goods, causing ripple effects for communities’ local economies. In rural areas, $1 of SNAP spending generates roughly $1.50 in local economic activity during recessions. Prior research also demonstrates that SNAP dollars have a larger relative positive impact on rural economies by increasing employment and economic output than it does for urban economies."That $1.50 of economic per $1 spent on SNAP is actually relatively conservative too, I've seen in as high as $1.80 but the data didn't seem as robust. And again it disproportionately boosts rural economies more than urban ones. So even if you ignore entirely the social/personal/moral grounds of the argument, SNAP is an incredibly effective government subsidy.
October 30Oct 30 1 hour ago, Imp81318 said:Which of the criteria for serving as president does Trump not meet?Is this a serious question? Just stop.
October 30Oct 30 4 hours ago, vikas83 said:The problem is when dealing with the law, intent or spirit of the law only comes into play when there is ambiguity in the language. There is none here. The 22nd Amendment clearly says "elected," while the 12th refers to Constitutional eligibility, which at the time the Amendment was passed, was being 35 and a natural born citizen. If the intent was to say no person may serve as President for more than 10 years, then the drafters of the 22nd should have said that.At the end of the day, the Constitution is a contract and this is how contract law works. It's black and white -- he can't be elected, but he CAN serve. What if Obama was speaker - he would be 3rd in line and would assume the Presidency if both the President and VP resigned/died. And there's no prohibition on who can be speaker. So make Trump speaker, run Vance/Don Jr., and then they both resign. Boom - Trump's the President again.The issue is the Constitution assumes a basic decency level among elected officials. They never considered someone who wouldn't have that.As part of the 12th amendment we elect VPs. He can't be elected as VP.
October 30Oct 30 4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:As part of the 12th amendment we elect VPs. He can't be elected as VP.I mean, he literally can. He meets the Constitutional requirements to be President. Again, this really isn't even a close call.
October 30Oct 30 6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:I mean, he literally can. He meets the Constitutional requirements to be President. Again, this really isn't even a close call.You're arguing that eligibility is limited to being 35 years old and a natural born citizen. I believe the 22nd amendment added additional eligibility requirements. I read constitutional requirements as being not having already served two terms or their equivalent.
October 30Oct 30 24 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:Vikas must be e-mailing with Jonathan Turley or somethingThey have to be trolling, I feel dumber for entertaining them at all on this issue.
October 30Oct 30 2 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:Is this a serious question? Just stop.Yes because you continue to miss the point. Here is the language that sets the criteria for holding the office of President:No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United StatesWhich of those criteria would not be met?
Create an account or sign in to comment