Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Options
1…6768707273…331

Comments

  • Options
    #2072
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ChelseaRentBoy wrote: »
    How can that happen? I thought once a president serves two terms he can't run again even as VP. If Clinton died as president (not that she'd have any chance of winning) Obama couldn't step in as president then.

    You can only be ELECTED as president twice. The intention when the was created after roosevelt was that nobody could serve as president more than twice but the way it was written leaves it slightly open for somebody to be elected as vice president and then become president if the president died. Not that obama would ever consider it


  • Options
    #2073
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Oh no! Please, no! I’m hearing some reports of the democrats possible Plan B without Biden. Hillary Clinton running as President with VP running mate Barack Obama. Dear gawd... just take me now.

    You know what those “reports” are? Stupid. You should know well that they’re a load of pony. But you post them for some more sensationalism.

    Barack Obama can’t run as a VP candidate, it isn’t legal. He can’t serve another term as president.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #2074
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    Speaking of Media hypocrisy I’m sure you have seen all those Fox News outrage videos about Obama from getting outraged about playing golf to pandering to world dictators. If you didn’t know which side of the fence they said on you would bet your mortgage on it being Trump they are talking about. Now that is hypocrisy in a nut shell.

    So if you are going to blame some parts of the media for hypocrisy you would do well to include your own dear media in that hypocrisy also.

    Did to mean to tag someone else? I've always said FoxNews is biased to the Right on their Opinion Shows.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2075
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Brian? wrote: »
    You know what those “reports” are? Stupid. You should know well that they’re a load of pony. But you post them for some more sensationalism.

    Barack Obama can’t run as a VP candidate, it isn’t legal. He can’t serve another term as president.

    Yes he can run as a VP candidate. He can't run for President. Harry Truman became president shortly after Roosevelt died early in his fourth term. Truman then won the election for president afterward. He could have run again as he was only elected once for president but chose not to.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2076
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Yes he can run as a VP candidate. He can't run for President. Harry Truman became president shortly after Roosevelt died early in his fourth term. Truman then won the election for president afterward. He could have run again as he was only elected once for president but chose not to.
    he could run again because he was the incumbent when the 22 amendment was proposed. if the 22 amendment had existed prior to him becoming president then he would not have been eligible. he was wildly unpopular by that stage so he wasnt going to run again anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2077
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    he could run again because he was the incumbent when the 22 amendment was proposed. if the 22 amendment had existed prior to him becoming president then he would not have been eligible. he was wildly unpopular by that stage so he wasnt going to run again anyway.
    The wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t say that no one can be President for more than two terms, it only states that no one can be elected President more than twice.
    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.

    Of course there would be a legal challenge to the interpretation, as Republicans would argue he isn’t eligible to run for president and democrats would argue he is. It would ultimately be decided by the judicial branch (SCOTUS) of the US government. But the courts have consistently ruled in favor of election laws challenges in favor of allowing someone to run, seemingly for the 'good of the people.' And it’s Barack Obama we’re talking about... Not allowing him to run for VP would be considered a racist act. :rolleyes:

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2078
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t say that no one can be President for more than two terms, it only states that no one can be elected President more than twice.


    Of course there would be a legal challenge to the interpretation, as Republicans would argue he isn’t eligible to run for president and democrats would argue he is. It would ultimately be decided by the judicial branch (SCOTUS) of the US government. But the courts have consistently ruled in favor of election laws challenges in favor of allowing someone to run, seemingly for the 'good of the people.' And it’s Barack Obama we’re talking about... Not allowing him to run for VP would be considered a racist act. :rolleyes:

    He isn't running as VP. Not now, not ever. You need to move on and find a new angle of attack.

    I stand by what I said: it isn't legal. The SCOTUS would agree if went there.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #2079
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    For a guy who complains about opinion pieces, it's amusing to see obtuse referring to an opinion pieces as a statement of fact.


  • Options
    #2080
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The wording of the 22nd Amendment doesn’t say that no one can be President for more than two terms, it only states that no one can be elected President more than twice.


    you need to read the full text. truman served more than 2 years of the term that FDR was elected to. that counts as one term for Truman. His election counts as the second term. You shouldn't need to a foreigner to explain your constitution to you.
    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.


  • Options
    #2081
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Brian? wrote: »
    He isn't running as VP. Not now, not ever. You need to move on and find a new angle of attack.
    I doubt it would happen, also, but only because of the ginormous egos of both Obama and Clinton. The only way I’d see it happening if there was some sort of unwritten agreement between the two that Hillary would be president for two years, then resign because of ‘health issues,’ allowing Obama to reign as president for the last two years of the term.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2082
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you need to read the full text. truman served more than 2 years of the term that FDR was elected to. that counts as one term for Truman. His election counts as the second term. You shouldn't need to a foreigner to explain your constitution to you.
    After Roosevelt died in 1945, momentum built quickly for a presidential term-limits amendment. But even after the 22nd Amendment was ratified, two Presidents held aspirations of a third term within the amendment’s limitations. Harry Truman was President when the amendment was proposed and ratified, and its language allowed for Truman to run for office in 1952. But a loss in the New Hampshire primary led to Truman’s withdrawal from the race.


    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-we-wound-up-with-the-constitutions-only-term-limits-amendment

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2083
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-we-wound-up-with-the-constitutions-only-term-limits-amendment

    you are just repeating back what i already told you. can you carify which part of my original reply to you is incorrect?
    he could run again because he was the incumbent when the 22 amendment was proposed. if the 22 amendment had existed prior to him becoming president then he would not have been eligible. he was wildly unpopular by that stage so he wasnt going to run again anyway.


  • Options
    #2084
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you are just repeating back what i already told you. can you carify which part of my original reply to you is incorrect?
    Are you saying Truman was or wasn't allowed to run for that second presidential election, when he lost in that early primary, and decided to drop out? If you think he could have run and won a second election for presidency (fulfilling Roosevelt's term, won election, and won a second election... essentially allowing him to be president for almost 12 years), then I guess we both agree.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2085
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Are you saying Truman was or wasn't allowed to run for that second presidential election, when he lost in that early primary, and decided to drop out? If you think he could have run and won a second election for presidency (fulfilling Roosevelt's term, won election, and won a second election... essentially allowing him to be president for almost 12 years), then I guess we both agree.

    i have already said he was allowed to run. twice. you kept disagreeing with me


  • Options
    #2086
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i have already said he was allowed to run. twice. you kept disagreeing with me
    Then I'm confused, because I also said Truman was allowed to run for a second election for president. So why are you challenging me?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2087
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    Sensationalism and distraction abound.
    - Hilary Clinton is not running
    - Barack Obama is not running

    Joe Biden is the presumed Democrat nominee.

    I think the democrat voters are so motivated by "anyone but Trump" and "blue no matter who" that Trump will get beaten this year (royally beaten if you will, considering the title of this thread ahahahahaha).

    But! There can be no resting on their laurels. Democrats need to get out and vote!


  • Options
    #2088
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    amdublin wrote: »
    Sensationalism and distraction abound.
    - Hilary Clinton is not running
    - Barack Obama is not running
    And there was no way Trump was gonna win the 2016 election?
    Joe Biden is the presumed Democrat nominee.
    Please... From your mouth to God's ear. ;)
    I think the democrat voters are so motivated by "anyone but Trump" and "blue no matter who" that Trump will get beaten this year (royally beaten if you will, considering the title of this thread ahahahahaha).

    But! There can be no resting on their laurels. Democrats need to get out and vote!
    Democrats were motivated last time by 'anyone but Trump' and 'blue no matter who' but where did that get them? Turn out still was low (Michelle Obama is still insulted over that... how could they do that to Barack and all he had done for those peons!). Democrat's enthusiasm is down the crapper with Biden. Only way I see it improving is with the VP pick he'll make. And if that pick is Warren, I think that will make the far left happy but he'll see big money donations dry up.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2089
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,638 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    amdublin wrote: »
    Sensationalism and distraction abound.
    - Hilary Clinton is not running
    - Barack Obama is not running

    Joe Biden is the presumed Democrat nominee.

    I think the democrat voters are so motivated by "anyone but Trump" and "blue no matter who" that Trump will get beaten this year (royally beaten if you will, considering the title of this thread ahahahahaha).

    But! There can be no resting on their laurels. Democrats need to get out and vote!

    The ONLY places that there are suggestions of Biden being replaced or whatever are from Republican sources designed to make it look like the Democrats are divided. There's not a single Democrat spokesperson or surrogate saying a thing about Biden not running.

    It's all part of the same playbook the GOP used in 2016.
    • Make claims about the Candidates health (Biden has dementia , Hillary only had months to live - DNC desperately looking for an alternative candidate)
    • Make claims about the Candidates Corruption (Biden & Ukraine , Hillary and the Clinton foundation)
    • Make claims about the Candidates sexual impropriety (Biden and Reade , Hilary and her cover up/support for Bill)

    The latest one about Clinton and Obama is a comment from a Republican Strategist about a "maybe,possible, outside the box solurtion for a worst case scenario if Biden had to stand down" - Gets a double tick in the playbook checklist as he doesn't clarify if it'll be the alleged Sexual assault or the Dementia that would take Biden out.


  • Options
    #2090
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    The ONLY places that there are suggestions of Biden being replaced or whatever are from Republican sources designed to make it look like the Democrats are divided. There's not a single Democrat spokesperson or surrogate saying a thing about Biden not running.

    It's all part of the same playbook the GOP used in 2016.
    • Make claims about the Candidates health (Biden has dementia , Hillary only had months to live - DNC desperately looking for an alternative candidate)
    • Make claims about the Candidates Corruption (Biden & Ukraine , Hillary and the Clinton foundation)
    • Make claims about the Candidates sexual impropriety (Biden and Reade , Hilary and her cover up/support for Bill)

    The latest one about Clinton and Obama is a comment from a Republican Strategist about a "maybe,possible, outside the box solurtion for a worst case scenario if Biden had to stand down" - Gets a double tick in the playbook checklist as he doesn't clarify if it'll be the alleged Sexual assault or the Dementia that would take Biden out.
    Democrats, It’s Time to Consider a Plan B

    Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden demand action.

    To preserve the strides made on behalf of victims of sexual assault in the era of #MeToo, and to maximize their chances in November, Democrats need to begin formulating an alternative strategy for 2020 — one that does not include Mr. Biden.

    Dear lord, when did the NY Times become an extension of the Republican party? Dammit... Nobody tells me nothing.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/joe-biden-tara-reade.html

    And of course it would be Republicans strategists talking out loud about going into the general election without Biden and instead go with a surefire ticket of Clinton/Obama to retake those key battleground states of PA, WI, MI. Democrats and their media allies can’t openly show division from the prime directive.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2091
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    notobtuse wrote: »
    .....

    Democrats were motivated last time by 'anyone but Trump' and 'blue no matter who' but where did that get them? Turn out still was low (Michelle Obama is still insulted over that... how could they do that to Barack and all he had done for those peons!). .......

    ????

    They were NOT motivated enough clearly (I.e. turnout).

    Times are VERY different now notobtuse ;)



    Ps. No idea why/what you are waffling on about the Obamas above


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2092
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    amdublin wrote: »
    ????

    They were NOT motivated enough clearly (I.e. turnout).

    Times are VERY different now notobtuse ;)



    Ps. No idea why/what you are waffling on about the Obamas above
    No idea... perhaps because this is a political discussion regarding the election and the Obama's still try to remain relevant in the matter? The Obama’s are still ticked at the low Democrat turnout in 2016. They still think turnout should have been tremendous because of how Barack attempted to lurch the country to the Left for them and he hand-picked Hillary Clinton to continue his legacy... the one denied him by those evil Republicans. They can’t get it through their thick skulls that Obama’s massive failures as president turned off many moderate democrats and middle America Dems. Obama is the main culprit for opening the door to a Trump presidency. The Obama’s think the people betrayed them.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2093
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No idea... perhaps because this is a political discussion regarding the election and the Obama's still try to remain relevant in the matter? The Obama’s are still ticked at the low Democrat turnout in 2016. They still think turnout should have been tremendous because of how Barack attempted to lurch the country to the Left for them and he hand-picked Hillary Clinton to continue his legacy... the one denied him by those terrible Republicans. They can’t get it through their thick skulls that Obama’s massive failures as president turned off many moderate democrats and middle America Dems. Obama is the main culprit for opening the door to a Trump presidency. The Obama’s think the people betrayed them.

    what comments has obama mad about running as vice-president? what comments has he made at all apart from supporting biden?


  • Options
    #2094
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what comments has obama mad about running as vice-president? what comments has he made at all apart from supporting biden?
    ‘Obama mad’… Freudian slip? ;)

    He hasn't. That doesn't stop strategists and people from discussing it as a viable option.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2095
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    ‘Obama mad’… Freudian slip? ;)

    He hasn't. That doesn't stop strategists and people from discussing it as a viable option.

    so in what way does that translate to "obama trying to remain relevant"?


  • Options
    #2096
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No idea... perhaps because this is a political discussion regarding the election and the Obama's still try to remain relevant in the matter? The Obama’s are still ticked at the low Democrat turnout in 2016. They still think turnout should have been tremendous because of how Barack attempted to lurch the country to the Left for them and he hand-picked Hillary Clinton to continue his legacy... the one denied him by those evil Republicans. They can’t get it through their thick skulls that Obama’s massive failures as president turned off many moderate democrats and middle America Dems. Obama is the main culprit for opening the door to a Trump presidency. The Obama’s think the people betrayed them.

    Ah would you stop! Nothing the Obama's have said have indicated they "think" that.

    However, Bush's personal video/statement the other day about coming together sure told us what he thinks of Trump as a leader and Trumps divisive tactics
    (Spoiler, notobtuse, it ain't good!!)


  • Options
    #2097
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    I find it a bit mad that a rabid Republican is posting 24/7 on an Irish discussion board about Trump


  • Options
    #2098
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    amdublin wrote: »
    Ah would you stop! Nothing the Obama's have said have indicated they "think" that.

    However, Bush's personal video/statement the other day about coming together sure told us what he thinks of Trump as a leader and Trumps divisive tactics
    (Spoiler, notobtuse, it ain't good!!)

    Bush:We should all come together
    Trump: what a loser.

    It really takes something to make Bush look presidential but trump manages it with ease


  • Options
    #2099
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    Am I right in my thinking?

    Trump is currently saying that anything under 200k deaths is a success?
    - This from the man who, not so long ago, said 15 would disappear and be zero. It will be like a miracle.

    Current death toll for the USA is approx. 69k I believe? :(


  • Options
    #2100
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,859 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    amdublin wrote: »
    However, Bush's personal video/statement the other day about coming together sure told us what he thinks of Trump as a leader and Trumps divisive tactics
    (Spoiler, notobtuse, it ain't good!!)

    Bush is the biggest war criminal the planet has seen in this century. Him calling for unity is like some sort of performance art.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2101
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    amdublin wrote: »
    Ah would you stop! Nothing the Obama's have said have indicated they "think" that.

    However, Bush's personal video/statement the other day about coming together sure told us what he thinks of Trump as a leader and Trumps divisive tactics
    (Spoiler, notobtuse, it ain't good!!)

    Sorry, but it sure as hell seems that way to me.

    https://www.mediaite.com/entertainment/michelle-obama-still-upset-by-low-16-voter-turnout-in-new-doc-a-lot-of-our-folks-didnt-vote-almost-like-a-slap-in-the-face/

    Yeah, and where was GW Bush calling for unity when the witch-hunt, based on lies and falsehoods, was going on against Trump in congress and the media? Or when the soft coup was mounted against Trump? Both Bush’s were One World Order’apolozza republicans. But I guess they were still better then the Democrat alternatives.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement