B-Man Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, GG said: That's because he's inside Tom's head. Winning. GG don't F with me. We all know how that turns out. You end up crying to everybody in PMs for a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 minute ago, OCinBuffalo said: I don't figure into this at all: the rule is there. Whether you like it or not also has nothing to do with me. I am merely telling you how things are, not as you, or anyone else would wish them to be. Except it's not how things are. Name the last Veep that resigned at the behest of the POTUS. You have it exactly backwards. If Trump got rid of Pence, that means everything that anonymous wrote is true, and Trump would be facing a mutiny, including his most senior advisors. Dumping Pence would enrage his remaining support, and you will see an immediate move to get him out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, GG said: That's because he's inside Tom's head. Winning. Who's this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said: GG don't F with me. We all know how that turns out. You end up crying to everybody in PMs for a week. That's would be an amazing feat, considering I PM about once a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, GG said: That's would be an amazing feat, considering I PM about once a year. Oh please, you are lying now, or you were lying then. Either way, you don't want me to start in on you. You are way too easy of an target, and I have a slow day today. This thread can easily be turned into All GG, All The Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 7 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said: I don't figure into this at all: the rule is there. Whether you like it or not also has nothing to do with me. I am merely telling you how things are, not as you, or anyone else would wish them to be. How things are is: the VP can leave office in four different ways: his term ends, he dies, he's impeached, or he resigns. Not only can the VP not be fired, the VP can't be removed for incapacity the same way the President can be under the 25th Amendment. He has greater job security than the President, in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, OCinBuffalo said: Oh please, you are lying now, or you were lying then. Either way, you don't want me to start in on you. You are way too easy of an target, and I have a slow day today. This thread can easily be turned into All GG, All The Time. Or the real explanation - once again you haven't a clue on what you're talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Another important point most people won't be aware of: a government requiring the consent of a professional civil service class, and the civil service's ability and willingness to refuse to serve and even overturn governments, was one of the prime features of the late Weimar Republic that led to the power vacuum the Nazis filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, GG said: Except it's not how things are. Name the last Veep that resigned at the behest of the POTUS. You have it exactly backwards. If Trump got rid of Pence, that means everything that anonymous wrote is true, and Trump would be facing a mutiny, including his most senior advisors. Dumping Pence would enrage his remaining support, and you will see an immediate move to get him out of office. Spiro Agnew. GG I keep telling you not to F with me. Yeah, yeah, this and that: it was Nixon who told him he had to go. Nixon had just won in a landslide, and could have easily kept Agnew if he wanted. But, since Agnew was merely part of the Southern Strategy, he was infinitely replaceable. Nixon didn't need him around anymore, as he had already won the election. The main reason Agnew was there...was to fend off Reagan, and definitely Bush. There's your example. What in the Sam hell are you talking about? Trump's main support doesn't care about Pence one way or the other. I am saying that Pence has no reason whatsoever to undermine Trump by being the source of this crap. Pence Poised for Political Perfection, or whatever I wrote above. Pence gets to claim all the credit for Trump's policies working(sorry statists, but Trump is killing it, and you only fool yourselves by denying it), yet has none of Trump's so-called bad behavior on him. WTF am I getting backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said: Spiro Agnew. GG I keep telling you not to F with me. Yeah, yeah, this and that: it was Nixon who told him he had to go. Nixon had just won in a landslide, and could have easily kept Agnew if he wanted. But, since Agnew was merely part of the Southern Strategy, he was infinitely replaceable. Nixon didn't need him around anymore, as he had already won the election. The main reason Agnew was there...was to fend off Reagan, and definitely Bush. There's your example. What in the Sam hell are you talking about? Trump's main support doesn't care about Pence one way or the other. I am saying that Pence has no reason whatsoever to undermine Trump by being the source of this crap. Pence Poised for Political Perfection, or whatever I wrote above. Pence gets to claim all the credit for Trump's policies working(sorry statists, but Trump is killing it, and you only fool yourselves by denying it), yet has none of Trump's so-called bad behavior on him. WTF am I getting backwards? Agnew resigned because he was charged with a felony, not because Nixon wanted him gone, you moron. And you do have it backwards. You're explaining things in how you wish them to be, not how things are (as always). Edited September 6, 2018 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, DC Tom said: How things are is: the VP can leave office in four different ways: his term ends, he dies, he's impeached, or he resigns. Not only can the VP not be fired, the VP can't be removed for incapacity the same way the President can be under the 25th Amendment. He has greater job security than the President, in that regard. Yes, thank you for the by the book explanation. You can have your cookie now. That's great, but in the real world, if a POTUS tells a VP its time to spend more time with the family, then that VP publicly resigns, no questions asked. Is it the same as firing? Yeah, in every way but the WORDS. Like I've said 2 times now, but perhaps wasn't clear enough?, no the POTUS can't formally fire the VP. Yes, he definitely can informally. Method: the VP, along with the entire cabinet, offers his formal resignation the day after he takes office, and yes, it sits on the POTUS's "desk", ready to be accepted at any time. Man, this is all "How the WH actually works" 101 stuff. I never thought I'd have to explain it to you. 12 minutes ago, GG said: Agnew resigned because he was charged with a felony, not because Nixon wanted him gone, you moron. And you do have it backwards. You're explaining things in how you wish them to be, not how things are (as always). That's the story Nixon wanted out there, so, that's the story that he got. It's crap. It's like the Manafort thing: one could go around DC and arrest half of it, because they are all guilty of the same/similar things. But they don't. Why? Because power, and not wanting to mess with those who have it, and/or risking what power one has in a vain attempt to bust people for what the entire place is doing. The only time this happens is when somebody is left exposed by somebody else: who has more power. Nixon flat out used Agnew as an ass-cover. Forced him to go after people, and make it look like Agnew was doing it himself. As soon as Agnew's utility ended? Goodbye. Hell, Obama wanted Clinton exonerated. In spite of a mountain of evidence: That's what he got. Are you really this naive? EDIT: Add that to the fact that most thought Clinton would win, and, it only makes sense from a purely career advancement perspective that nobody would want to screw with the existing POTUS, over protecting the next one. Now, is ANYTHING these FBI/DOJ clowns did by the book? By the law? NO! Yet you are arguing...that when it comes to power, DC is all about following the rules? You're a child. Edited September 6, 2018 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2018 Author Share Posted September 6, 2018 22 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said: Hell, Obama wanted Clinton exonerated. In spite of a mountain of evidence: That's what he got. Are you really this naive? E hild. What evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: What evidence? That's it Gleeful Gator, poke the bear that has rabies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2018 Author Share Posted September 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: That's it Gleeful Gator, poke the bear that has rabies. This thread has already gone south so why not? Hope you are having a good day, 3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 30 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said: That's great, but in the real world, if a POTUS tells a VP its time to spend more time with the family, then that VP publicly resigns, no questions asked. Is it the same as firing? Yeah, in every way but the WORDS. No. If someone "suggests" you resign, and you don't, that's not a firing. If someone suggest you resign, and you don't, and they fire you, that's a firing. The President has no authority to fire the VP, so even a strong suggestion of "Get your ass out of here" isn't a firing, because there's no authority behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No. If someone "suggests" you resign, and you don't, that's not a firing. If someone suggest you resign, and you don't, and they fire you, that's a firing. The President has no authority to fire the VP, so even a strong suggestion of "Get your ass out of here" isn't a firing, because there's no authority behind it. The authority lies in the fact that you've already handed in your resignation. Thus the VP, and all cabinet members, exist in a perpetual state of "has resigned". The POTUS chooses, each day, to not accept it. This is the literal, today, definition of "I serve at the pleasure of the POTUS". Edited September 6, 2018 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2018 Author Share Posted September 6, 2018 Who's right? Tom or Ocin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Who's right? Tom or Ocin? I just have my popcorn ready, waiting to see them argue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts