Backintheday544 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 14 minutes ago, Doc said: You think both Houses will be controlled by Dems? I think it would set a terrible precedent if a Republican controlled chamber wouldn’t allow the President to select their VP. Plus if the popular vote aligns with the polling of Obama polling at 50 percent to 39 percent for Trump, Dems would control both chambers. 1
Doc Posted July 3 Posted July 3 Just now, Backintheday544 said: I think it would set a terrible precedent if a Republican controlled chamber wouldn’t allow the President to select their VP. Plus if the popular vote aligns with the polling of Obama polling at 50 percent to 39 percent for Trump, Dems would control both chambers. Right. And replacing Harris with MO and then having Biden step down and MO appoint Harris would be a great precedent, right?
Irv Posted July 3 Posted July 3 3 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: My plan; Keep Biden on the ballot Appoint Michele Obama as VP Biden tells everyone after sworn in he will step down for Michelle and Kamala as VP. Everyone wins. It's not a bad strategy. Is it legal? Silly me. That never stopped the Biden Crime Syndicate. What a mess. 1
Backintheday544 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 1 minute ago, Doc said: Right. And replacing Harris with MO and then having Biden step down and MO appoint Harris would be a great precedent, right? The easier method would be WI and NV pass special legislation to allow MO on the ballot. But I think my plan would work. Nov you vote Biden-Obama ticket. Biden steps down after the election. Obama nominates Harris. Simple majority is needed to get Harris allowed as VP. Again if the Biden-Obama ticket carries 50 percent to 39 percent like the poll suggested, that would be blood bath in the lower level concerts and the Dems would control the house and senate. Just get Michelle on board. 2
sherpa Posted July 3 Posted July 3 2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: The easier method would be WI and NV pass special legislation to allow MO on the ballot. But I think my plan would work. Nov you vote Biden-Obama ticket. Biden steps down after the election. Obama nominates Harris. Simple majority is needed to get Harris allowed as VP. Again if the Biden-Obama ticket carries 50 percent to 39 percent like the poll suggested, that would be blood bath in the lower level concerts and the Dems would control the house and senate. Just get Michelle on board. Why do we even have election laws with primaries? This is revolution stuff. It is the equivalent of an assassination. Simply absurd. 2 2
Doc Posted July 3 Posted July 3 2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: The easier method would be WI and NV pass special legislation to allow MO on the ballot. But I think my plan would work. Nov you vote Biden-Obama ticket. Biden steps down after the election. Obama nominates Harris. Simple majority is needed to get Harris allowed as VP. Again if the Biden-Obama ticket carries 50 percent to 39 percent like the poll suggested, that would be blood bath in the lower level concerts and the Dems would control the house and senate. Just get Michelle on board. The election laws exist for a reason. They're not changing them to protect a terrible candidate the party tried to hide from the public just to pull shenanigans later. And Harris would just step aside on the almost zero chance that both Houses are Dem-controlled? Unlikely. And if the Dems pulled what you said, which is bad precedent, the Repubs would absolutely block Harris' nomination. 1
Backintheday544 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: Why do we even have election laws with primaries? This is revolution stuff. It is the equivalent of an assassination. Simply absurd. 2 minutes ago, Doc said: The election laws exist for a reason. They're not changing them to protect a terrible candidate the party tried to hide from the public just to pull shenanigans later. And Harris would just step aside on the almost zero chance that both Houses are Dem-controlled? Unlikely. And if the Dems pulled what you said, which is bad precedent, the Repubs would absolutely block Harris' nomination. Primaries are controlled by the party. The official nomination is done at the party conventions. Harris doesn’t have to step aside. She has no say on it. It’s a majority vote - 50/39 republicans aren’t controlling either. Maybe the Senate. If they control the Senate, you just vote Harris speaker of the house and keep the VP vacant.
Doc Posted July 3 Posted July 3 And in any case, Biden is saying he's not going anywhere. So it's going to be a (figuratively, for the contextually-impaired) bloodbath if they try and remove him.
BillsFanNC Posted July 3 Posted July 3 This backintheday guy sure seems like he's rock solid on the whole saving our democracy principle. 2
Doc Posted July 3 Posted July 3 15 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: This backintheday guy sure seems like he's rock solid on the whole saving our democracy principle. It's the "save our democrats principle." 2
reddogblitz Posted July 4 Posted July 4 (edited) 7 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Toast? 538 has it 51 percent favored for Trump, 49 percent Biden as of right now: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ Far from toast. But in my scenario, people know they’re voting for Obama who just polled 50 percent to 39 percent ahead of Trump. And how do they know that if they voting for President Biden? Besides Michele has said many times she not running and told her daughters DO NOT go into politics. Edited July 4 by reddogblitz
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 4 Posted July 4 Imagine arguing that the only way to save democracy is to have a sham election, appoint someone unelected to the presidency, and then call anyone complaining a racist or fascist. That is the signs of a healthy country. To all the Dems, maybe recognize how much you have been lied to and demand better of your party 1 2 1
Doc Posted July 4 Posted July 4 38 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Imagine arguing that the only way to save democracy is to have a sham election, appoint someone unelected to the presidency, and then call anyone complaining a racist or fascist. That is the signs of a healthy country. To all the Dems, maybe recognize how much you have been lied to and demand better of your party "We need to save democracy!" By subverting it. 1
reddogblitz Posted July 4 Posted July 4 4 hours ago, Doc said: And in any case, Biden is saying he's not going anywhere. So it's going to be a (figuratively, for the contextually-impaired) bloodbath if they try and remove him. I got an email from President Biden today. He told me in the email he is not dropping out and is running and is gonna win. And oh,by the way can you send me some cash. He's too stubborn and selfish to quit now. But you know how these things go.it could all change tomorrow. Democrats are in a pickle but they put themselves there. Sad. 1
GETTOTHE50 Posted July 4 Posted July 4 52 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Imagine arguing that the only way to save democracy is to have a sham election, appoint someone unelected to the presidency, and then call anyone complaining a racist or fascist. That is the signs of a healthy country. To all the Dems, maybe recognize how much you have been lied to and demand better of your party they don’t care about being lied to, as long as it’s through the lens of virtue signaling.
daz28 Posted July 4 Posted July 4 15 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Since there is no limits on murder charges should Obama be charged? Should I say it's politically motivated if they do?
daz28 Posted July 4 Posted July 4 17 hours ago, sherpa said: I'll stand by what I said about the legality of orders. I'll stand by what I said about "replacing" them. I didn't say a thing about relieving them, which you seem to not mention. I never said I was "perfectly fine with someone who is called your honor lying." You have to have pulled that from thin air. Do you know how an officer finds out if the order he disobeyed was a legal order? During his court martial. There's certainly nothing daunting or scary about facing a court martial by disobeying the commander in chief, right? As I pointed out to you, a president can appoint a general if he determines it's in the interest of the nation. Do you think General Steve Bannon would refuse an illegal order? I gave you like 7 examples of generals being relieved. You're still standing on things I have proved demonstrably false. The your honor comment was for Lenny, not you.
JaCrispy Posted July 4 Posted July 4 (edited) 13 minutes ago, daz28 said: Should I say it's politically motivated if they do? I think the point is that all presidents have had immunity up until Trump…Even when W Bush and Obama were torturing people…👍 The Dems decided not to prosecute Bush because he is part of the Establishment, and because they wanted Obama to continue the program… The Establishment protects themselves, and will go after anyone who deviates …. Edited July 4 by JaCrispy 1
Recommended Posts