1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    So he was preparing for an exigency should the president decide to commit a crime, that’s what the general staff does, plan for exigencies.
     
  2. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    Chapo Trap House did a pretty funny bit where they “blamed” Obama for killing horny GoDaddy.com ads.
     
  3. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    I’m glad the Q party is expanding to allow cross dressers and trannys.
     
  4. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    There can't be in that event.
    What I wonder is who in the military determines that an order is unlawful? And how long does it take for the ruling to be communicated to those who are charged with executing it?
    Furthermore: If an order is deemed unlawful and is ignored, can the military also ignore POTUS when he -- especially a despicable person like Trump -- orders the firing of the defiant?
     
  5. bumpy mcgee

    bumpy mcgee Well-Known Member

    I'd like a heads up if an insane despot was about to commit a crime against humanity.
     
  6. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    Silver is absolutely determined to be a contrarian if for no other reason than to drive traffic.
    Claiming the libruhls are in trouble is always a reliable way to generate interest.
     
    TowelWaver and garrow like this.
  7. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    TowelWaver and garrow like this.
  8. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    I've never understood this one. Did the authors of the Constitution really think a VP would never be a losing candidate for the presidency? There have to be hundreds of federal laws addressing conflict of interest. Yet the biggest and most problematic of them all somehow escaped review.
     
  9. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

    Trannys? JFC. My transgender nephew, and I, think your prejudice showing. Slander Huckabee all you want, but leave innocent transgenders out of it.
     
  10. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

  11. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    The Constitution originally called for the winner of the electoral vote to be President and the second place finisher VP.

    That worked fine as long as the presidential race was essentially a formality with a virtually unopposed consensus winner, which was the case in 1788 and 1792, but started to cause problems as soon as actual opposing candidates started to run for POTUS.

    At some point some smart people said, "hey maybe it's not a good idea to give the VP a direct rooting interest in the president suddenly becoming dead." *

    So the 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804, just before the election, and by completely wild coincidence just before the Hamilton-Burr duel.

    * Although at that time it was by no means a consensus that the VP would become president upon death of the incumbent; there was considerable opinion that he would only become "acting president."

    John Tyler took care of that whole argument.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Silver now works for ABCNews a/k/a Disney which has a huge vested interest in the idea elections are always close. Too many This Week With green rooms have had a bad effect on his brain.
     
    tapintoamerica likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page