politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If he was dead, wouldn't the result be the same?Kamala would take over the ticket. What would be the point of hiding it?
They don't think that far ahead
I think all the judges they have in place from lower courts on up to the supremes shows this is a dangerous belief to maintain.
That's just normal process. They didn't plan for any of that, every president sits judges.
Every president sits judges, yes, but they specifically delayed and obstructed to prevent Obama from seating as many as possible, so that when Trump came in they could pack as many sympathizers in as possible
The GOP certainly does. They have been planning and exciting their strategy for decades or a century. It finally came to fruition. Only they didn't realize that the mob of loyalists they were cultivating are idiots.
The result would be Mike Johnson is the probable next in line to the president with Harris acting as president. This would give MAGA and those Trump have asked to 'stand back and stand by' months to 'find a way' to get Johnson in as president for the election and certification period.
The more obvious and plausible reason is they just want something, ANYTHING, that gets them a news bite.
With this SCOTUS I would not put it past them to say "actually the constitution meant to say we need 60 Republicans to impeach a president and they can be anyone not just senators. We pulled this from the myass papers"
Wait. Her big idea right now is Weekend at Bernie’s, the White House edition?
~~If he were dead, she would assume the remainder of his term and only be eligible for one of her own. The only way this argument makes sense is if they are scared they are going to lose and don't want an incumbent in the next election.~~
I was wrong. See all the replies.
They aren't kidding that the quickest way to get a right answer on the internet is to post a wrong one.
That's not true actually. She would have to be president for 2 or more years in that scenario. So she could have been pres for 1.9 years already and still eligible for 2 more terms.
Not true- she can serve 2 full terms, plus up to half of a term if she were to assume the remainder.
Really? I didn't know that. That's great. Other than he's not dead so it doesn't matter, but still I didn't mean to misinform.
This isn't true, though.
Since she's inside the window of two years, it would not count as a first term.
Not even that. The 22nd Amendment states that a person can only be elected to the office twice, unless they've served two or more years of somebody's else's term, in which case they can only be elected once. Five months away from the next inauguration, it would change nothing if Harris had to take over the Presidency for some reason.
I don't believe that would affect her two terms. The 22 amendment talks how many times a person can be elected to be a president.
It does, but I was incorrect. She would have to serve over half his term.
This is simply not true. She would only lose out on a term if she has taken the majority of bidens, not the last 6 months. You can serve for up to 10 years total.
So the qons are begging for 8.5 years of Kamala?