US Politics: Reaching the Tipping Point

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Just wanted to reiterate that I 100% do not agree with you, or Kal, on this. 

:sob:

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Also it doesn't help that we have nothing specific to go on re: what are we actually talking about.  Someone called you a racist or a sexist (and I am genuinely not interested in the actual scenario, or making a judgment on it) and it bothered you, and now you are concerned that the "far left" (whoever that is) is driving people to vote for Trump because.... of unfairly calling people out?  Or maybe even fairly calling people out?  

Sure, yes, all of that. And a whole lot of other things. It doesn't really matter what the trigger is, only that you now have this negative association with 'people like that'. And when random strangers yell at you, your monkeysphere brain doesn't view them as a person, it views them as a stereotype. (This is also why it's more effective for people who you care about to yell at you, because your brain can't just dismiss them as 'angry stereotype du jour'. )

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean, why would you vote AGAINST what you actually believe in just to spite some random asshole?  My thesis is that anyone who would do that doesn't actually give a fuck to begin with.  

Here's the thing - people rarely have things they 'actually believe in' which are immutable and sacrosanct. More often than not, in fact, people's beliefs entirely change with their group's views, with leader's views, etc, and there is little self-evaluation on hypocriticalness or other things. There have been quite a few sociological studies on this, but they all end with basically the same idea - that if you are tricked into thinking your group believes something, you'll start believing in it and rationalizing it even if they didn't believe that at all. Or you didn't in the first place. Hell, you've read Bakker, right? 
 

So why would they go jumping into the arms of the other guy? Because humans are social creatures, and getting yelled at and being told you're an asshole kind of sucks. Now, mind you, I'm a firm believer that some people need to be told that they are, in fact, assholes, but random strangers doing it is usually not very effective at eliciting change. It's less that they're doing it to spite some random asshole and more that they're doing it in order to please their friends. And pleasing their friends is a very big motivator.

[Demetri]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

Of course, anything political can change, but this particular term limit has been there as a tradition since the very beginning and it has seen very little challenge. Washington would almost certainly have won a third term, but he decided to step aside and since then, it had very nearly the force of law. A few Presidents tried to argue that it meant non-consecutive terms, but all of them lost and when F.D.R. finally broke the tradition, it was promptly made into a full-fledged amendment to prevent anybody from doing so again even though F.D.R.'s circumstances were completely unique. It's a pretty well established convention.

We know that tradition can be broken easily because the government is designed to have the power and means to do so. Any claim of tradition is outweighed by millions of Americans voting to act against it. It was the vote, not perceived tradition, that created the issue. I have never heard attempting a 3rd term as an American political tradition before, notable for its inclusion to the loser's table where everyone in this proud tradition beyond one single person sits.. But tradition arguments are further undermined by suggesting that Congress acted to change term mandate only once the long-standing tradition of trying to get a 3rd term as due course was broken (please show your work here because I'm at a bit of a loss). How exceptionally silly and indicting it would be to have a common tradition and let it be tried again and again (after all, it must be or it isn't tradition) and then only ever think that maybe codified limits are useful once it succeeds.

Basic logic suggests that you don't have to legislate tradition. It also suggests that tradition can survive one outlier (as you characterize FDR). That isn't how tradition is handled and codified. And one shift in an allegedly lasting tradition doesn't cause panic and amending the Constitution because either there was never really a tradition or FDR somehow changed popular perception.

It doesn't compute. If FDR did something that changed perception then we have to ask why it was successful when it was or even why at all. The results suggest that the American public alive at the time understood the tradition differently than you do. But furthermore, if such a tradition has any continuing value then it would either be so self-evident as to not need codification or so rarely violated that it would be equally silly. Based on your framing of it: millions of people, in voting for FDR, voted against tradition. That seems like fertile grounds to me! If FDR was not a crazy rare outlier, then it makes no sense to hurriedly codify something that is unlikely to ever be an issue again because no one else would dare defy phantom tradition. We must then presume that either no such tradition exists or that it is worthless moving forward.

But your reply doesn't really refute my post. In fact, it agrees with it. I said that FDR was the cause for a Constitutional change. That change was limited expressly to presidents. Not VP, not some vague and unspecified concept of how they interact and whether they must both functionally the same. It was limited to an issue not relevant here. This has nothing at all to do with the issues I raised. 

Tradition does have usefulness here, though as it suggests that a shift in word choice indicates a shift in intent by the legislature. Courts have meaningfully expressed, defined and promoted this tradition by using this logic in countless court cases. You say presidential terms are simple obvious convention. But the much more important and defensible tradition is the court's desire to note shifts in terminology and to fit that into a greater, holistic understanding. Within that tradition, which is tangible in court decisions, is living and breathing in present and future decisions and guiding as a tool for judicial review and law interpretation, is actual solvency and actual discourse. Nothing you said really undermined anything I said, but tradition as a broad thing means absolutely nothing. The tradition you described is absolutely a lesser form of real, legal tradition than American jurisprudence and that collectively suggests not only that tradition is not permanent, but also that judicial tradition is infinitely more important to America's political history than whatever is being alleged here.

[Kalbear]

I know that as much as Obama would never, not in a million years, choose to be any part of the succession line for POTUS, Trump would do so in a heartbeat. 

[Demetri]

I see what you're getting at, but all manner of data exists which shows that the American public does not hold a president and vice president to the same standards. Our understanding of the VP role is defined by contrast to the presiential role. The differences are both understood popularly and imminently provable by discussing the difference in roles. So why would the presumption be that VPs are popularly held to a specifically and exclusively Presidential standard. If opinions on the president's term limits has solidified then that is because the President represents a special and unique office in federal government. The VP nomination wouldn't even necessarily be in violation of that. When a VP wins and gains that role they were not elected to the office of the president. So what are they in violation of as a VP, precisely? A VP isn't a president-elect but a contingency plan for president. 22nd clearly states that the measuring stick is "times elected"

22nd does not apply to 12 here simply because a VP isn't going to be elected to the office of a president and that and that alone is the determining number: amount of elections (barring time as VP ascended to President). Being elected president a third time would be barred, sure. But that's all 22nd limits. No where does it say a candidate is ineligible to be elected a third time, but merely that a president cannot be elected a third time. The fact that the Constitution tells us what happens if the President is found to no "qualify" for their role shows that they understand the distinction. This and more wording opens a gaping hole.

A President would only be ineligible for office AFTER being elected for a third time. A twice elected vice president never gets elected a third time and thus is not rendered ineligible. It should go without saying that we don't look at it as if the Vice President is really running for President and offering him/herself for election. That would be ineligible, but that isn't what would happen here. We need not worry about being elected to President invalidating the vice president because the vice president, even if they served 8 years, never was elected a third time and therefore would not be ineligible for Presidential office. We don't consider the offices held by VP and President to be similar, it makes no sense to assume that the VP's proximity on the ticket to the person being elected (president) computes on them a Presidential election. Otherwise, we might as well say that proximity to the Oval office while working means that the VP was really, kinda sorta, holding the office of president. Arguing semantics isn't a bad thing, it is an amazing thing. It is discussing what words mean in context. It sucks that people use it as a pejorative. I realize your mention of semantics was to moot. But this might sound like semantics to some.

But to legislative drafters semantics and context mean everything. I have yet to find a knowledgeable legal scholar with published working saying that such a vice president would be found invalid. Not a single one. I've found lots of arguments that it is totally acceptable. I've found some saying that we don't have empirical basis to pull from and thus cannot extract and apply particular parts because we only have the words and their interplay to guide us, not a full court decision. 

Hopefully, the fact that requirements for election and requirements for office eligibility are easily understood as two distinct things. Two elections affects eligibility. 22 states only election eligibility requirements and NOTHING ELSE: "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." 12 says: "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." 

Those are two different types of eligibility. Legislative purpose explains why, but the chain of succession might help the skeptics. Can anyone reasonably assert that this means that a former two-term president cannot hold only office within the line of succession because a future event could occur leading to a person gaining the presidency again. Hell, does anything in the Constitution suggest that Congress cannot chose a former president for the Presidency if an emergency led to legislative appointment to the role? Of course not. That doesn't exist anywhere. What we do have are two different terms and conditions that set two standards. I'll try to revisit this tomorrow as I'm beat and frustrated that this isn't more apparent. 

Viability issues are fine to present. But legal framework for preventing such a vice presidential candidate is entirely non-existent, contradicted by legal intent and the Constitutional wording, and has minimal supporting evidence with possibly painful repercussions if interpreted wrongly. I feel very confident that a Court would settle this issue very quickly, finding that two standards exist: One for rightful election, one for eligibility to office. Nowhere is that gap bridged. We do not read laws in ways that give them the assumption of non-delegated/stated power. We certainly shouldn't start  here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Demetri said:

We don't consider the offices held by VP and President to be similar, it makes no sense to assume that the VP's proximity on the ticket to the person being elected (president) computes on them a Presidential election.

Have you done any reading on Vice-President Richard Cheney’s time in the Vice-Presidency?

Again, I appreciate your through take on this issue.  However, I maintain my position, despite your arguments, that (other than Trumpanista’s who (by definition) care only about the person occupying the White House and not a whit about tradition, custom, or law) most Americans would see nominating a former two term President to the Vice-Presidency as an attempt to end run the term limits of the 22nd Amendment and therefore, on that basis, reject the Candidate who makes such a nomination.

Politicly, it is like tossing a live nuclear weapon to a crowd just because they might like the “sense of power” it gives them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The Dow is weird. Oil tankers get attacked, which leads to a jump in oil prices, which leads to a strong opening. Wasn’t there a Bond movie with this exact plot? And don’t @ me with Casino Royale.

(DMC, I haven’t ignored your comment, but I feel like I need to read the links before I respond. Also, the last one in the first paragraph is broken)

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Hey, we have our very important local elections coming up this fall! No time to call Trump until ... October, I think.

This appears to be an obvious threat. Does Norway have any oil? If so, we’ll have to advance freedom in your country.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Dow is weird. Oil tankers get attacked, which leads to a jump in oil prices, which leads to a strong opening. Wasn’t there a Bond movie with this exact plot? And don’t @ me with Casino Royale.

(DMC, I haven’t ignored your comment, but I feel like I need to read the links before I respond. Also, the last one in the first paragraph is broken)

 

This screams “Gulf of Tonkin” to me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This screams “Gulf of Tonkin” to me.

WAVES DON’T MELT STEEL BEAMS!

[Mlle. Zabzie]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This appears to be an obvious threat. Does Norway have any oil? If so, we’ll have to advance freedom in your country.

Yes.  And also a massive sovereign wealth fund, which is currently divesting from fossil fuels and investing in renewables.... For instance

[IheartIheartTesla]

On 6/10/2019 at 11:55 PM, Fragile Bird said:

Nobody believes there are 23 ‘legitimate’ candidates for the Democrats. 

Think of that scene of Trump at the G20 meeting, pushing people aside to get to the front of the photo opp. That’s what’s happening.

20 of them have met the criteria for the debates (also coincidentally the max number the Dems will allow for those). Bullock/Gravel/Moulton did not make the cut, although Bullock is close. They've met the DNC's threshold for legitimacy, in other words.

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

20 of them have met the criteria for the debates (also coincidentally the max number the Dems will allow for those). Bullock/Gravel/Moulton did not make the cut, although Bullock is close. They've met the DNC's threshold for legitimacy, in other words.

There is a reason "legitimate' is in quotes....  :p 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yes.  And also a massive sovereign wealth fund, which is currently divesting from fossil fuels and investing in renewables.... For instance

Let freedumb ring!

[Mexal]

Yes, I know she won't be fired. Yes, I know the laws don't apply to pro-Trump people. Still, worth knowing.

 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

(DMC, I haven’t ignored your comment, but I feel like I need to read the links before I respond. Also, the last one in the first paragraph is broken)

Indeed it is, it's just a really long link and I don't think I got all of it.  Let's see if this works.

[Demetri]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Have you done any reading on Vice-President Richard Cheney’s time in the Vice-Presidency?

Again, I appreciate your through take on this issue.  However, I maintain my position, despite your arguments, that (other than Trumpanista’s who (by definition) care only about the person occupying the White House and not a whit about tradition, custom, or law) most Americans would see nominating a former two term President to the Vice-Presidency as an attempt to end run the term limits of the 22nd Amendment and therefore, on that basis, reject the Candidate who makes such a nomination.

Politicly, it is like tossing a live nuclear weapon to a crowd just because they might like the “sense of power” it gives them.

I really enjoyed the back and forth. This thread has some pretty heady commentary here and there and I was pretty impressed by your analysis/argument despite personally disagreeing about the legal meaning. The legal community has argued impotently about it in here and there for a while, with a particular spike in the mid to late 90s and then another round of scholarship directly post-Obama. I think that while legal analysis tends to rightfully gravitate around the illuminating sun of precedence, untried or undecided issues should not be considered unimportant. 

That's why I pushed arguments regarding why such a precedence could, maybe someday, kinda sorta happen. Not because I actually think it will happen (who knows? It would take a lot of things lining up so it does seem objectively unlikely) but to try to bypass issues of "But who cares because they're just words on a page and will never be relevant." I think that's a really reductive approach. A properly legitimate legal framework should be discussed and understood on several different levels. I'm a philosophy guy. That's what drives my love for this stuff, so I find it intrinsically valuable to discuss intent and meaning of a document even if that part hasn't been extrapolated by official legal force.

I don't think it'll happen. I'd absolutely love for the practical reason to be that we've adopted a Parliamentary system. But that's basically the holy grail of solvency concerns. I don't think it will happen, and I perhaps erred in emphasizing factors suggesting that it conceivably could become an ISSUE. As a result, it sounded like I was saying that that issue will be resolved by it successfully being proven that my interpretation of permissibility, in essence, happened. 

Cheers though to you and @DMC . It was a fun mental detour.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

Indeed it is, it's just a really long link and I don't think I got all of it.  Let's see if this works.

Good to go. I’ll check out the studies tonight and get back to you tomorrow.

The short hand response though is that I fear large sample sizes might capture too many variables making the data useless. I think it would be wiser to conduct a series of studies with small sample sizes and see if you can consistently replicate your findings.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Yes, I know she won't be fired. Yes, I know the laws don't apply to pro-Trump people. Still, worth knowing.

 

She should have received a blanket media ban after her “alternative facts” comments. As much as I am loathed to admit that Jace is right to some degree, we have to accept that the hypothetical dystopian future is now. There are loads of clips of Trump and co.’s comments compare to 1984, and similarities are horrifying.

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

She should have received a blanket media ban after her “alternative facts” comments. As much as I am loathed to admit that Jace is right to some degree, we have to accept that the hypothetical dystopian future is now. There are loads of clips of Trump and co.’s comments compare to 1984, and similarities are horrifying.

Fairly sure most of us are aware of that. Jace seems to believe that because I keep posting examples, it means I don't understand what is going on, what the reaction is going to be and what the end result will be. I do. I still think it's good to post it.

[Darth Richard II]

Oh shit Sanders is out.