2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

VYFan said:
The point being, that the Republicans did not suddenly introduce a change attempting to limit the Democrats' power. Indeed, the amendment does not limit how many terms a Democrat can be in power--it could be 100 years.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if all or any of that contradicted what I wrote above or not?

It reminds me of the other poster a couple weeks ago who argued the Vietnam War draft had nothing to do with passage of the 26th Amendment. Of course it did! Just like the idea FDR going for a 3rd term is what gave the the 22nd Amendment the impetus it needed.

Stated another way, without the Vietnam War and without FDR we quite possibly/probably dont have either of those Amendments now. They both might still just be arguments in Law Review articles.
 
JF
AOL's point tho' was the GOP prevented FDR from going for a 5th term. No his death did that.
He was elected to 4 terms btw.
 
Joe Fan said:
I actually give her a pass on this one. My memory from studying this (way back when) is that the movement towards this amendment began while FDR was president and was started with him specifically in mind. He just happened to die before they finally pushed it over the finish line. I am just going off memory for this, and am sure one of the friendly stalkers will pounce if my memory is faulty.

Click to expand...


I give her a pass to a point. They didn't pass it to keep him from getting reelected since it didn't pass until after he was gone. However, FDR was the reason that Congress stated pushing for the amendment.

Also, it wasn't an overly partisan issue. The GOP supplied most of the votes, but many Democrats voted for it in Congress, and many Democratic legislatures voted to ratify it.

(To be clear, I think term limits on the presidency is a stupid idea.)
 
Last edited:
Horn6721 said:
JF
AOL's point tho' was the GOP prevented FDR from going for a 5th term. No his death did that.
He was elected to 4 terms btw.
Click to expand...

OK, on the factual sequence she did screw up, but on the broader point she did not.
She seems to do this with many ideas. She sort of gets close, gets in the ballparks, then flubs it all up.

Is it intentional? (if so, that shows she is more devious and a little smarter than she appears).
Or, is it just flakiness and the lack of a firm grasp of the facts? (something most liberals suffer from).
Which is it?
 
Mr. Deez said:
I give her a pass to a point. They didn't pass it to keep him from getting reelected since it didn't pass until after he was gone. However, FDR was the reason that Congress stated pushing for the amendment.
Also, it wasn't an overly partisan issue. The GOP supplied most of the votes, but many Democrats voted for it in Congress, and many Democratic legislatures voted to ratify it.
(To be clear, I think term limits on the presidency is a stupid idea.)
Click to expand...

These ideas lay around for a long time. But a great force is needed to disrupt the inertia. Amending the Constitution is difficult for a good reason. In the instances of these two amendments, the great forces were the FDR presidency (which was like no other) and the strong opposition to the Vietnam War and draft. From my perspective, it is not very tough to work through either case.
 
Mr. Deez said:
(To be clear, I think term limits on the presidency is a stupid idea.)
Click to expand...

True. If not having term limits for Congress can be argued, and it has on here, to be good in terms of a constant influx of new Reps and Senators being bamboozled by lobbyists and special interests, the same should hold true for a President. By the 8th year, he or she may have only gotten to the point late in the first term of being effective with those groups and Congress itself.
 
So I guess "always believe the woman" is now out?
Or is it special rules for Democrats? Or is it only certain Democrats?
It is so hard to keep up with the shifting winds.
 
I think they would rather #BelieveAllWomen would go away so they do not ever have to answer for or discontinue their Bill Clinton love.

The Bill Clinton love is instructive, however, because it proves the answer to your question is, "Special Rules for certain Democrats".
 
Last edited:
D3GCUMyX4AMBrOZ.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
So all of this Joe Biden grouping stuff is not new.
"Journalists" and "reporters" have all known about this for a long time.
So why are they pretending it is suddenly an issue?
Obviously, there are other reasons
Namely, whoever it is that tells them what to say each day told them it is OK now to push this out there
Click to expand...
It could be malicious or only half so. The powers that be may also want to know in early 2019, not 2020, whether this issue will take him down.
 
VYFan said:
It could be malicious or only half so. The powers that be may also want to know in early 2019, not 2020, whether this issue will take him down.
Click to expand...

Whatever the reason, they have either been told to put it out there or were given permission to put it out there.

One of the many great things about the Podesta/Wiki dump is that we got to see how many in the media were seeking feedback, edits, permission to run with stories. And that was just one person. You can multiply that by a factor of at least 100. Our media is corrupt.
 
Joe Fan said:
I am not sure if all or any of that contradicted what I wrote above or not?

It reminds me of the other poster a couple weeks ago who argued the Vietnam War draft had nothing to do with passage of the 26th Amendment. Of course it did! Just like the idea FDR going for a 3rd term is what gave the the 22nd Amendment the impetus it needed.

Stated another way, without the Vietnam War and without FDR we quite possibly/probably dont have either of those Amendments now. They both might still just be arguments in Law Review articles.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I was trying to contradict you; the term limit was 100% in response to FDR. I think, though, that the reason the amendment was so universally accepted was a reaction to anyone having that much power for that long, not derived from party politics. That’s the aspect in AOCs argument (that it was a party political maneuver) that I wanted to comment about.
 
My suspicion is that AOC got involved in some of those discussions by strong Obama supporters to the effect that they should pass an amendment to allow him to keep running for more terms. Someone probably told her, no, the republicans took that away from us to get FDR out of office. Or some such shallow explanation.
 
Phil Elliott said:
....The Bill Clinton love is instructive, however, because it proves the answer to your question is, "Special Rules for certain Democrats".
Click to expand...

Special rules for special folks -- bottom line is that #MeToo isn’t really a thing when it is a Democrat who crosses the line(s).
 
Creepy Uncle Joe. People have been noting his "hands on" antics for at least a decade.

I'll never forget his maniacal grinning at Paul Ryan during the VP debate. Must have been unnerving as hell. His teeth were so bright it was blinding.

I guess Corey Booker skated away scot-free from his accuser too. It's good to be a Democrat.
 
Clean said:
Must have been unnerving as hell.
Click to expand...

I noticed that too, and I think some people take the whitening too far. Obviously, yellow or brown teeth don't look good, but it is possible for teeth to be too white. If they look like someone has painted them white (as Biden's did), that's a step too far.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Also, it wasn't an overly partisan issue. The GOP supplied most of the votes, but many Democrats voted for it in Congress, and many Democratic legislatures voted to ratify it.
Click to expand...

That's where she doesn't get a pass. She's trying to make it a partisan thing, as if no one cared about term limits until it was a Dem, and the evil Republicans made sure it would never happen.



She has that "Why is he grabbing my butt? How long do I have to stand here?" smile.
 
Creepy Joe up to 4 accusers now. Here opens the floodgates. He will gracefully announce his intent to not run for President any day now. Love when the libs eat each other up.
 
theiioftx said:
Creepy Joe up to 4 accusers now. Here opens the floodgates. He will gracefully announce his intent to not run for President any day now. Love when the libs eat each other up.
Click to expand...

He is creepy and always has been. I don't think he's trying to lure women for sex or even blatantly going over the line by grabbing boobs, butts, etc. However, he's one of these older guys who just thinks it's OK to touch people without their express or implied consent. I don't understand people like this, but they exist. Always have. As much as I like seeing Democrats fighting over something stupid (and this is), I don't think he has done some terrible thing. He's just a weird old man, and somebody needs to set him straight.

I also think that this recent outrage at him is politically motivated. This is old news. We've known about it for years, and now that he has people running against him (like Beta, whom Lucy Flores supports), it's convenient to exploit it. Where were these people when this stuff was actually happening?

Of course, the media is ridiculous in this. As obvious Democrats, they're divided on him, and his defenders are saying basically what I'm saying. However, these same people were shitting bricks on Brett Kavanaugh and didn't give a crap that his accusers were politically motivated and said nothing until they thought it could screw him. In fact, they expressed outrage at anyone who brought these points up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top