Fasten your seatbelts!

a reply to: Cvastar

Not a lot of worry on that scenario. First off, Harris as POTUS isn't the worry laid out in the OP...it's Obama as POTUS!

In your scenario, you'd get Hillary as POTUS, and I don't think America will allow this to happen. Her evil precedes her, even with the democrats. But the Obama scenario could happen. Remember, Harris would 'need' this VP candidate to get enough traction to beat Trump. She doesn't get that with Hillary. And if Harris doesn't win, then this whole 'Bait & Switch' scenario is off the table anyway.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

To become VP, you have to meet the requirements to be POTUS.

He has already served 2 terms, so he cannot be VP.

No, that's not correct.

I thought this at first too, but it's not correct. There is no Constitutional provision prohibiting a 2 term POTUS from being VP.

How about if Barack comes in as her VP, in an attempt to get her over the goal line. If she wins, he resigns, and she appoints her pal Newsom. Will that work?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
1.) Harris picks the most unlikely candidate of all for VP. She picks the one person who won't endorse her. She picks Barack Obama.

3.) On day #2 after inauguration, Harris stubs her toe on the White House front step. She's wounded. She can't carry on. Harris resigns as POTUS.

4.) BOOM!...Barack Obama becomes 47th POTUS (yes, for the 3rd time!). AND, Obama can serve out the rest of Harris' term (i.e. all 4 years).

Have you looked at J.D. Vance?

DT is also said to have had a few lapses. So he may also stub his toe on his second day in office. Or get incarcerated.

If the MSM is to be believed, some say J.D.'s rich patron helped him get jobs in finance after talking him out of a career in law, each of which was disastrous. Then he helped get Vance shooed in to Congress no doubt with financial help.

For all we know, J.D. could be bankrupt as well as having a ruined finance career. In other words, what if he's on a very short leash to some multibillionaire?

Suppose for example the multibillionaire prefers cheap labor and will simply use DT to burn off the cash and patience people have for wanting to see the wall built?

Suppose he bailed out DT from his bankruptcies but also found a way to have him on a short leash?

a reply to: xuenchen

Nope. Incorrect. I vetted this through University of Georgia School of Law. There is no specific prohibition for a 2 term POTUS from becoming VP. And, if a legitimate reason exists that the POTUS cannot perform his/her duties (such as resignation), then the VP can become POTUS and serve out their full term.

Here's the exact statement:

Abstract

Does the Constitution limit the ability of a twice-before-elected President to serve as Vice-President? This question, as it turns out, presents an intricate constitutional puzzle, the solution of which requires working through four separate sub-inquiries: Is a two-term President totally ineligible for the Vice-Presidency? Is such a person barred from election to the Vice-Presidency even if that person remains appointable to that office? Is a twice-before-elected President, even if properly placed in the Vice-Presidency, incapable of succeeding from that office to the Presidency? And even if such a succession can occur, must the resulting term of service as President expire after two years? This Article addresses each of these questions by laying bare the implications of the decisive constitutional texts — namely, Article II’s enumeration of Presidential qualifications, the Twelfth Amendment’s treatment of qualifications for the Vice-Presidency, and the post-service limitations placed on two-term Presidents by the Twenty-Second Amendment. To be sure, thoughtful analysts have argued that the Constitution forecloses the possibility that a twice-before-elected President can hold (or at least secure election to) the Vice-Presidential office. Close inspection reveals, however, that that view misses the mark. In fact, the relevant constitutional provisions, their histories, and their purposes all point to the same conclusion: A twice-before-elected President may become Vice-President either through appointment or through election and — like any other Vice-President — may thereafter succeed from that office to the Presidency for the full remainder of the pending term.

Repository Citation Dan T. Coenen, Two-Time Presidents and the Vice-Presidency , 56 B.C. L. Rev. 1287 (2015),

I have underlined the key part, but you can read the rest.

a reply to: visitedbythem

Again, there's nothing stopping her from appointing Obama for her running mate in the '24 elections. She doesn't need to become POTUS first. She can just do it.

If she wanted Newsom, she could just do the same thing. The only difference is, she has zero chance of winning with Newsom. The same cannot be said for Obama.

J.D. has publicly converted to a church whose leader recently stated they share a common mission with Marxism.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: visitedbythem

Again, there's nothing stopping her from appointing Obama for her running mate in the '24 elections. She doesn't need to become POTUS first. She can just do it.

If she wanted Newsom, she could just do the same thing. The only difference is, she has zero chance of winning with Newsom. The same cannot be said for Obama.

And that was exactly my point. Obama could jump in for the win, then jump back out and still rule from his basement between his Roblox games.

Its called bait and switch. Thats how they catch the suckerfish.

originally posted by: Cvastar
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That's a good one. I'll lay out another scenario. Biden outed by the 25th amendment proceeding; Harris chooses Hilary as VP; Harris wins and really, not much cheating will be needed.

Either way, you get Harris for POTUS.

Lots of cheating needed. Have you been paying attention to the BLM situation on Harris? Have you seen the NY City folks and the folks in Chicago? Surely, you have noticed.

originally posted by: Solvedit
J.D. has publicly converted to a church whose leader recently stated they share a common mission with Marxism.

I am sure concerned about that and other rumors. I am wondering if we are not being played from both ends of the candle. That wick is getting short.

a reply to: Solvedit

So? What does that even mean, "share a common mission with Marxism"?

Give us the beef, what's that mission?

Lots of organized religions have similar "missions" or actions that would be considered "Marxist" or socialism.

That's expected in a communal organization that people CHOOSE to attend, not so much for governments.

Difference is one of them is a choice. The other, is not.

You can CHOOSE to donate $$ to your Church. Heck you can even CHOOSE to NOT attend Church or give tithing.

The Government makes laws and forcefully collects taxes.

See the difference?

Though, I'm still interested in what this "shared Marxism" mission is.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Kamala would have a better chance at being elected President, if she shared with the world that Barack Obama would be her Vice President only briefly. He'd then take the reins, as you postulated.

While observing Vice President Kamala "cackling" Harris for 3 years, the number of Americans who would vote for a Female President steadily declined.

Source: thehill.com...

Kamala is detrimental rat-poison to the Woman's Equality Movement.

I think it’s too risky. Seeing how loaded the Supremes are. So no Obamas.
I hope she picks Walz from Minnesota.

He’s clever and quick with a turn of the phrase.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
The Government makes laws and forcefully collects taxes.

See the difference?

Though, I'm still interested in what this "shared Marxism" mission is.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: Solvedit

So? What does that even mean, "share a common mission with Marxism"?

Give us the beef, what's that mission?

Lots of organized religions have similar "missions" or actions that would be considered "Marxist" or socialism.

That's expected in a communal organization that people CHOOSE to attend, not so much for governments.

Difference is one of them is a choice. The other, is not.

You can CHOOSE to donate $$ to your Church. Heck you can even CHOOSE to NOT attend Church or give tithing.

The Government makes laws and forcefully collects taxes.

See the difference?



Though, I'm still interested in what this "shared Marxism" mission is.

Love reading your posts.
The top of some of our religious organizations are doing things I think I can see that suggests they are controlling and not loving uplifting types. God wants us freely and cheerfully loving him and his creation as we would ourselves. Destroy that and evil wins. "Judge their intent by their deeds" is a very logical approach to comprehending how the DS works on us all. So many people won't go in a Church because of the perceived hypocrisy, that is true. Despite that the people in there may need to be in there the most often to get the message....Some are compelled to be there to serve those people. I get that. I pray a lot about all of this for myself and all of us really.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
Give us the beef, what's that mission?
Though, I'm still interested in what this "shared Marxism" mission is.

This isn't really about whether you think your church ought to embrace a common cause with Marxism.

It's about what happens if Trump stubs his toe and has to stand down.

Do you want the United States to share a common mission with Marxism?

Sure, they have the right. Even the actual Communist Party has a right to exist here.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Can you imagine all the right wing outrage. They'll be hopping around madder than an apoplectic Rumplestiltskin with a bad case of St. Vitus Dance. I dare them to try.

So basically exactly like left wingers on any day that ends in "Y"

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Won't happen.

O'bumas are too content manipulating from the shadows. Why expose themselves to the public again, when everything they tried last time was a freak show disaster. Like a dumpster fire, where it never burns out.

Besides, illegitimate politicans have hijacked the government, and made it so challengers to their authority are scrutinized.

When did America lose it's damn mind?

Was it after or during 9/11/01...

Seems can trace it back to 2008, when dems went full retarded for socialism.

Mission Creep any one.

My two cents, for what its worth.

Personally, I don't think America is ready for a two minority Pres and VP, be it two blacks or two women. Much less two black women.

My guess is she'll pick Mark Kelly. At least that's what I'd do. White, male, military, hero and a lefty lunatic. Perfect.

They may not wind up nominating her.