Random Politics & Religion #17

You ignored the FBI findings back then too because you didn't like the result. Thanks for reminding me.

Oh wait, you are serious, aren't you?

Never mind the obvious and apparent collusion between Clinton and the Justice Department, I was talking about you ignoring the facts then are you decry/accuse others of ignoring them now.

So, congratulations, this is the first time this year you get called a hypocrite. Well, first time from me.

You probably/most likely get called one several times a day.

Fixed

That was seven months ago. Who will ever remember?

Bernie remembers!

Changing the subject. Just like in the post you apparently bookmarked.

So national security was a major topic in the election, but now the illicit interference of our electoral process by a foreign power is basically brushed off like it's a headline on infowars. All because you've adopted the Trump hubris that you know better and that's that.

Illegal immigrants: Threat
Syrian refugees: Threat
Russian hacking: facts I don't like

I still don't even understand fully why this is the angle some people are going with. It doesn't delegitimize the incoming presidency in any legal sense as there was no direct influence as far as we know. His supporters have already shown that he can grab all the pussies and nothing will change so I doubt this information will take any of that away. What's the issue? Why is this controversial given Russia's history and their current status of their country and our relationship with them?

Not quite. Let me fix that, from the current administration's perspective.

Don't change my posts. Especially in an attempt to effectively say nothing.

I referenced the original so there would be no question as to what you actually said. And since you can't seem to rebut any claim I just made, I'll quote you directly to show what you're now doing.

You didn't make a claim. You just downplayed the situation because it's becoming increasingly likely Russia was involved so the goalposts gotta start moving.

And if they are, so what? This is going on all the freaking time, by our own government no less. The administration hasn't gone out of their way to make a big media issue about all of the hacks that have occurred in recent years with actual consequences. No, they want to make a big deal out of a minor issue because it's politically expedient to do so after their embarrassing loss.

So complain about when it's not highlighted instead, don't brush this off like it's whatever.

Because I don't really know who goes where in what order, hypothetically speaking if a president resigns and their vice president takes up the office, who becomes the new vice president?

If both were to resign and the person who becomes vice president in the above case takes the presidency, who becomes the vice president in this case?

Enlighten me.

Kanye West. I'm sure it's in the constitution near the end.

See, Nixon was pres with Agnew as VP, I was reading that when Agnew resigned due to criminal charges, the 25th Amendment was invoked and House Minority Leader Gerald Ford was "picked", after Nixon resigned, Ford took up office as President and Rockefeller was apparently "picked" as his VP.

Are things so murky and non-thought out that there's not a real determined path of who goes where?

Isn't just the president who choses his vp? So if a vp turns president he choses his own?

Yes and no. A presidential candidate picks his running mate who would become VP if they win. If the VP resigns they can invoke the 25th Amendment and pick someone for congress' approval IIRC. President can pick but congress has to approve.

Originally, whoever came in second for president became VP, so following Washington (Independent/Unaffiliated), when Adams (Federalist) won the presidency, Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) became his VP which caused....issues.

I'm assuming the same happens if a VP dies but I think I read that Ford was "the first" use of the 25th while Rockefeller was "the second"

Ford wasn't voted into either Vice Presidency nor Presidency iirc.

He also didn't win reelection. lol

Presidential Succession Act of 1947 has the answer to that:

Assuming holders of office meet eligibility requirements the order of succession is:

Vice President
Speaker of the House
President pro tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

In the case of holder of one of those offices is not eligible to be president the next person down the line is the successor. The order of succession is based of the chronological creation of department or the department it was successor to.

So Trump causes 10,100 jobs to be lost

This is why the "Media" makes so much hoopla about cabinet appointees. They are the ones who move up the list in case ***hits the fan.

For some reason I feel like, at least in objective terms, secretary of homeland security should be higher on the list than secretary of "give farmers subsidies," but that's just me.

All current political commentary aside, the old school part of Reagan falling all over itself to defend and exonerate Russia is *** hilarious.

Admit it.

Ty.

...imagine if ***got so *** that Secretary of Homeland Security ended up pres.

Xant, I thought you were for Trump.

Wish it would have happened when Tom Ridge was in the office.

I mean, I don't want to wish ill upon anyone.

But a guy from Erie, Pennsylvania being POTUS would have been just...just super. Wish he would have gone along with his party's wishes and reached higher when they wanted him to. He actually would have been a legit POTUS over the past twenty years when we needed one.

The person who should be President if Trump is impeached:

The entirety of the US intelligence community suffered an embarrassing loss? Trying to make this partisan is petty given that it's readily apparent that it isn't.

What's bewildering is that you actually think this isn't partisan. I hate to break this to you, but the US intelligence community is not divorced from politics. Even those within the community who operate with integrity still face both internal and external political pressures.

It isn't bewildering to anyone who isn't stuck on seeing nothing but Rs and Ds. Arguing political pressure makes no sense seeing as how the Democrats as of now have very limited power and will have even less in two weeks. The hacking and disinformation by Russian agents is something that actually happened and youre response is so what.

Don't bother with him anymore, he is already taken leave of his senses and facts. Because to him, he:

Incoming "That's not what I said, stop taking me out of context, you are a big doo-doo head!" reply from him