Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, SSFB said: No, that wouldn't even make sense. Sure it would. The Speaker is the third place in the line of successions. So, if the Pres is out, the VP steps up and everyone after that steps up, if only voluntarily and for a short period of time. I may be wrong but I'm almost positive that at no time there will be allowed to be a vacancy in any position in the Executive branch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Sure it would. The Speaker is the third place in the line of successions. So, if the Pres is out, the VP steps up and everyone after that steps up, if only voluntarily and for a short period of time. I may be wrong but I'm almost positive that at no time there will be allowed to be a vacancy in any position in the Executive branch. No, everyone doesn't just "step up". You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, just stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/replacing-the-vice-president/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, SSFB said: No, everyone doesn't just "step up". You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, just stop. Well, fuck head...I used "step up" kinda "tongue and cheek". So what you are saying is no one steps into those rolls and assumes those duties? I find that hard to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Well, fuck head...I used "step up" kinda "tongue and cheek". So what you are saying is no one steps into those rolls and assumes those duties? I find that hard to believe. If you wanna talk about "rolls", go find a fucking pastry shop. If you wanna talk about the succession of roles in the Executive branch, go do a little reading before you come in here with your typical know it all style while simultaneously not really having a clue what you're talking about. Not only is there documents which lay this out very clearly, there is historical precedence as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Just now, Zambroski said: Well, fuck head...I used "step up" kinda "tongue and cheek". So what you are saying is no one steps into those rolls and assumes those duties? I find that hard to believe. You do know VP is a rather nothing position unless the president is dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 hour ago, SSFB said: If you wanna talk about "rolls", go find a fucking pastry shop. If you wanna talk about the succession of roles in the Executive branch, go do a little reading before you come in here with your typical know it all style while simultaneously not really having a clue what you're talking about. Not only is there documents which lay this out very clearly, there is historical precedence as well. BOINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) Al Haig https://youtu.be/zUKW0fL-OqY Edited September 12, 2016 by Mainecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, SSFB said: If you wanna talk about "rolls", go find a fucking pastry shop. If you wanna talk about the succession of roles in the Executive branch, go do a little reading before you come in here with your typical know it all style while simultaneously not really having a clue what you're talking about. Not only is there documents which lay this out very clearly, there is historical precedence as well. Yep you were right. I looked it up. But before you get all "Political God-like" with me and instigate some shit. Maybe you should have read my posts, I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't sure. Or I said I thought it would "make sense". Hardly a hard line instigation type posting IMO. But maybe you are just tired of all my words on here. So...try this: By all fucking means, continue impressing me with your "political knowledge" of succession. It's fascinating...FASCINATING! And what a great place to impress people with your over-whelming knowledge of politics and the executive branch. You sure showed me! You win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Momorider said: You do know VP is a rather nothing position unless the president is dead Yep...had to do some checking. I think I got "befuddled" with "in time of war" or some shit. It's been years since I had to learn any of this shit. Hell, High School I think. Edited September 12, 2016 by Zambroski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Yep you were right. I looked it up. But before you get all "Political God-like" with me and instigate some shit. Maybe you should have read my posts, I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't sure. Or I said I thought it would "make sense". Hardly a hard line instigation type posting IMO. But maybe you are just tired of all my words on here. So...try this: By all fucking means, continue impressing me with your "political knowledge" of succession. It's fascinating...FASCINATING! And what a great place to impress people with your over-whelming knowledge of politics and the executive branch. You sure showed me! You win. It's simple, you're really long winded and most of your posts are filled with bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, SSFB said: It's simple, you're really long winded and most of your posts are filled with bullshit. Then, correct my "bullshit" so I know better. Or, "ignore". I can hammer out shit as fast as I can think it so it's no big deal for me. Was this too long? Hey...shut the fuck up.... We're good. You were right, I was wrong. And yes MC...you were right too. Edited September 12, 2016 by Zambroski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Then, correct my "bullshit" so I know better. Or, "ignore". I can hammer out shit as fast as I can think it so it's no big deal for me. Was this too long? Hey...shut the fuck up.... We're good. You were right, I was wrong. And yes MC...you were right too. Oh believe me, we've noticed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Just now, SSFB said: Oh believe me, we've noticed! And you know you are not the first to complain about it. In fact...it almost hurts me to end this here......but I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chapman Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 The Supreme Court should appoint Jeb Bush as President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted September 12, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted September 12, 2016 According to the DNC Charter and Bylaws a meeting would be called and the DNC pick a replacement. If anyone seriously thinks the DNC would choose Sanders than I got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. How the DNC Would Select the Candidate According to the Democratic National Committee’s Charter & Bylaws, should there be a need to "fill a vacancy on the national ticket," the chairperson of the National Committee (currently Donna Brazile, who is the interim chair after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was booted), with the approval of the Executive Committee, could call for a "special meeting" to select a new candidate. Here's the exact phrasing from the bylaws: Special meetings of the National Committee may be held upon the call of the Chairperson with the approval of the Executive Committee with reasonable notice to the members, and no action may be taken at such a special meeting unless such proposed action was included in the notice of the special meeting. The foregoing notwithstanding, a special meeting to fill a vacancy on the National ticket shall be held on the call of the Chairperson, who shall set the date for such meeting in accordance with the procedural rules provided for in Article Two, Section 8(d) of these Bylaws. As Paste notes, the "foregoing notwithstanding" qualifier requires a little more digging, but essentially the selection of the candidate would fall entirely on whomever the DNC thinks is the best choice, whether that be Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine, the betrayed Bernie Sanders, or the reluctant hero Vice President Joe Biden. All that the bylaws require is that the candidate be approved by a majority of the members present at the "special meeting": (d) Except as otherwise provided in the Charter or in these Bylaws, all questions before the Democratic National Committee shall be determined by majority vote of those members present and voting in person or by proxy. (ii) A roll call may be requested by a vote of twenty-five percent (25%) of those Democratic National Committee members present and voting. While the bylaws specify that no proxy voting will be allowed in this situation, another clause basically allows the Rules and Bylaws Committee to change the procedure as they see fit, giving the DNC free reign to really conduct the vote anyway they choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 58 minutes ago, SSFB said: It's simple, you're really long winded and most of your posts are filled with bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Zambroski said: That is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Hope AND pray. A 90% dead Hillary is his best shot without a doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 43 minutes ago, ckf said: 15 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: A 90% dead Hillary is his best shot without a doubt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Highmark said: He would have to explain how he purchased a $600K 3rd home with cash? He is 74 years old. Probably has a nest egg... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, Anler said: He is 74 years old. Probably has a nest egg... He and Jane sold another property in order to buy that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, motonoggin said: He and Jane sold another property in order to buy that one. Conspiracy theories are cooler though....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 24 minutes ago, Anler said: He is 74 years old. Probably has a nest egg... 14 minutes ago, motonoggin said: He and Jane sold another property in order to buy that one. 150k was still not accounted for. Between selling the house and his statements. But hey, who cares. A guy with 3 homes is just the average joe and knows what it is like to go without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted September 12, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) I think time has expired in all states to get a name on the ballot or general. I dont think stein made the cutoff to get here name and enough signatures in some states to get on the ballor. Dems are stuck with clinton or nobody else can step in i think unless the states individually changed there rules. heck early voting starts in a week or so in some states Edited September 12, 2016 by BOHICA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, BOHICA said: I think time has expired in all states to get a name on the ballot dor general. I dont think stein made the cutoff to get here name and enough signatures in some states to get on the ballor. Dems are stuck with clinton or nobody else can step in i think unless the states individually changed there rules Well, I doubt the electoral college would consider casting their vote for a dead person (assuming). I'm not sure it'd be legal....but what does that mean anyway? "Legal"? I don't know what the deal would be for write-in voting. Some states allow it, some don't. It'd be fucked up if she dies and the conspiracies would muddy the water so quick, nobody would ever believe the truth. It'd actually be better to just keep her "alive" until after the election...I don't know, use a stand-in or some shit. I'd be happy to accept her death whenever they announced it. And sit back and listen to the sweet, calming sounds of Timmy's lips sliding back and forth on his "tin sandwich". ....whisk me away...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.