When will the President Take Office?

[Buff]

From what I've seen, both parties have armies of lawyers already filing suits and preparing to file suits. Every single state in play already has allegations of impropriety and counterallegations. People will claim disenfranchisement, fraud, and confusion; and, thousands of lawyers and partisan hacks are prepared to spare no expense to assure victory for their candidate.

My question is this:

What happens if the election is not resolved by the time the President-elect is supposed to take over? Could we end up without a commander-in-chief for a while? Would Bush continue to hold the office? Would someone else hold the office? Would it be vacant?

And suppose it were vacant if even for a few months -- who's in charge of the Armed Forces during that time? We're at war, after all.

I think this could be a very exciting time over the next few months. Personally, I'd love to have a constitutional crisis like that.

I know what the constitution stipulates in cases of a President not being able to fulfill his duty for whatever reason, but I'm not sure it addresses post-election confusion.

Thoughts?

[pushpills]

OMG, are you fucking stupid?


I find your post funnier than you think "team america" is. Funniest ever......idiot.

[Buff]

Originally posted by pushpills@Oct 18 2004, 01:58 AM
OMG, are you fucking stupid?


I find your post funnier than you think "team america" is. Funniest ever......idiot.
Why don't you educate me, you google-eyed brainiac?

[Almighty Colin]

According to the 20th amendment of the Constitution, Congress would decide who would be president until the matter is decided.

[Mike AI]

The democrats who cannot win elections on ideas, have come to a point where they are going to try and hold nation hostage with attornies and lawsuits.

Liberals cannot win at the polls. The past 50 years, liberals have only had success through the courts - with activist judges re-writing laws, not interpereting it.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Colin@Oct 18 2004, 03:02 AM
According to the 20th amendment of the Constitution, Congress would decide who would be president until the matter is decided.
Here endeth the thread.

:)

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 18 2004, 09:53 AM
The democrats who cannot win elections on ideas, have come to a point where they are going to try and hold nation hostage with attornies and lawsuits.

Liberals cannot win at the polls. The past 50 years, liberals have only had success through the courts - with activist judges re-writing laws, not interpereting it.
Bill Clinton went to court to get into office?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 18 2004, 09:53 AM
The democrats who cannot win elections on ideas, have come to a point where they are going to try and hold nation hostage with attornies and lawsuits.

Liberals cannot win at the polls. The past 50 years, liberals have only had success through the courts - with activist judges re-writing laws, not interpereting it.
Meni AI, I hate to cloud the issue with relevant facts, but ..... Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon; Johnson was more liberal than Goldwater; Carter was more liberal than Ford; Clinton was more liberal than Bush I or Dole.

If you take Nader out of the 2000 equation, Bush would have lost the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. Anyone with the imagination of a slug can pretty well conclude what the reaction of you and those who think [sic] like you would have been if it had been GORE who won the 2000 election the way Bush did.

You say that judges are "re-writing" laws. What you MEAN is that they are not interpreting them THE WAY YOU WANT THEM INTERPRETED.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 18 2004, 11:53 AM
Liberals cannot win at the polls. The past 50 years, liberals have only had success through the courts - with activist judges re-writing laws, not interpereting it.
If the liberals only had more brothers as governors to fix the votes in swing states ... :)

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by SykkBoy+Oct 18 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SykkBoy @ Oct 18 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Oct 18 2004, 09:53 AM
The democrats who cannot win elections on ideas, have come to a point where they are going to try and hold nation hostage with attornies and lawsuits.

Liberals cannot win at the polls. The past 50 years, liberals have only had success through the courts - with activist judges re-writing laws, not interpereting it.
Bill Clinton went to court to get into office? [/b][/quote]

You misread what I said. My point is liberals cannot win their political points by vote, or legislation - they rely upon activist judges to interpret the laws.

I promise you, if you put up abortion on a national election, it would be outlawed the next day. I spent a long time in law school, and I never saw anything in Constitution that gives an express right for Abortion.

There are literally a million issues like this. The 10th Amendment has been ignored, and the consolidation of power to the Federal gov't andd their laws have all been carried out through backdoors such as "interstate commerce clause".

For the record, I could careless about abortion one way or the other. Just using it to make my point.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Oct 18 2004, 12:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Oct 18 2004, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Oct 18 2004, 09:53 AM
The democrats who cannot win elections on ideas, have come to a point where they are going to try and hold nation hostage with attornies and lawsuits.

Liberals cannot win at the polls. The past 50 years, liberals have only had success through the courts - with activist judges re-writing laws, not interpereting it.
Meni AI, I hate to cloud the issue with relevant facts, but ..... Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon; Johnson was more liberal than Goldwater; Carter was more liberal than Ford; Clinton was more liberal than Bush I or Dole.

If you take Nader out of the 2000 equation, Bush would have lost the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. Anyone with the imagination of a slug can pretty well conclude what the reaction of you and those who think [sic] like you would have been if it had been GORE who won the 2000 election the way Bush did.

You say that judges are "re-writing" laws. What you MEAN is that they are not interpreting them THE WAY YOU WANT THEM INTERPRETED. [/b][/quote]


How many Presidential candidates who have called themselves a liberal during the campaign won??

It is funny to watch how fast Deemocrats run from the L word.

I was not alive during most of those elections, but what I have read and studied about them - I do not remember JFK calling himself a liberal. Infact JFKs policies were very Conservative. ( especially compaired to modern times)

PD you are trying to cofuse the issues. Just because a person is not as conservative as Goldwater does not make him "libera;" - the measuring stick "more liberal then" is pretty weak.

The only truly liberal of the group was Carter, at least openly - and look at the disaster he led!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 18 2004, 03:40 PM
How many Presidential candidates who have called themselves a liberal during the campaign won??

It is funny to watch how fast Deemocrats run from the L word.

I was not alive during most of those elections, but what I have read and studied about them - I do not remember JFK calling himself a liberal. Infact JFKs policies were very Conservative. ( especially compaired to modern times)

PD you are trying to cofuse the issues. Just because a person is not as conservative as Goldwater does not make him "libera;" - the measuring stick "more liberal then" is pretty weak.

The only truly liberal of the group was Carter, at least openly - and look at the disaster he led!
Mike ... Kennedy WAS conservative by the standards of today - DEFINITELY more conservative than Humphrey or Stevenson. Still, he was certainly more liberal than Nixon, and was attacked in all the traditional ways - would be "soft on communism", would treat niggers like real citizens, run up huge deficits (back when Republicans thought they were bad), blah-blah-blah.

Frankly, I think that Reagan was, and Bush II is, every bit as conservative as Barry Goldwater. The Republican Party has definitely taken a hard right over the last 50 years, and particularly since Reagan. It started with the Mitchell Plan to recruit disgruntled white voters in the early 70s, and continued with the galvanization of the religious right in the 80s and 90s.

Mikey, whether you like it or not the country is pretty evenly divided between left and right. In the 50 year timeframe you outlined, the Republicans have won 7 elections (Eisenhower, Nixon (2), Reagan (2), Bush I, Bush II); and the Democrats have won 5 (Kennedy; Johnson; Carter; Clinton (2)).

You can prattle on about how the Democrats have run away from the L word - I don't dispute that. I don't think that means a fucking thing. The truth of the matter is, a shift of a thousand votes or so in the last election and it would be 7-6. I don't know how you can deny how evenly divided the country is.

Even if the candidates THEMSELVES don't label themselves liberal, there are more than enough people like you screaming it.

[Nickatilynx]

ya know....


Just once I'd like to read one of these threads where suddenly either MikeAI decided he had seen the light , and was now a Democrat , OR , PD converted to Republican.

Has anyone , ever , changed their view on a politics as a result of politcal debate on Oprano?

[Lee]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Oct 18 2004, 01:49 PM
Has anyone , ever , changed their view on a politics as a result of politcal debate on Oprano?
I have.

I used to 'think' politicians were born moronic.

Now i know that they are :)

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Oct 18 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Oct 18 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Oct 18 2004, 03:40 PM
How many Presidential candidates who have called themselves a liberal during the campaign won??

It is funny to watch how fast Deemocrats run from the L word.

I was not alive during most of those elections, but what I have read and studied about them - I do not remember JFK calling himself a liberal. Infact JFKs policies were very Conservative. ( especially compaired to modern times)

PD you are trying to cofuse the issues. Just because a person is not as conservative as Goldwater does not make him "libera;" - the measuring stick "more liberal then" is pretty weak.

The only truly liberal of the group was Carter, at least openly - and look at the disaster he led!
Mike ... Kennedy WAS conservative by the standards of today - DEFINITELY more conservative than Humphrey or Stevenson. Still, he was certainly more liberal than Nixon, and was attacked in all the traditional ways - would be "soft on communism", would treat niggers like real citizens, run up huge deficits (back when Republicans thought they were bad), blah-blah-blah.

Frankly, I think that Reagan was, and Bush II is, every bit as conservative as Barry Goldwater. The Republican Party has definitely taken a hard right over the last 50 years, and particularly since Reagan. It started with the Mitchell Plan to recruit disgruntled white voters in the early 70s, and continued with the galvanization of the religious right in the 80s and 90s.

Mikey, whether you like it or not the country is pretty evenly divided between left and right. In the 50 year timeframe you outlined, the Republicans have won 7 elections (Eisenhower, Nixon (2), Reagan (2), Bush I, Bush II); and the Democrats have won 5 (Kennedy; Johnson; Carter; Clinton (2)).

You can prattle on about how the Democrats have run away from the L word - I don't dispute that. I don't think that means a fucking thing. The truth of the matter is, a shift of a thousand votes or so in the last election and it would be 7-6. I don't know how you can deny how evenly divided the country is.

Even if the candidates THEMSELVES don't label themselves liberal, there are more than enough people like you screaming it. [/b][/quote]
PD, fiscally Bush 43 is much more liberal than Clinton. Clinton at least passed NAFTA, a watered-down version of sort of free trade. Bush raised tariffs. Clinton raised taxes, true, but he also balanced the budget. Bush cut taxes a very very little bit, and allowed spending to skyrocket. Bush also added another government agency and a lot more government jobs. That's liberalism. I mean, he passed a liberal $400 billion in medical payoffs to buy seniors' votes. How can you say he's as conservative as Goldwater?

If it weren't for the fact that Bush talks about God, is against abortion, and went to war in Iraq, I don't think the liberals could find a single argument against him.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Oct 18 2004, 05:09 PM
PD, fiscally Bush 43 is much more liberal than Clinton. Clinton at least passed NAFTA, a watered-down version of sort of free trade. Bush raised tariffs. Clinton raised taxes, true, but he also balanced the budget. Bush cut taxes a very very little bit, and allowed spending to skyrocket. Bush also added another government agency and a lot more government jobs. That's liberalism. I mean, he passed a liberal $400 billion in medical payoffs to buy seniors' votes. How can you say he's as conservative as Goldwater?

If it weren't for the fact that Bush talks about God, is against abortion, and went to war in Iraq, I don't think the liberals could find a single argument against him.
Bush shows absolutely no signs of fiscal responsibility - I'll agree if you put it that way.

But a liberal? Come on, Buff ... I don't know what wacked-out definition of liberalism you are using (inventing), but no way in hell.

The other government agency may end up creating new jobs - they usually do - but up to this point it's a paper shuffle more than anything else. Oh, I know you will want to whine about the security folks put on the government payroll - but considering that the private sector failed miserably in their efforts to provide security, it can't be a suprise that it happened.

I suspect that, as it was passed by Congress, the Medicare bill will benefit the health care industry far more than it will the seniors it was aimed at - 10+ billion to the pharmacutical companies alone (in the ban on the government negotiating discounts). And you know damned good and well it's not that he TALKS about God that bothers the left ... it's the fact that he thinks he is annointed by God to bring America into line with the way he thinks God wants us to act.

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Oct 18 2004, 09:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Oct 18 2004, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Oct 18 2004, 05:09 PM
PD, fiscally Bush 43 is much more liberal than Clinton. Clinton at least passed NAFTA, a watered-down version of sort of free trade. Bush raised tariffs. Clinton raised taxes, true, but he also balanced the budget. Bush cut taxes a very very little bit, and allowed spending to skyrocket. Bush also added another government agency and a lot more government jobs. That's liberalism. I mean, he passed a liberal $400 billion in medical payoffs to buy seniors' votes. How can you say he's as conservative as Goldwater?

If it weren't for the fact that Bush talks about God, is against abortion, and went to war in Iraq, I don't think the liberals could find a single argument against him.
Bush shows absolutely no signs of fiscal responsibility - I'll agree if you put it that way.

But a liberal? Come on, Buff ... I don't know what wacked-out definition of liberalism you are using (inventing), but no way in hell.

The other government agency may end up creating new jobs - they usually do - but up to this point it's a paper shuffle more than anything else. Oh, I know you will want to whine about the security folks put on the government payroll - but considering that the private sector failed miserably in their efforts to provide security, it can't be a suprise that it happened.

I suspect that, as it was passed by Congress, the Medicare bill will benefit the health care industry far more than it will the seniors it was aimed at - 10+ billion to the pharmacutical companies alone (in the ban on the government negotiating discounts). And you know damned good and well it's not that he TALKS about God that bothers the left ... it's the fact that he thinks he is annointed by God to bring America into line with the way he thinks God wants us to act. [/b][/quote]
My definitions are like this:

Liberal, left = more government.
Conservative, right = less government.

Bush is a big government guy.

[RawAlex]

Buff, sorry, but protectionism is a conservative thing. Keeping things inside the country, keeping things to ourselves, that is all about "conservative" views of the world. Free trade is a "less government" thing, but Bush seems very intent on putting up more barriers, hiring more inspectors and taxmen, and fighting more losing battles at the WTO. Conservative indeed!

Liberal would be opening up trade and then extending benefits to workers who lose their jobs.

:-)

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Oct 18 2004, 04:49 PM
Has anyone , ever , changed their view on a politics as a result of politcal debate on Oprano?
Follow up question. What point does debate serve for anyone? I know that I change my mind on issues over time. I always assume debate is a factor in that.

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 18 2004, 11:33 PM
Buff, sorry, but protectionism is a conservative thing. Keeping things inside the country, keeping things to ourselves, that is all about "conservative" views of the world. Free trade is a "less government" thing, but Bush seems very intent on putting up more barriers, hiring more inspectors and taxmen, and fighting more losing battles at the WTO. Conservative indeed!

Liberal would be opening up trade and then extending benefits to workers who lose their jobs.

:-)

Alex
Alex.... you are exactly wrong.

The liberal position is protectionism. You know, preventing outsourcing, mandating quotas and tariffs on imports, providing subsidies to farmers, etc.

Bush is in line with all of these... he has liberal positions economically.

If you were to read the writings of real conservatives like Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, you'd find out that conservatives want LESS regulation.

Like Pat Buchanan said, Bush and the Neocons have turned their back on conservatism.