Senate Going Postal: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

I also find funny the excessive passion and outrage that people suddenly expressed on this topic. It's almost a philosophical/academic issue, with zero impact on our lives.
There's no reason to get so agitated about it.

 

People feel the need to "punish" criminals. I put punish in quotes because the actual form it takes in their minds is usually very vague and generally stems down to the fact that they want people who have broken the law to be miserable at all hours of the day.

 

The rule covers elections - not "succeeding to the Presidency"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment

As worded, the primary focus of the 22nd Amendment is on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency from being elected again. Due to this, several issues could be raised regarding the amendment's meaning and application, especially in relation to the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States".[23] While it is clear that under the 12th Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear whether someone who is ineligible to be elected president could be elected vice president. Because of this apparent ambiguity, there may be a loophole in the 22nd Amendment whereby a two-term former-president could be elected vice president and then succeed to the presidency as a result of the incumbent's death, resignation, or removal from office (or even succeed to the presidency from some other stated office in the presidential line of succession).[8][24]

Some argue that the 22nd Amendment and 12th Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the presidential line of succession.[25] Others contend that the original intent of the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service (age, residence, and citizenship), while the 22nd Amendment, concerns qualifications for election, and thus (strictly applying the text) a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president (neither amendment restricts the number of times an individual can be elected to the vice presidency), and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term (though prohibited from running for election to an additional term).[26][27]

 

You're a Harvard student and you get the awesome opportunity to ask a direct question to Bernie ******* Sanders.
There are people who would consider it one of the best moments of their life. And what do you do? How do you make use of such a once-in-a-lifetime situation?
You... ask about his wealth...

 

This idea that rich people are not in the position to fight for the working class is silly, of course. But what makes it look even more ridiculous is that it's asked by a Harvard student.
So you have a double filter: high education + the intrinsic fact that she decided to take part in a Town Hall, so she's supposed to be really into politics. Yet this is what she comes up with. I don't know it looks very phony to me.

 

I do think Sanders is wasting the opportunity to sell that message, @anakinfansince1983

He should be spouting as loudly and as often as he can that democratic socialism isn't about preventing people from finding success or about punishing people who make a lot of money, but about helping everyone have an opportunity to be successful. 'Yes, I'm a millionaire, and no that isn't hypocritical in the light of desired democratic socialism. Democratic socialism still allows the creation and cultivation of millionaires. It just recognizes that, in general, people who become millionaires do it because of the structure around them, and they should pay back into the system and allow others to do the same. A young man growing up in <whatever city he's giving a speech in> can't dream of being a millionaire when his father has to work two jobs to pay for routine medical bills. A young lady who just graduated from <nearby college> can't dream of becoming a millionaire because she's saddled with too much student loan debt. So, no, democratic socialism won't destroy the american dream, won't punish success, won't discourage people from chasing bigger and better - it'll just make it more possible"

I haven't really heard that spin on things from him and it really is a missed opportunity.

 

Prisoners should absolutely be allowed to vote. Them having voting rights taken away isn't about punishing them (because lots of people don't even care about voting). It's about disenfranchising a large group of people, whom as Vivec pointed out, are disproportionately minorities due to the racist nature of the criminal justice system.

 

Yes, I am aware of the wording of the 22nd Amendment. I doubt that anyone would try to take advantage of the supposed loophole (if only because VP is a thankless job no former President would want) unless we lived in a Russiaesque game of musical chairs.

 

Yeah, this reeks of sabotage. A Harvard student isn't aware of FDR, the Kennedys, and LBJ, all of whom were wealthier than God, and all of whom made it their life mission to lift people out of poverty?

Boy, the Establishment is getting more and more transparent.

 

Defend Your Class.

 

Thanks! Excellent essay, as expected from Jacobin.

Didn't these little pukes ever hear of noblesse oblige?

 

There is no doubt that the questions are carefully selected.
Note also how they staged the trap. A person asked about convicted felons voting, Bernie made a very clear explanation of his point of view. Still, what did Cuomo do? He asked the exact, same, already-answered question again, a second time, after charging it on an emotional level:
"you would give the Boston terrorist the right to vote, are you sure???? "

The day after several articles were specifically focused on that.

 

No taxation without representation.

"Terrorists" won an independence in a country of some repute and influence over that.

 

She looks exactly like the dweeb we'd expect a "harvard centrist girl" to look like

 

I doubt the average person knows what the hell a Mitch McConnell is, or what he's done to the country.

 

It's weird how there are actually people in the media who are pointing out that Bootedgeedge has nothing to offer. I would have expected unconditional fawning over his platitudes and life story.

 

But when he offers nothing, he does it in 10 languages.

 

Trump had nothing to offer either. Obama's "hope and change" was also vague and devoid of specifics. Right now, Bernie Sanders is beating Elizabeth Warren despite the latter having all the detailed policy proposals.

 

Sanders stands for something. He has actual policy proposals, though yes, Warren is doing better with details. I agree about Obama, hence my surprise at Anderson Cooper pointing out how empty Mayor Pete's campaign is.

 

@Darth Guy
I've just taken a look at the exchange you are referring to. God, that's gross. "We must stress our values first" what an utter nonsense!

By the way, if the first thing you do when asked about specific policy proposals is to mention a technical issue concerning the supreme court, it really means you have NOTHING.

 

Well he's not wrong...we do vote based on our values first. It just depends on what those values are.

Anyway, he seems to show some intent to fight and reverse the Republicans' power grabs, so that's not nothing.

 

Values should emerge from the policy proposals, you don't just proclaim values in an abstract way. Also, one thing does not exclude the other, it's not an "either.. or" situation.
Bernie's values are crystal clear even though he is almost autistic in the way he keeps repeating the little bunch of specific policy ideas for which he wants to struggle.

 

I simply don't think that's true. Even before his healthcare policy, he ran in the Democratic Party on a very definitive rejection of the foreign policy status quo. He rebuked the Iraq War first and most consistently of any major candidate--or any at all save Sanders. He put forward a strategy for a diplomatic resolution to the Iran Crisis and terminating the Cuba embargo. He got a huge amount of flack from this from opponents like in the "3 AM" ad. But it's also true that he got withering criticism from professional commentary about how the idea was naïve and unworkable. In spite of that, he develop a thorough, consensus-driven, analytic policy that actually implemented both these ideas in ways that were not only workable but widely applauded both domestically and internationally.

I know you all think I like Obama too much. I also realize how disappointed some of you are with him. But he had far more substantive ideas than Buttgieg has shown to date. I've never thought the comparison appropriate.