Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,138
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2661
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
If you're looking for moral character, Trump v. Hillary was pretty much a washout, and Trump v. Biden is little, if any, better.
06-30-2020 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2662
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
Some of y'all have indicated that "climate change" is high on your list of priorities.

As a retired person staying at home for Covid reasons, I watch a lot of TV. Today my viewing took me to PBS and some programs on paleontology.

One of the scientists (AN EXPERT!!!) mentioned that the area where they were excavating was 600 feet under water at the time of the animals they were looking for.

600 FEET! HOLEY MOLEY!

I started thinking that had our environmentalist friends be around back then, they would have been panicking over the falling sea levels. maybe they would have taken measures to stop the falling sea levels. If so, we would not have the British Isles or New Zealand, or Japan or Manhattan.

But it also occurred to me that what they really want is not to save the world, but to save it as it is today. Not 20 years ago, not 2000 years ago, not 200,000 years ago, but now. Temperature up, temperature down, been there, done that. Sea level up, sea level down, been there done that. I guess all the angst we are having today over polar bears, we would have been having them for wooly mammoths.

You guys agonizing over a few millimeters of sea rise, Ok with me, but just don't advertise fighting it as saving the world. The world will do just fine without your help. Maybe men won't. Maybe man will go the way of the mammoth. But the Earth will still be here. For that matter, man has survived in some extreme environments. Lapland, Brazil, Easter Island,the Andes. Maybe it is just the Wall St. crowd that will pass. No great loss.
Yesterday 06:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MerseyOwl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 829
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 13
I Root For: The Blue & Gray
Location: Land of Dull Skies
Post: #2663
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(06-30-2020 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Donald Trump might have been the only republican who could have beaten Hillary in 2016. But now, after 3+ years of media hatchet jobs, his negatives have risen to the point that he might be the only republican who can lose to dementia sufferer Joe Biden.

And my personal opinion is that a democrat victory in November, particularly if accompanied by major wins in both houses of congress, is something that we have to prevent if at all possible. The democrat vision for the USA is full of multiple issue positions that I find to be absolute drop-dead show-stoppers. The damage that they would wreak on freedom, liberty, and the economy could be massive and irreversible. And as Ronald Reagan said, the USA is the last best hope of freedom and liberty, and if we lose it, it's gone forever everywhere.

That being said, I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't make sense for Donald Trump to decide that one term is enough, and for republicans to replace him as the presidential candidate with someone like Nikki Hailey. Mike Pence probably has limited appeal, but could certainly stay on the ticket as VP. But Hailey would potentially have much better appeal to women and people of color (being that she is both) and would certainly be able to use the limited capacity issue against Biden. Quite frankly, my first choice for VP would be Tim Scott, but you don't want two people from the same state on the ticket, unless you expect a runaway election.

I'm tired of Donald Trump, but I'm scared of Biden and the democrats.

Two people from the same state on the ticket for Prez and Veep is actually unconstitutional.

12th amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves"

The phrasing has always struck me as interesting: it doesn't expressly prohibit the Pres and VP being from the same state, just that if they are, an elector in the Electoral College can't vote for both of them. In theory, the Pres and VP nominees are from state A, they could still be elected if:
- State A's electors decide to cast as least one of their votes (e.g. for VP) for some random person from another state. This would seem pretty easy to orchestrate.
- State A's electors abstain in the Pres or VP vote. (Are electors constitutionally required to vote? Article I section 2 says "the
Electors shall...vote for two persons", but it's not clear what the remedy would be if a few of them didn't.)
- (rather absurdly) State A has completely abolished the right to vote and thus, under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, is not entitled to any electors.

Doesn't this all simply go back to the beginning where the presidential candidate who came in second became the vice president (1788 / 1792 / 1796)? The last thing anyone wanted back then was an executive branch wholely elected from a single state so they made it unconstitutional.

(The 1800 election was the first where parties had a presidential ticket that included a vice president.)
Today 06:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,138
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2664
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(Yesterday 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe it is just the Wall St. crowd that will pass. No great loss.

Wouldn't that be a case of addition by subtraction?
Today 06:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2665
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(Today 06:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe it is just the Wall St. crowd that will pass. No great loss.

Wouldn't that be a case of addition by subtraction?

It sure would hurt Democratic fundraising.
Today 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2666
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(Yesterday 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Some of y'all have indicated that "climate change" is high on your list of priorities.

As a retired person staying at home for Covid reasons, I watch a lot of TV. Today my viewing took me to PBS and some programs on paleontology.

One of the scientists (AN EXPERT!!!) mentioned that the area where they were excavating was 600 feet under water at the time of the animals they were looking for.

600 FEET! HOLEY MOLEY!

I started thinking that had our environmentalist friends be around back then, they would have been panicking over the falling sea levels. maybe they would have taken measures to stop the falling sea levels. If so, we would not have the British Isles or New Zealand, or Japan or Manhattan.

But it also occurred to me that what they really want is not to save the world, but to save it as it is today. Not 20 years ago, not 2000 years ago, not 200,000 years ago, but now. Temperature up, temperature down, been there, done that. Sea level up, sea level down, been there done that. I guess all the angst we are having today over polar bears, we would have been having them for wooly mammoths.

You guys agonizing over a few millimeters of sea rise, Ok with me, but just don't advertise fighting it as saving the world. The world will do just fine without your help. Maybe men won't. Maybe man will go the way of the mammoth. But the Earth will still be here. For that matter, man has survived in some extreme environments. Lapland, Brazil, Easter Island,the Andes. Maybe it is just the Wall St. crowd that will pass. No great loss.

I get this mental image of a liberal in hs PJ's sipping some chai tea and saying " I don't care what that idiot conservative says about the history of the Earth, I am worried that the sea level around here will rise 5 centimeters and so I will continue to vote for candidates who will promise to abate 40% of that rise (2 cm.) by taxing the bejeezus out of rich white people."
Today 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
westsidewolf1989 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,117
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #2667
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(Today 06:02 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  
(06-30-2020 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Donald Trump might have been the only republican who could have beaten Hillary in 2016. But now, after 3+ years of media hatchet jobs, his negatives have risen to the point that he might be the only republican who can lose to dementia sufferer Joe Biden.

And my personal opinion is that a democrat victory in November, particularly if accompanied by major wins in both houses of congress, is something that we have to prevent if at all possible. The democrat vision for the USA is full of multiple issue positions that I find to be absolute drop-dead show-stoppers. The damage that they would wreak on freedom, liberty, and the economy could be massive and irreversible. And as Ronald Reagan said, the USA is the last best hope of freedom and liberty, and if we lose it, it's gone forever everywhere.

That being said, I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't make sense for Donald Trump to decide that one term is enough, and for republicans to replace him as the presidential candidate with someone like Nikki Hailey. Mike Pence probably has limited appeal, but could certainly stay on the ticket as VP. But Hailey would potentially have much better appeal to women and people of color (being that she is both) and would certainly be able to use the limited capacity issue against Biden. Quite frankly, my first choice for VP would be Tim Scott, but you don't want two people from the same state on the ticket, unless you expect a runaway election.

I'm tired of Donald Trump, but I'm scared of Biden and the democrats.

Two people from the same state on the ticket for Prez and Veep is actually unconstitutional.

12th amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves"

The phrasing has always struck me as interesting: it doesn't expressly prohibit the Pres and VP being from the same state, just that if they are, an elector in the Electoral College can't vote for both of them. In theory, the Pres and VP nominees are from state A, they could still be elected if:
- State A's electors decide to cast as least one of their votes (e.g. for VP) for some random person from another state. This would seem pretty easy to orchestrate.
- State A's electors abstain in the Pres or VP vote. (Are electors constitutionally required to vote? Article I section 2 says "the
Electors shall...vote for two persons", but it's not clear what the remedy would be if a few of them didn't.)
- (rather absurdly) State A has completely abolished the right to vote and thus, under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, is not entitled to any electors.

Doesn't this all simply go back to the beginning where the presidential candidate who came in second became the vice president (1788 / 1792 / 1796)? The last thing anyone wanted back then was an executive branch wholely elected from a single state so they made it unconstitutional.

(The 1800 election was the first where parties had a presidential ticket that included a vice president.)

Yes, that's generally correct. Electors were required to cast two votes each for president (so that electors wouldn't all just vote for a single person from their state) and one had to be not from that elector's state, so as to avoid voting for two "favorite sons" in an attempt to have both the president and VP (second-place finisher) be from the same state.
Today 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.