The Constitution says that no-one ineligible to serve as president may be elected vice-president. Period. Full stop. If SCOTUS interpreted the words and not the perceived intentions (which always, coincidentally, favor the views to the interpreters) of the people who wrote the words, the world would be a far better place.
That's the thing right there, isn't it - it's all in the eyes of the interpreters, and the current SCOTUS has shown they'll do everything in their considerable linguistic powers to let Trump do whatever he wants.
Yes, but the 22nd Amendment is not a restriction on anyone’s ability to “serve” as President; it only restricts a person’s ability to be “elected” as President, and a person can become President without being “elected.” See Gerald Ford.
I think M. means the 12'th amendment, prohibiting anyone ineligible for presidency to be the VP, but as EZ points out, the SCOTUS will probably interpret that as onle relating to being 35 and natural born citizen.
I know that M was referring to the language in the 12th Amendment that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” But that language does not refer to a person’s eligibility to be “elected” to the Presidency; it speaks of a person’s eligibility to the office of the Presidency.
I know you’re the attorney here. But the intent of the two different items being discussed is clear. No foreigners- if one can’t be vp, they can’t be the president. The two term limit was obviously a reaction of GOP abhorrence to too much FDR. Did it occur to them that some time in the future there could come another FDR or the Democratic version of Trump, meaning they would regret any change? Politicians often fail to plan for the future. They forget that new rules work both ways. Both sides have regretted changes in House and Senate rules, now being used against them. I suggest MAGAs take that into account before pushing for changes to help Trump- unless they believe conservatives will be in charge forever or the US ceases to exist in its present form. Nothing in our history suggests either one in the near future.
Since the president & VP run together, if you're elected as VP then you're also elected as president if the president dies or quits.
But everyone is forgetting something here:
If the ticket were Vance/trump & Vance was elected president [a horrendous thought], do you actually think he's quit the job & let trump back in?
Not a chance in fucking hell!!!
That's Vance's dream, to become the tech bro president & give his fealty to Silicon Valley & all his fellow tech bros & to the wall Street scum that made him rich!!
He'd double cross the fat fascist traitor faster than you could say "Fuck off Diaper Don"!
If a person is elected Vice President and becomes President later on, not as a result of an election but rather as a result of the death or resignation of the President, they were not “elected” as President.
Sadly, I’m pretty sure Joanie’s right. It’s a gaping loophole. If you link back to the original article that I posted you’ll see quotes from a scholarly publication that explain why the wording is the way it is.
Eric - as a constitutional conservative, I would vigorously oppose any attempt by Trump to find any manner in which to seek a third term in office. And I believe the majority of conservatives share my position on this which would, I believe, render any attempt to engineer a Vance-Trump ticket unelectable.
Interesting point. Vance has the intelligence and personality of a pet rock. The issue is who would run against them. Mention the word “liberal” and conservatives would rally around Moe of the 3 Stooges. Democrats can’t agree on leadership at the moment. Some are ready to boot Schumer to another planet. I read an article today that AOC is ready to take over the reins of ultra liberals from Bernie. This will help Democrats? I’m not a gambler, but I wouldn’t lay a plug nickel on predicting 2028.
Ford wasn't elected as either vice president or president. Nixon/Agnew was the elected ticket. Then, Agnew resigned, replaced by Ford, who then replaced Nixon when he resigned.
John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, LBJ. And I might mention Nixon who was never sworn in when he was vp but had to run things several times when Ike had one of his heart attacks.
I agree. It's extremely unlikely that Vance would resign to allow Trump to succeed him. Deep down, I think that Vance despises Trump, thinks him an idiot, and that the country would be best served with him (Vance) as President.
I agree, GSC. And what fun it would be to listen in on the conversation in the Oval Office when JD informs his excellency #45/7 that he rather likes the view from the other side of the Resolute Desk and exiles DJT to the Naval Observatory to watch Fox for 4 years. But the idea of JD as president soils the fantasy.
There is something else being left out of the argument. Actually there are several things. Republicans are the ones always yammering about term limits when Democrats have been in office too long. But we are supposed to ignore it when it's someone Republicans want in office? Do I need to remind everyone of all the complaining about Biden's age even before Republicans started making up false stories of dementia? How old do they think Trump will be in 2028 and by the end of a third term? Hypocrisy, thy name is MAGA. By the way I read a MAGA Republican Congress idiot is pusing an amendment to let him run. Are we really going to need to waste time and effort on something that stands zero chance of being enacted as it would need 3/4 of the states and Congress?
Hi Laurence - you bring up a very valid point which is a huge ongoing source of frustration for me. While the overwhelming majority of Americans strongly favor term limits for elective office, neither party, when holding power and the ability to advance such legislation, is willing to do so because it would threaten their hold on power.
Personally, I believe two Senate terms and four terms in the House of Representatives should be the limit for people to return to private life. But unfortunately, once people have power they are extremely reluctant to surrender it. And coincidentally, people in power always seem to amass wealth far beyond what they would typically do in private life. So we are fighting human nature on this.
We the people actually do hold the power on this, in that we could demand that our candidates for office from both parties give us their explicit commitment to support and advance legislation for term limits as a condition of receiving our vote. However, in our hyperpartisan climate, this is likely not feasible. And we are the worst off for it.
Please understand that I am personally against term limits. I don't like anyone telling me that I cannot vote for the candidate of my choice. Actually, we have term limits. It's called voting. Before you tell me, I know some would consider it an unrealistic view. Election rules in some states make it close to impossible to unseat a well organized, well funded incumbent. When Richard J. Daley ran the state, Illinois election law made it difficult for Republicans and practically impossible for anyone else to run, due to the number of petitions needed for independents and others to even get on the ballot. In Chicago, if anyone, even Democrats, wanted to challenge a long time ward leader, it was amazing how many building violations they would suddenly rack up. I am in a Democratic district in a Republican area, well south of the city due to gerrymandering. But none of this changes my view that I should be allowed to vote for the person of my choice if the person is a legal candidate. My real problem is not with term limits, but hypocrisy. What's good for one political part y is good for another.
A good, partisan example is Susan Collins, who ran for senator in Maine on the promise to not serve more than two terms. She is currently campaigning for a sixth term in next year's election.
This is pushing the envelope even further (and even unlikelier), but if two die-hard MAGAs were to win President and VP, and if the House had a Republican majority, the House could vote Trump in as Speaker (the Speaker of the House need not be a member of the House). Then, the President and VP could simultaneously resign and Trump would be the President - by the rules of Presidential succession. However, you'd have to have 2 VERY compliant die-hard MAGAs willing to eschew the power of the presidency in fealty to Trump.
Right. He’s already prohibited from running again. The only way you can get more than 8 years is to serve less than 2 years of a previous president’s term after that person dies or otherwise leaves office. Remember our knowledge of 80 year olds. This may be a moot point in 3 years. Nature may make the decision for us.
I think using strong expletives is an exercise of freedom and artistic expression and there are certainly multitudes of circumstances where that is appropriate. When I grew up in the USSR, no expletives were ever used in any movies, books or newspapers (I left before the Internet). Putting restrictions on language is definitely in the totalitarian playbook.
My only preference is that some publications, especially ones with storied histories and traditions would try to keep those to a minimum, instead trying to flex their literary muscles and using some fancy vocabulary, and maybe using "[expletive]" when quoting others. It would be a little jarring if NYT started dropping the f-bomb in its news stories, although these days completely appropriate. Anyway, I'd be fine with it.
I am surprised to see the results (thus far at 7:20 am) of the "fuck" poll. More people are uneasy with it than totally fine (and I am totally fine with it).
The other f-word, "fag" or "faggot", I absolutely never use unless I am quoting someone, or discussing the words themselves as I am doing here. It is loaded and hurtful to many people. I thing newspapers should have fully quoted the subject in that story who used the term as it is revealing about his character. I think in that context it would not be threatening. But then, I am not gay, so I could very well be wrong on this.
It's basically the equivalent of the n-word and I'd prefer it would never be used and somehow only hinted at when quoting others, but I don't really have a good solution for quotes.
I was just watching a new British movie - Hard Truths (excellent movie), and as usual when watching something British, the use of ‘fag’ for cigarette is a bit jarring. But it’s British.
Good point. Cultural context means everything. I read a story about the German adoption of the term "shit show". Angela Markel even used the term. It has a different meaning to them, and it is not at all vulgar.
I am gay, and I agree with Skeptic. 'Fag' should be usable in the way in which he or she used it (quoting someone or discussing the word itself). The pejorative racial or ethnic terms (there's one or more for every group) should be usable in the same way.
Maybe, instead of saying f___ing f_g, it might be more interesting to say "Can you believe the city put these up for these {rhymes with bucking bags}?"
In a comment by EZ he mentions the "Ted Lasso" show's liberal use of the word. However, in England the term "Fck off" is quite common - and essentially means "get out of here". I've been surprised by how commonly it is used by people who are not vulgar.
I believe I remember first encountering "faggots" used in Anna Sewell's 19th-Century children's book, "Black Beauty." From context (an exhausted horse had dropped in harness, and an onlooker shouted something like "Light some faggots under his tail and he'll get up quick enough!") the term there appeared to mean firewood or kindling. I was startled (and saddened) to grow up and learn it meant anything else!
I rarely swear, and when I do it tends to be at low levels. ("Damn!") I'm not offended by other people swearing for occasional emphasis, but am put off by repetitive pounding of the same expletives. (Maybe I don't like loud heavy metal music for the same reason.)
The advantage of my prejudice, though, is that on the rare occasions that I'm pushed past endurance and do let fly a pungent expletive, the room goes silent in astonishment that it flew from li'l ole me. THAT attention-getting is the point of swearing! It's very satisfying.
I wrote this answer on Quora in February: "The 22nd Amendment was written in a way that allowed Harry S Truman the option to run for more terms if he wanted. Wisely, he didn’t.
Even the Article describing the requirements for the Presidency allowed for the fact that the first eight presidents were British subjects at birth.
I have no problem with allowing more than two terms and feel it was a mistake to make it a Constitutional amendment. But I have no doubt any amendment under the current administration would write it in such a way that:
previous presidents are not Grandfathered In, because we wouldn’t want that uppity Obama to get re-elected.
Only Presidents from a certain party would qualify. I’m unsure how they would codify that but I’m not naive enough to think they couldn’t find a way."
He will be 82 in 2028. Since his statements show a diminishing command of English now, I think he will make the later years President Biden look like Demosthenes at that time. Anyway the states say who is eligible to be on the ballot in the individual states. My guess is that this talk is aimed at silencing those who think of him as a lame duck more than it is a plan.
Republicans under Mitch McConnell have decided to change the "rules" on when a Democratic president can nominate a Supreme Court justice, which does not apply to Republican presidents. So, I'm sure they'll find a way to favor only a Republican presidential nominee.
Sure. but the bill writers still wrote it in a way that didn't affect Truman one way or the other.
our current GOP/Conservatives/MAGAs are specifically writing it so that Trump and only Trump can run for a 3rd term. and people like David Leitschuh are okay with this.
I just replied to you above with my explicit opposition to Trump serving a third term, and another reply with my strong support for term limits. I believe this may well be one of those rare bipartisan positions that most reasoned people support; however, it is at the same time doomed because the ruling establishment will not allow it.
What I read some time ago was that Trump-kissers were suggesting that the two-term limit actually meant two consecutive terms, which would disqualify Obama but open the door to Trump. I would say such an argument is laughable, but for the juridical alchemy of Alito and Thomas.
My Uncle Buzz taught me that “fuck” or “fucking” could be used as any part of speech: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, or interjection.
Not exactly. The studies show that people who are knowledgeable of a wide variety of different swear words tend to have larger vocabularies, but people who repeatedly use “fuck” and other common monosyllabic curse words tend to only have vocabularies that match their level of sophistication.
Yes, and the dirtiest mouths are the ones that are creative with their vulgarity: “loathsome louche lizardshit”, “yeast infected bloody cunt”, “twinkle toed cocksucker”, “syph riddled rod”, “barnacle encrusted whore”, “British virgin’s quim”, “cocksucking motherfucking two ball bitch”, etc. Saying “fuck” all the time in every sentence you speak might not be inherently dumb, but it certainly is boring and lazy.
I haven’t heard that he’s actually molested her, but there’s plenty of evidence that he’s hot for her. I expect that he’s maturbated to her thousands of times.
Studies, studies, studies! My personal experience is that people using a lot of expletives are those that have run out of logical argument, run out of words, or both.
Regarding the low enrollment schools being closed I have to claim ignorance. I thought that a large number of kids had to take buses to school. In which case it doesn’t really matter if the ride is 10 minutes longer. If there are lots of kids walking to a neighborhood school it would be nice to try to keep that open.
I think that this discussion about the use of the word "fuck" is exactly why we on the Left are struggling so much. Why is decorum and courtesy a litmus test for freedom? I swear much more now than I ever did, likely a combination of my exposure to my career (insurance) and golf. But I chafe a little when I read it in print or hear it gratuitously used at a neighboring table in a restaurant. An underused freedom is the freedom to be mindful that others may not share your world view. So, shut the fuck up.
Don't put too much blame on the Constitution. In 1790, there weren't a zillion varieties of handguns and long guns to choose from. There wasn't a whole lot of altering that could be done to them to make them ten or a hundred times more dangerous. Furthermore, contrary to Hollywood, most people, especially in towns and cities didn't own any. This is not 1790. This is 2025 where a lot of people own them just to own them. Some own far more than they could ever conceivably use for defense or anything else. I always love the news stories where someone is arrested with several dozen or more weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammo. No, I am not one of those attempting to disarm everyone. I have a carry license myself. I just believe there are those that carry it to extremes and it is far too easy for those that shouldn't have them to get them. It's kind of like driving cars. Traffic regulations and speed limits don't seem to be doing much to impede people that don't feel like respecting them.
My criticism isn’t for the framers or the document, it’s for those in our current world who play at saying the language is absolute and unimpeachable for some items and wide open for interpretation in others as their politics or interests suit them
No argument from me. Not much in the Constitution is as absolute as it might seem. Look at the debate we are having today over whether or not Trump can run and the potential loopholes. It’s the problem with paper laws in general. They don’t anticipate every possible scenario or plot that humans can create. They also rarely anticipate the future as with the Second Amendment.
A legislative parliamentarian once told me that he orients new legislators to their task by telling them NOT to draft legislation that will cover every nuance, for the simple reason that no one can ever guess all the possible ways others might read it. His advice was to draft legislation clearly and succinctly to do what the legislator wanted to see happen.
Call me "old school," but vulgarity is vulgarity, and should be purged from ordinary discussion as and when over-used. Definition of "over-used"? If thoughts can be expressed without vulgarity, that's how they ought to be expressed. Remember when vulgarity was considered a sign of inability to express a thought without it? Vile language remains vile language in polite or educated company, unfit for polite conversation. What is so hard about accepting that unless good manners have been driven from the public square. Good manners should be the rule.
Only the rude and/or uneducated include vulgarity unless making a specific point impossible to be expressed otherwise, meaning hardly ever. Polite speech remains the standard in any civilized society. Gratuitous vulgarity defiles polite discussion and should be avoided. The shock value is rarely if ever worth it. It marks the limits of one's communication skills. The freer forceful speech is of vulgarity, the more impactful it is. So develop an in-depth vocabulary, everybody. Your star shall shine the brighter for it. Eloquence does not need vulgarity for impact in intelligent company. The most impactful prose throughout history, i.e., the classics, have been free of vulgarity.
Very well articulated Theodore! How many proponents of the liberal use of the F-bomb and other vulgarities would really like their wife or daughters exposed to that?
Yes, the case should be closed after your exceptionally thoughtful and articulate comment.
It seems to me that many of the people here who are defending prolific use of the f-word in speech and print seem to think that they are undertaking some sort of noble, subversive endeavour, a kind of (un)civil disobedience, blows against the empire and such, but all they’re really doing is clamouring for a project of incremental cultural pollution and yes, dumbing down of civilisation. A few commenters have even suggested that excessive use of vulgarity is evidence of an erudite mind, but if they were ever in the midst of the sort of people that loudly and boorishly swear in any and all public settings -restaurants, retail stores, libraries, parks, churches, little league games- and in the presence of anyone, including very young children and kindly old ladies, I expect that they might reconsider their logic. I’ve had more than my share of experiences with such unrestrained gutter snipes, and I can attest that, in addition to carrying a distinct whiff of degeneracy, they’re typically not very bright, to put it mildly.
I knew the Newsreel could be a proper noun. I didn't realize it could be two words. Is that only applicable to proper nouns or is a two word phrase also allowed?
Car salesman and mega welfare recipient Musk held a "lottery" for for two $1 million checks (the equivalent of you or I giving a dime to a beggar). By a staggering coincidence, one was "won" by the chair of the Wisconsin College Republicans!
If Trump is able to get elected as VP behind a stooge that will resign on day one there are two sources of blame. One, the Democratic party which will have run another pathetically awful candidate with a pathetically awful campaign. Two, the purist lefty voters that thought it was better to stay home in the last election and choose to do the same again.
This will be true even if the stooge does not resign and is no different from the other alternatives. If Trump Jr, runs with dad as VP to mentor him for instance. Or any of the other near Trump options.
If the Dems double down and turn hard left, then they need to hope that every aspect of the current administration has been a painful failure for the average American. According to the news reports that appear daily this should be guaranteed.
Your 2nd sentence is the really pertinent one: there never would have been a Trump 1.0, let alone 2.0 if the Democrats had had as much interest in winning the elections in ‘16 and ‘24 as they had in nourishing their identity politics addictions.
Kamala Harris did not campaign on what you call “identity politics.” It was Trump who ran on “identity politics,” spending over $200 million in political ads that mocked and demonized transgender people. In this respect Trump copied the playbook of George Corley Wallace who used strategic bigotry (identity politics) to win elections, famously remarking after one of his early electoral losses that he would never be “out-n*****ed again.”
She didn’t have to campaign on it. Her selection by Biden as his running mate in ‘20, followed by her back-dooring into the party nomination (sans primary process) four years later was the very essence of identity politics.
It’s also the reason that Trump won, not that you care.
Saying what that needed to be said? That it’s better to yield to a fascist takeover than to ask that the opposition party refrain from indulging its fetishes for an election cycle or two? Yeah, sure, ok.
Harris’s race and gender were the reason that Biden picked her as his running mate. We know this for a fact because he proclaimed to the world that these would be the foremost criteria for his choice before he even announced her selection. Let me remind you at this point of a basic rhetorical rule: you don’t get to shoot the messenger just because you are offended by the message being delivered.
You may have noticed that Harris lost to Trump. Perhaps you think that no other Democratic candidate would have secured more votes than Harris, not Newsom, not Pritzker, not Buttigieg, not Beshear, not Phillips, not Whitmer, not Kelly, not Shapiro, and that Donald Trump’s election victory was written in the stars. And perhaps you’re right, by I disagree.
Have you ever noticed that the people who disparage or complain about “identity politics” are always referring to defensive “identity politics” rather than offensive “identity politics.” Identity politics can be used offensively as Trump does, openly demonizing and disparaging transgender people to try to whip up political support, or as George Corley Wallace did, openly demonizing and disparaging black people for that purpose. Or identity politics can be used defensively, encouraging respect and equality for marginalized minorities. It seems to me that the people disparaging or complaining about “identity politics” have a problem only with defensive “identity politics” and seem okay with offensive “identity politics.” You know, like it’s okay to disparage members of a marginalized minority group for political purposes, but it’s not okay to work to promote respect and equality for members of a marginalized minority group.
Hi Joan - the point with Harris is that Biden made an explicit promise to select a black female as his running mate. That's the essence of identity politics.
Trump’s long game strategy of repeatedly flouting the law and ignoring the courts whenever their rulings don’t comport with his wishes has always struck me as being a dry run for something much larger like running for a third term. Of course it would be illegal. But if repeated precedents are established, and a few of the other necessary ingredients (dependable cowardice from members of his own party, complete lack of interest in doing what it takes to win elections and regain power from the opposition party) are thrown into the mix, then who cares what the law says? This is THE elementary formula right out of the authoritarian playbook.
I have to give Trump credit; I used to say that he was clearly an aspiring autocrat at heart, but that he was too incompetent to actually pull it off. It’s looking more and more like he’s learned. Last night on the Abby Philip show, one of his zombies appeared and made the following argument: if Trump runs and is elected in 2028 then it would be his fourth term since he was already elected three times, but the 2020 election was stolen from him.
I think the Trump 3rd Term machinations are like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Trump will try to make it so he never has to run again. I believe Trump and his brain(?) trust (Stephen Miller/Russel Vought) are having him push his blatantly unconstitutional actions to a point where he will openly and flagrantly ignore orders of the Supreme Court (although neither Alito nor Thomas will EVER rule against him). His assertions that he does not need to give people Due Process rights is the indicator that he is lawlessly acting in defiance of the Constitution, and eventually, SCOTUS. He's affirmatively acting so outrageous in order to provoke the Resistance to take to the streets to oppose him and to spark a violent protest that will allow him to declare martial law. (In his tag team [with Vance] dressing down of Zelenskyy, I think he was intrigued by Zelenskyy's citing martial law as the reason why there have been no Ukrainian elections since the Russian invasion.) He wants to accomplish the imposition of martial law as quickly as possible because (a) he wants it to occur before the full economic impact of his policy idiocy is felt by his supporters/independents; and (b) he won't be able to accomplish it when his huge mid-term Senate and House losses make it impossible.
EZ - assuming your Wis-based readers of the PS [however many] care about your opinions of Wis politics, do you think it's 'politic' to refer to them as 'cheeseheads' [term of endearment, i know] when recommending to them how to vote in an election?
Here is something that the stooge that is supposed to resign to allow Trump to be president should consider. The President appoints a person to the vacant VP position. The appointment has to be approved by a majority of both houses of Congress. So, the stooge has no guarantee of appointment to the VP or even any other position that requires confirmation. First, the stooge has to trust that Trump will not decide to appoint someone else. Second the assumption is that the Dems will control neither house of Congress.
And of course, the stooge can't be forced to keep the promise. The stooge might quite like staying on after taking the oath. And then relegate Trump to the wings, as has been the case with most VPs. That would certainly result in a daily stream of rants that the press would make into news.
I do think you’re on to something here. Seems like there could be many ways that the “sneak him back in as VP” could go sideways, and if this nattering stupidity goes on, the legal and political experts should start discussing each and every one, not just the “can Trump do it” stuff.
Exactly. It also assumes that there is no GOP primary contest or potential conservative third party candidate. Are we to assume that no one would oppose a candidate that was doing the 'wink-wink I plan to resign'? And no one would oppose Trump as the VP candidate?
All of this is only slightly more plausible than the 'Trump will barricade himself in the White House and refuse to leave' yak form 2016.
The Constitution says that no-one ineligible to serve as president may be elected vice-president. Period. Full stop. If SCOTUS interpreted the words and not the perceived intentions (which always, coincidentally, favor the views to the interpreters) of the people who wrote the words, the world would be a far better place.
That's the thing right there, isn't it - it's all in the eyes of the interpreters, and the current SCOTUS has shown they'll do everything in their considerable linguistic powers to let Trump do whatever he wants.
Yes, but the 22nd Amendment is not a restriction on anyone’s ability to “serve” as President; it only restricts a person’s ability to be “elected” as President, and a person can become President without being “elected.” See Gerald Ford.
I think M. means the 12'th amendment, prohibiting anyone ineligible for presidency to be the VP, but as EZ points out, the SCOTUS will probably interpret that as onle relating to being 35 and natural born citizen.
I know that M was referring to the language in the 12th Amendment that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” But that language does not refer to a person’s eligibility to be “elected” to the Presidency; it speaks of a person’s eligibility to the office of the Presidency.
I know you’re the attorney here. But the intent of the two different items being discussed is clear. No foreigners- if one can’t be vp, they can’t be the president. The two term limit was obviously a reaction of GOP abhorrence to too much FDR. Did it occur to them that some time in the future there could come another FDR or the Democratic version of Trump, meaning they would regret any change? Politicians often fail to plan for the future. They forget that new rules work both ways. Both sides have regretted changes in House and Senate rules, now being used against them. I suggest MAGAs take that into account before pushing for changes to help Trump- unless they believe conservatives will be in charge forever or the US ceases to exist in its present form. Nothing in our history suggests either one in the near future.
Since the president & VP run together, if you're elected as VP then you're also elected as president if the president dies or quits.
But everyone is forgetting something here:
If the ticket were Vance/trump & Vance was elected president [a horrendous thought], do you actually think he's quit the job & let trump back in?
Not a chance in fucking hell!!!
That's Vance's dream, to become the tech bro president & give his fealty to Silicon Valley & all his fellow tech bros & to the wall Street scum that made him rich!!
He'd double cross the fat fascist traitor faster than you could say "Fuck off Diaper Don"!
If a person is elected Vice President and becomes President later on, not as a result of an election but rather as a result of the death or resignation of the President, they were not “elected” as President.
Sadly, I’m pretty sure Joanie’s right. It’s a gaping loophole. If you link back to the original article that I posted you’ll see quotes from a scholarly publication that explain why the wording is the way it is.
But the court would rule as it should that he’s not eligible to be elected VP or president.
There is an article in the Trib today on that very point.
Eric - as a constitutional conservative, I would vigorously oppose any attempt by Trump to find any manner in which to seek a third term in office. And I believe the majority of conservatives share my position on this which would, I believe, render any attempt to engineer a Vance-Trump ticket unelectable.
Interesting point. Vance has the intelligence and personality of a pet rock. The issue is who would run against them. Mention the word “liberal” and conservatives would rally around Moe of the 3 Stooges. Democrats can’t agree on leadership at the moment. Some are ready to boot Schumer to another planet. I read an article today that AOC is ready to take over the reins of ultra liberals from Bernie. This will help Democrats? I’m not a gambler, but I wouldn’t lay a plug nickel on predicting 2028.
Ford wasn't elected as either vice president or president. Nixon/Agnew was the elected ticket. Then, Agnew resigned, replaced by Ford, who then replaced Nixon when he resigned.
I know that. If you read what I wrote, you learned that I cited Ford as an example of a person who became President without being elected.
John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, LBJ. And I might mention Nixon who was never sworn in when he was vp but had to run things several times when Ike had one of his heart attacks.
I agree. It's extremely unlikely that Vance would resign to allow Trump to succeed him. Deep down, I think that Vance despises Trump, thinks him an idiot, and that the country would be best served with him (Vance) as President.
I agree, GSC. And what fun it would be to listen in on the conversation in the Oval Office when JD informs his excellency #45/7 that he rather likes the view from the other side of the Resolute Desk and exiles DJT to the Naval Observatory to watch Fox for 4 years. But the idea of JD as president soils the fantasy.
There is something else being left out of the argument. Actually there are several things. Republicans are the ones always yammering about term limits when Democrats have been in office too long. But we are supposed to ignore it when it's someone Republicans want in office? Do I need to remind everyone of all the complaining about Biden's age even before Republicans started making up false stories of dementia? How old do they think Trump will be in 2028 and by the end of a third term? Hypocrisy, thy name is MAGA. By the way I read a MAGA Republican Congress idiot is pusing an amendment to let him run. Are we really going to need to waste time and effort on something that stands zero chance of being enacted as it would need 3/4 of the states and Congress?
Hi Laurence - you bring up a very valid point which is a huge ongoing source of frustration for me. While the overwhelming majority of Americans strongly favor term limits for elective office, neither party, when holding power and the ability to advance such legislation, is willing to do so because it would threaten their hold on power.
Personally, I believe two Senate terms and four terms in the House of Representatives should be the limit for people to return to private life. But unfortunately, once people have power they are extremely reluctant to surrender it. And coincidentally, people in power always seem to amass wealth far beyond what they would typically do in private life. So we are fighting human nature on this.
We the people actually do hold the power on this, in that we could demand that our candidates for office from both parties give us their explicit commitment to support and advance legislation for term limits as a condition of receiving our vote. However, in our hyperpartisan climate, this is likely not feasible. And we are the worst off for it.
Please understand that I am personally against term limits. I don't like anyone telling me that I cannot vote for the candidate of my choice. Actually, we have term limits. It's called voting. Before you tell me, I know some would consider it an unrealistic view. Election rules in some states make it close to impossible to unseat a well organized, well funded incumbent. When Richard J. Daley ran the state, Illinois election law made it difficult for Republicans and practically impossible for anyone else to run, due to the number of petitions needed for independents and others to even get on the ballot. In Chicago, if anyone, even Democrats, wanted to challenge a long time ward leader, it was amazing how many building violations they would suddenly rack up. I am in a Democratic district in a Republican area, well south of the city due to gerrymandering. But none of this changes my view that I should be allowed to vote for the person of my choice if the person is a legal candidate. My real problem is not with term limits, but hypocrisy. What's good for one political part y is good for another.
A good, partisan example is Susan Collins, who ran for senator in Maine on the promise to not serve more than two terms. She is currently campaigning for a sixth term in next year's election.
This is pushing the envelope even further (and even unlikelier), but if two die-hard MAGAs were to win President and VP, and if the House had a Republican majority, the House could vote Trump in as Speaker (the Speaker of the House need not be a member of the House). Then, the President and VP could simultaneously resign and Trump would be the President - by the rules of Presidential succession. However, you'd have to have 2 VERY compliant die-hard MAGAs willing to eschew the power of the presidency in fealty to Trump.
Right. He’s already prohibited from running again. The only way you can get more than 8 years is to serve less than 2 years of a previous president’s term after that person dies or otherwise leaves office. Remember our knowledge of 80 year olds. This may be a moot point in 3 years. Nature may make the decision for us.
To paraphrase a common saying: From your fingertips to Dog's ears...
I think using strong expletives is an exercise of freedom and artistic expression and there are certainly multitudes of circumstances where that is appropriate. When I grew up in the USSR, no expletives were ever used in any movies, books or newspapers (I left before the Internet). Putting restrictions on language is definitely in the totalitarian playbook.
My only preference is that some publications, especially ones with storied histories and traditions would try to keep those to a minimum, instead trying to flex their literary muscles and using some fancy vocabulary, and maybe using "[expletive]" when quoting others. It would be a little jarring if NYT started dropping the f-bomb in its news stories, although these days completely appropriate. Anyway, I'd be fine with it.
I am surprised to see the results (thus far at 7:20 am) of the "fuck" poll. More people are uneasy with it than totally fine (and I am totally fine with it).
The other f-word, "fag" or "faggot", I absolutely never use unless I am quoting someone, or discussing the words themselves as I am doing here. It is loaded and hurtful to many people. I thing newspapers should have fully quoted the subject in that story who used the term as it is revealing about his character. I think in that context it would not be threatening. But then, I am not gay, so I could very well be wrong on this.
It's basically the equivalent of the n-word and I'd prefer it would never be used and somehow only hinted at when quoting others, but I don't really have a good solution for quotes.
I was just watching a new British movie - Hard Truths (excellent movie), and as usual when watching something British, the use of ‘fag’ for cigarette is a bit jarring. But it’s British.
Good point. Cultural context means everything. I read a story about the German adoption of the term "shit show". Angela Markel even used the term. It has a different meaning to them, and it is not at all vulgar.
I am gay, and I agree with Skeptic. 'Fag' should be usable in the way in which he or she used it (quoting someone or discussing the word itself). The pejorative racial or ethnic terms (there's one or more for every group) should be usable in the same way.
Maybe, instead of saying f___ing f_g, it might be more interesting to say "Can you believe the city put these up for these {rhymes with bucking bags}?"
In a comment by EZ he mentions the "Ted Lasso" show's liberal use of the word. However, in England the term "Fck off" is quite common - and essentially means "get out of here". I've been surprised by how commonly it is used by people who are not vulgar.
I believe I remember first encountering "faggots" used in Anna Sewell's 19th-Century children's book, "Black Beauty." From context (an exhausted horse had dropped in harness, and an onlooker shouted something like "Light some faggots under his tail and he'll get up quick enough!") the term there appeared to mean firewood or kindling. I was startled (and saddened) to grow up and learn it meant anything else!
I rarely swear, and when I do it tends to be at low levels. ("Damn!") I'm not offended by other people swearing for occasional emphasis, but am put off by repetitive pounding of the same expletives. (Maybe I don't like loud heavy metal music for the same reason.)
The advantage of my prejudice, though, is that on the rare occasions that I'm pushed past endurance and do let fly a pungent expletive, the room goes silent in astonishment that it flew from li'l ole me. THAT attention-getting is the point of swearing! It's very satisfying.
I wrote this answer on Quora in February: "The 22nd Amendment was written in a way that allowed Harry S Truman the option to run for more terms if he wanted. Wisely, he didn’t.
Even the Article describing the requirements for the Presidency allowed for the fact that the first eight presidents were British subjects at birth.
I have no problem with allowing more than two terms and feel it was a mistake to make it a Constitutional amendment. But I have no doubt any amendment under the current administration would write it in such a way that:
previous presidents are not Grandfathered In, because we wouldn’t want that uppity Obama to get re-elected.
Only Presidents from a certain party would qualify. I’m unsure how they would codify that but I’m not naive enough to think they couldn’t find a way."
https://qr.ae/pYckco
Low and behold, the GOP is working on legislation that would allow Trump, but not Obama, Bush or Clinton to run again.
He will be 82 in 2028. Since his statements show a diminishing command of English now, I think he will make the later years President Biden look like Demosthenes at that time. Anyway the states say who is eligible to be on the ballot in the individual states. My guess is that this talk is aimed at silencing those who think of him as a lame duck more than it is a plan.
Andy Borowitz today: "Trump’s Arteries Unlikely to Serve Third Term"
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trumps-arteries-unlikely-to-serve
May be our last hope
Diminishing? When did ever command English? The only good thing g about him speaking is that even a fifth grader can understand what he says.
Republicans under Mitch McConnell have decided to change the "rules" on when a Democratic president can nominate a Supreme Court justice, which does not apply to Republican presidents. So, I'm sure they'll find a way to favor only a Republican presidential nominee.
I think that term limits are a great way of ensuring that we don’t get a king. We already have something like that, but it is limited to two terms.
Truman could run again because he filled out FDR's fourth term and was elected in 1948 for the first time. The term limits were enacted by FDR haters.
Sure. but the bill writers still wrote it in a way that didn't affect Truman one way or the other.
our current GOP/Conservatives/MAGAs are specifically writing it so that Trump and only Trump can run for a 3rd term. and people like David Leitschuh are okay with this.
Generally not a fan of term limits, but for the office or president it makes sense.
And I'm not at all sure that David Leitschuh has staked out a view on this.
I just replied to you above with my explicit opposition to Trump serving a third term, and another reply with my strong support for term limits. I believe this may well be one of those rare bipartisan positions that most reasoned people support; however, it is at the same time doomed because the ruling establishment will not allow it.
What I read some time ago was that Trump-kissers were suggesting that the two-term limit actually meant two consecutive terms, which would disqualify Obama but open the door to Trump. I would say such an argument is laughable, but for the juridical alchemy of Alito and Thomas.
Multiple studies have shown that people who swear all the time have a far larger vocabulary than those that don't!
I will never Bowdlerize my own voice!
So fuck off you shit headed prudes!
My Uncle Buzz taught me that “fuck” or “fucking” could be used as any part of speech: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, or interjection.
Not exactly. The studies show that people who are knowledgeable of a wide variety of different swear words tend to have larger vocabularies, but people who repeatedly use “fuck” and other common monosyllabic curse words tend to only have vocabularies that match their level of sophistication.
Oh, please, what studies? Some of the smartest people I know have the dirtiest mouths.
Yes, and the dirtiest mouths are the ones that are creative with their vulgarity: “loathsome louche lizardshit”, “yeast infected bloody cunt”, “twinkle toed cocksucker”, “syph riddled rod”, “barnacle encrusted whore”, “British virgin’s quim”, “cocksucking motherfucking two ball bitch”, etc. Saying “fuck” all the time in every sentence you speak might not be inherently dumb, but it certainly is boring and lazy.
I haven’t heard that he’s actually molested her, but there’s plenty of evidence that he’s hot for her. I expect that he’s maturbated to her thousands of times.
Let me say it wouldn't surprise me if he had. The man has no moral compass.
Studies, studies, studies! My personal experience is that people using a lot of expletives are those that have run out of logical argument, run out of words, or both.
You are right (3 words) vs. You are fucking right (4 words) proves your point.
Regarding the low enrollment schools being closed I have to claim ignorance. I thought that a large number of kids had to take buses to school. In which case it doesn’t really matter if the ride is 10 minutes longer. If there are lots of kids walking to a neighborhood school it would be nice to try to keep that open.
I think that this discussion about the use of the word "fuck" is exactly why we on the Left are struggling so much. Why is decorum and courtesy a litmus test for freedom? I swear much more now than I ever did, likely a combination of my exposure to my career (insurance) and golf. But I chafe a little when I read it in print or hear it gratuitously used at a neighboring table in a restaurant. An underused freedom is the freedom to be mindful that others may not share your world view. So, shut the fuck up.
I laughed at your last sentence. Almost choked on my Cheerios.
Fuck that fucking Newswheel answer for fuck’s sake (did I do that right, those of you who chose the first option in EZ’s language survey?)
Fuckin’-A!
Ah yes, the intractable US Constitution that so clearly allows virtually unlimited firearms for everyone!
Because the plain words about "a well-regulated militia" are ignored by the gun nuts.
And by Scalia, who hand-waved it into non-existence in his opinion.
Don't put too much blame on the Constitution. In 1790, there weren't a zillion varieties of handguns and long guns to choose from. There wasn't a whole lot of altering that could be done to them to make them ten or a hundred times more dangerous. Furthermore, contrary to Hollywood, most people, especially in towns and cities didn't own any. This is not 1790. This is 2025 where a lot of people own them just to own them. Some own far more than they could ever conceivably use for defense or anything else. I always love the news stories where someone is arrested with several dozen or more weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammo. No, I am not one of those attempting to disarm everyone. I have a carry license myself. I just believe there are those that carry it to extremes and it is far too easy for those that shouldn't have them to get them. It's kind of like driving cars. Traffic regulations and speed limits don't seem to be doing much to impede people that don't feel like respecting them.
My criticism isn’t for the framers or the document, it’s for those in our current world who play at saying the language is absolute and unimpeachable for some items and wide open for interpretation in others as their politics or interests suit them
No argument from me. Not much in the Constitution is as absolute as it might seem. Look at the debate we are having today over whether or not Trump can run and the potential loopholes. It’s the problem with paper laws in general. They don’t anticipate every possible scenario or plot that humans can create. They also rarely anticipate the future as with the Second Amendment.
A legislative parliamentarian once told me that he orients new legislators to their task by telling them NOT to draft legislation that will cover every nuance, for the simple reason that no one can ever guess all the possible ways others might read it. His advice was to draft legislation clearly and succinctly to do what the legislator wanted to see happen.
Good explanation. I don’t know if it’s eve possible to write a law that anticipates every possible nuance.
Call me "old school," but vulgarity is vulgarity, and should be purged from ordinary discussion as and when over-used. Definition of "over-used"? If thoughts can be expressed without vulgarity, that's how they ought to be expressed. Remember when vulgarity was considered a sign of inability to express a thought without it? Vile language remains vile language in polite or educated company, unfit for polite conversation. What is so hard about accepting that unless good manners have been driven from the public square. Good manners should be the rule.
Only the rude and/or uneducated include vulgarity unless making a specific point impossible to be expressed otherwise, meaning hardly ever. Polite speech remains the standard in any civilized society. Gratuitous vulgarity defiles polite discussion and should be avoided. The shock value is rarely if ever worth it. It marks the limits of one's communication skills. The freer forceful speech is of vulgarity, the more impactful it is. So develop an in-depth vocabulary, everybody. Your star shall shine the brighter for it. Eloquence does not need vulgarity for impact in intelligent company. The most impactful prose throughout history, i.e., the classics, have been free of vulgarity.
Case closed?
Case closed, no fucking way!
Very well articulated Theodore! How many proponents of the liberal use of the F-bomb and other vulgarities would really like their wife or daughters exposed to that?
Yes, the case should be closed after your exceptionally thoughtful and articulate comment.
It seems to me that many of the people here who are defending prolific use of the f-word in speech and print seem to think that they are undertaking some sort of noble, subversive endeavour, a kind of (un)civil disobedience, blows against the empire and such, but all they’re really doing is clamouring for a project of incremental cultural pollution and yes, dumbing down of civilisation. A few commenters have even suggested that excessive use of vulgarity is evidence of an erudite mind, but if they were ever in the midst of the sort of people that loudly and boorishly swear in any and all public settings -restaurants, retail stores, libraries, parks, churches, little league games- and in the presence of anyone, including very young children and kindly old ladies, I expect that they might reconsider their logic. I’ve had more than my share of experiences with such unrestrained gutter snipes, and I can attest that, in addition to carrying a distinct whiff of degeneracy, they’re typically not very bright, to put it mildly.
I knew the Newsreel could be a proper noun. I didn't realize it could be two words. Is that only applicable to proper nouns or is a two word phrase also allowed?
I have loosened the WordWheel rules to allow for two words, proper nouns, etc.
Car salesman and mega welfare recipient Musk held a "lottery" for for two $1 million checks (the equivalent of you or I giving a dime to a beggar). By a staggering coincidence, one was "won" by the chair of the Wisconsin College Republicans!
Just how the fat fascist traitor always wins the club championship at his own golf courses!
If Trump is able to get elected as VP behind a stooge that will resign on day one there are two sources of blame. One, the Democratic party which will have run another pathetically awful candidate with a pathetically awful campaign. Two, the purist lefty voters that thought it was better to stay home in the last election and choose to do the same again.
This will be true even if the stooge does not resign and is no different from the other alternatives. If Trump Jr, runs with dad as VP to mentor him for instance. Or any of the other near Trump options.
If the Dems double down and turn hard left, then they need to hope that every aspect of the current administration has been a painful failure for the average American. According to the news reports that appear daily this should be guaranteed.
Your 2nd sentence is the really pertinent one: there never would have been a Trump 1.0, let alone 2.0 if the Democrats had had as much interest in winning the elections in ‘16 and ‘24 as they had in nourishing their identity politics addictions.
Kamala Harris did not campaign on what you call “identity politics.” It was Trump who ran on “identity politics,” spending over $200 million in political ads that mocked and demonized transgender people. In this respect Trump copied the playbook of George Corley Wallace who used strategic bigotry (identity politics) to win elections, famously remarking after one of his early electoral losses that he would never be “out-n*****ed again.”
She didn’t have to campaign on it. Her selection by Biden as his running mate in ‘20, followed by her back-dooring into the party nomination (sans primary process) four years later was the very essence of identity politics.
It’s also the reason that Trump won, not that you care.
Thank you, Joan Pederson, for saying what needed to be said so emphatically.
Saying what that needed to be said? That it’s better to yield to a fascist takeover than to ask that the opposition party refrain from indulging its fetishes for an election cycle or two? Yeah, sure, ok.
Harris’s race and gender were the reason that Biden picked her as his running mate. We know this for a fact because he proclaimed to the world that these would be the foremost criteria for his choice before he even announced her selection. Let me remind you at this point of a basic rhetorical rule: you don’t get to shoot the messenger just because you are offended by the message being delivered.
You may have noticed that Harris lost to Trump. Perhaps you think that no other Democratic candidate would have secured more votes than Harris, not Newsom, not Pritzker, not Buttigieg, not Beshear, not Phillips, not Whitmer, not Kelly, not Shapiro, and that Donald Trump’s election victory was written in the stars. And perhaps you’re right, by I disagree.
Have you ever noticed that the people who disparage or complain about “identity politics” are always referring to defensive “identity politics” rather than offensive “identity politics.” Identity politics can be used offensively as Trump does, openly demonizing and disparaging transgender people to try to whip up political support, or as George Corley Wallace did, openly demonizing and disparaging black people for that purpose. Or identity politics can be used defensively, encouraging respect and equality for marginalized minorities. It seems to me that the people disparaging or complaining about “identity politics” have a problem only with defensive “identity politics” and seem okay with offensive “identity politics.” You know, like it’s okay to disparage members of a marginalized minority group for political purposes, but it’s not okay to work to promote respect and equality for members of a marginalized minority group.
Hi Joan - the point with Harris is that Biden made an explicit promise to select a black female as his running mate. That's the essence of identity politics.
No, the essence of identity politics was Trump’s hateful anti-transgender ads.
Trump’s long game strategy of repeatedly flouting the law and ignoring the courts whenever their rulings don’t comport with his wishes has always struck me as being a dry run for something much larger like running for a third term. Of course it would be illegal. But if repeated precedents are established, and a few of the other necessary ingredients (dependable cowardice from members of his own party, complete lack of interest in doing what it takes to win elections and regain power from the opposition party) are thrown into the mix, then who cares what the law says? This is THE elementary formula right out of the authoritarian playbook.
I have to give Trump credit; I used to say that he was clearly an aspiring autocrat at heart, but that he was too incompetent to actually pull it off. It’s looking more and more like he’s learned. Last night on the Abby Philip show, one of his zombies appeared and made the following argument: if Trump runs and is elected in 2028 then it would be his fourth term since he was already elected three times, but the 2020 election was stolen from him.
I think the Trump 3rd Term machinations are like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Trump will try to make it so he never has to run again. I believe Trump and his brain(?) trust (Stephen Miller/Russel Vought) are having him push his blatantly unconstitutional actions to a point where he will openly and flagrantly ignore orders of the Supreme Court (although neither Alito nor Thomas will EVER rule against him). His assertions that he does not need to give people Due Process rights is the indicator that he is lawlessly acting in defiance of the Constitution, and eventually, SCOTUS. He's affirmatively acting so outrageous in order to provoke the Resistance to take to the streets to oppose him and to spark a violent protest that will allow him to declare martial law. (In his tag team [with Vance] dressing down of Zelenskyy, I think he was intrigued by Zelenskyy's citing martial law as the reason why there have been no Ukrainian elections since the Russian invasion.) He wants to accomplish the imposition of martial law as quickly as possible because (a) he wants it to occur before the full economic impact of his policy idiocy is felt by his supporters/independents; and (b) he won't be able to accomplish it when his huge mid-term Senate and House losses make it impossible.
EZ - assuming your Wis-based readers of the PS [however many] care about your opinions of Wis politics, do you think it's 'politic' to refer to them as 'cheeseheads' [term of endearment, i know] when recommending to them how to vote in an election?
I think they embrace it! https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/green-bay-packers-fan-wearing-cheese-head-10526895bq
Jon Stewart mocked Musk for "appropriating" Wisconsinite culture by wearing a cheesehead hat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7fMSE0JgkM
Here is something that the stooge that is supposed to resign to allow Trump to be president should consider. The President appoints a person to the vacant VP position. The appointment has to be approved by a majority of both houses of Congress. So, the stooge has no guarantee of appointment to the VP or even any other position that requires confirmation. First, the stooge has to trust that Trump will not decide to appoint someone else. Second the assumption is that the Dems will control neither house of Congress.
And of course, the stooge can't be forced to keep the promise. The stooge might quite like staying on after taking the oath. And then relegate Trump to the wings, as has been the case with most VPs. That would certainly result in a daily stream of rants that the press would make into news.
I do think you’re on to something here. Seems like there could be many ways that the “sneak him back in as VP” could go sideways, and if this nattering stupidity goes on, the legal and political experts should start discussing each and every one, not just the “can Trump do it” stuff.
Exactly. It also assumes that there is no GOP primary contest or potential conservative third party candidate. Are we to assume that no one would oppose a candidate that was doing the 'wink-wink I plan to resign'? And no one would oppose Trump as the VP candidate?
All of this is only slightly more plausible than the 'Trump will barricade himself in the White House and refuse to leave' yak form 2016.