News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Friday]

@SheCat ... Sounds like something the Dems are publicizing to get the election machine rolling a year early. IDK how good of an idea that would be, though, it's like herding cats to get liberals all moving in the same direction, during the best of times; rarely managed, and if so? Not for long. Raising capital from the Midline & disillusioned Republicans whilst the POTUS approval ratings are in the 30s probably makes more sense.


Correction. I've really got to start reading links before responding :facepalm:

The survey, conducted by two professors from June 5-20, involved 1,325 participants. For reporting purposes, the professors focus on the 650 who identified as conservative-leaning and their responses to two hypothetical questions about possibly delaying the next presidential election.

Well, apx 300 people said "maybe". Or to be more accurate IF hypothetical XYZ happened AND hypothetical ABC happened they would support a delay.

LMAO. I also very much like this :

The piece also points out that, regardless of political affiliation, "Respondents [of polls] consistently say things that are counterfactual or plainly nuts."

So unless we start seeing a whole slew of these kinds of inflammable polls being published, I doubt it's strategery. Although that is a trend I would keep an eye out for. Similarly, however, without better numbers? (1,325???) Would be disinclined to put much stock in any of the so called results.

 

[Neverthesame]

How was Roosevelt able to serve a third term?
Was that strictly a result of WW2, or something they changed later?

 

[Friday]

FDRs 4 terms (1933-1945) is what prompted the 22nd Amendment (proposed in 46, passed in 47, ratified in 51). Prior to that there was no term limit.

It was debated extensively, from the continental congress onward, but each time it was decided not to impose limitations. While there was something of a 2 term tradition, several presidents actually tried to sit 3 terms (either lost the election, or didn't get the party nomination). So until the 22nd Amendment it was perfectly legal to sit as many terms as one could be voted in for.

AMENDMENT XXII
SECTION 1
Share
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

SECTION 2
Share
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

 

[Neverthesame]

Four?
Whoops. My history is a bit rusty it would seem. Lol

Thanks for the info @Friday.

 

[scout86]

I saw that poll mentioned yesterday. The headline was kind of a stretch, I thought. What I found the most concerning about it was how many people actually thought Trump had won the popular vote and that we actually have a huge problem with voter fraud in this country. I don't think either of those things are true, but it could be a huge problem if too many people start believing 'fake news'.

 

[Justmehere]

I did hear of that poll, and while there had always been a small percent in both parties that would be glad to suspend the constitution to delay and election to keep their guy in power longer... the "results" of that poll are pretty stunning.

So I looked more into it. In a nutshell, it's a terrible poll done in a manipulative fashion. It's crap data and the reporters totally goofed on responsible journalism 101 on this one. From a left leaning source that explains this: Do Republicans Actually Want to Postpone the 2020 Election?

If Trump tried to actually postpone the election, the Supreme Court and/or congress, and the states, can stop him. I'm not even actually sure how Trump could stop a presidential election. The parties run the nomination processes, and state officials run and certify primary and general elections. The Feds don't actually do much.

There are checks and balances. I so appreciate the wisdom in our consitution. Sure, it's got flaws, but that's why there are amendments possible. I'm glad that a Trump administration is helping many on the left to see the value in protecting the consitution because it already protects against terrible ideas like this even if that many people really did want to postpone an election. It's also why we are not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy. The tyrany of the majority and mob rule can be a real thing.

 

[scout86]

I don't think I know anyone 'on the left' who don't value our constitution or think it's worth protecting. Unless, maybe, so far out on the fringes that 'left & right' lose their meaning. There might be some who've taken it for granted and been happily going asking thinking that bad things can't happen here, but I'd like to think that's far from universal.

 

[Justmehere]

@scout86 - very valid point. I will say that after being involved in both major parties and one minor party in my state, I don't run into democrats citing the constitution word for word as often as I do on the right. On the left, I find more and more people on the left discussing things like Is it time to scrap the Constitution and write a new one? - The Boston Globe... On the right, oh there are certainly people who think the same, but very few who actually say it out loud. There are more people in the republican party talking about dying to protect the constitution. But this is simply my acedotal experience. It is my biased experience, and I'll own that.

I do not believe the right or left actually does a better job than the other of actually understanding and defending the constitution. I also agree that there is too much pitting right vs left. Both sides need to become much more constitutionally literally and aware. Talking about what is actually in the constitution is an essential part of that.

At this point in our nations history, I am not very concerned if someone is right or left. I am concerned if they are willing to protect and defend the constitution. It matters. The poll numbers on that are absolutely atrocious.
From Civic Literacy Report - Summary -

Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America’s constitutional system.

Right, left, whatever... doesn't matter when there is nothing to be on the right or left side of... Not even being able to list the three branches of government? oh dear...

Even worse data:
Link Removed and Study: 39 Percent Of Americans Don’t Know Purpose Of First Amendment.

:eek:

 

[Deleted member 541]

Ok, well Trump has now become a war monger as far as I'm concerned!!!! In his speech a few minutes ago, he stated that the war in Afghanistan has lasted way too long, 17 yrs is unacceptable and will be dealt with. He's threatening North Korea and now he's added Venezuela to the list for possible military action!!!! Ok, so why don't you just add every other f*cking country too!!!!!!!!! Holy shit, this is just crazy!!!!

 

[scout86]

@Justmehere, I agree that the state of civic literacy is pretty pathetic. I wish pour educational system could spend more time on teaching 'real stuff' and less time teaching to pass standardized tests.

But then, I'd also like to see some of the language of these constitution updated, to make it inclusive. I sure wouldn't want to scrap the whole thing! I don't know that there's anyone in government today that I'd trust to rewrite it!

 

[hodge]

Yeah, and remember about a month ago when someone or some outfit (I can't remember the details) posted parts of the Declaration of Independence and tons of people went crazy on Twitter, et al, saying that this was anti-American?

 

[Deleted member 41765]

I maintain my opinion that the right to "free speech" is not the right to spew hate.

www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-protest-white-nationalist.html