• Don't forget to enter your picks in the Volnation Bracket Contest for a chance to win an Amazon gift card! Deadline is Thursday before the first game. VolNation Bracket Contest

2024 Presidential Race

#29,476
#29,476
Ritzwatch said:
Yes, in accordance with the 25th Amendment. He became VP due to section 2. He then became President due to Section 1. That is established Constitutional procedure, and it is distinctly different than Harris' situation. However, he never RAN for president without winning a primary.

If Harris becomes President because the 25th is invoked, I am fine with that. If she becomes President because Section 1 needs to take effect, so be it. The way she is about to become the party's nominee, after the coordinated democratic effort to manipulate their primary processes and then to shove aside their candidate because he is losing? Well, IMO, that destroys every Jan6/stolen democracy/broken norms argument the Dems have against the Rep. nominee.
Click to expand...
At the time he became the President in August of 1974, he had never won a primary. He did in 1976.
 
#29,478
#29,478
BowlBrother85 said:
I bet that you still don't realize that I never said that Ford's ascension to the presidency was either illegal or Un-Constitutional. I said that it circumvented democracy. It did.
Click to expand...
The constitution circumvents democracy? Huh? You don't think the American people understand succession?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, ButchPlz, InVOLuntary and 2 others
#29,485
#29,485
hog88 said:
How? Please explain your reasoning.
Click to expand...
I already did. Ford was never elected either President or Vice President. It was never the will of the American people for Ford to hold either post. He was appointed VP, and confirmed by Congress. He ascended to the Presidency because the President who had appointed him resigned .... and then Ford abruptly pardoned Nixon, which led to a Congressional hearing to investigate whether or not there had been a deal in place between the two.
 
#29,487
#29,487
utvolpj said:
The people understand succession. That's exactly what happened. This tortured logic isn't working. Pull the cord
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it was Un-Constitutional, dammit!

I said that it circumvented democracy. It was never the will of the American people for Gerald Ford to be either President or the Vice President.
 
#29,488
#29,488
BowlBrother85 said:
I already did. Ford was never elected either President or Vice President. It was never the will of the American people for Ford to hold either post. He was appointed VP, and confirmed by Congress. He ascended to the Presidency because the President who had appointed him resigned .... and the Ford abruptly pardoned Nixon, which led to a Congressional hearing to investigate whether or not there had been a deal in place between the two.
Click to expand...

That is the key. Congress elected him.

Technically, our Presidents aren't necessarily elected by the people, they are elected by representatives of the people (Electoral College).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol
#29,490
#29,490
BowlBrother85 said:
I already did. Ford was never elected either President or Vice President. It was never the will of the American people for Ford to hold either post. He was appointed VP, and confirmed by Congress. He ascended to the Presidency because the President who had appointed him resigned .... and the Ford abruptly pardoned Nixon, which led to a Congressional hearing to investigate whether or not there had been a deal in place between the two.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with your outlandish claim that Ford's assentation to the Presidency circumvented democracy? The procedures outlined within the 25th amendment were followed and our elected representatives confirmed Nixon's appointment of Ford.
 
#29,491
#29,491
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't that it was Un-Constitutional, dammit!

I said that it circumvented democracy. It was never the will of the American people for Gerald Ford to be either President or the Vice President.
Click to expand...
No, the ballot lists both a potus and VP. People vote knowing both those exist and the succession plan.
 
#29,493
#29,493
volbound1700 said:
That is the key. Congress elected him.

Technically, our Presidents aren't necessarily elected by the people, they are elected by representatives of the people (Electoral College).
Click to expand...
Okay .... that's a fair perspective.

When I say that democracy was circumvented, I'm talking about the fact that as of the time that Ford became President, he had never directly received any votes in elections open to all Americans for either President or Vice President. That's what I meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#29,495
#29,495
BowlBrother85 said:
At the time he became the President in August of 1974, he had never won a primary. He did in 1976.
Click to expand...
I specifically mentioned Harris potentially being the first person elected president without receiving any electoral votes. Even bringing up Ford's rise to president is seems silly, but I feel you already know that. Some 20% of our Presidents ascended into office under principles of succession without being elected to that office. Ford is one of them

I don't think Andrew Johnson ever won electoral votes before becoming President. I don't think Harry Truman did. I don't think Lyndon Johnson did. I doubt Fillmore, Arthur or Coolidge did, either, though I am not sure about them or the others who also ascended to the Presidency upon death of the sitting president. It is not presidential succession that is the issue here, at least not to the rest of us. It is the manner is which VPHarris earned (or didn't earn) the right to be the presumptive Dem nominee that is our issue.

Harris' situation, where she can run for President without winning any electoral votesin a presidential primary is unique and unprecedented in modern electoral history. That statement remains true, regardless of how many times you "Ford, Ford, Ford." I am not sure why this point is difficult to comprehend, but I hope this post helps provide explanation and clarity for you.
 
#29,496
#29,496
BowlBrother85 said:
Okay .... that's a fair perspective.

When I say that democracy was circumvented, I'm talking about the fact that as of the time that Ford became President, he had never directly received any votes in elections open to all Americans for either President or Vice President. That's what I meant.
Click to expand...

Unlike others, I will concede that the Democrats were in a tough spot with Biden and I don't think him stepping down undermines the Democratic process as an act alone if he was truly sick/incapable. However, their are ancilliary circumstances that you are in denial about:

1. It is very unlikely that he would be forced to step down if he was winning the election. I know this is speculation but a lot follow it based on how things have progressed and how Democrats have acted. If this is the case, it does make it seem like they are undermining votes

2. The denial of his issues prior to the debate and not evoking the 25th (although they could be evoking the 25th soon, we will see).

It is clear that Biden didn't want to step down. I also (this is opinion) believe that Kamala wanted him to stay in. However, the powers that be wanted him to step down. These statements, if accurate, are what make it problematic and not necessarily the act itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#29,497
#29,497
Ritzwatch said:
I specifically mentioned Harris potentially being the first person elected president without receiving any electoral votes. Even bringing up Ford's rise to president is seems silly, but I feel you already know that. Some 20% of our Presidents ascended into office under principles of succession without being elected to that office. Ford is one of them

I don't think Andrew Johnson ever won electoral votes before becoming President. I don't think Harry Truman did. I don't think Lyndon Johnson did. I doubt Fillmore, Arthur or Coolidge did, either, though I am not sure about them or the others who also ascended to the Presidency upon death of the sitting president. It is not presidential succession that is the issue here, at least not to the rest of us. It is the manner is which VPHarris earned (or didn't earn) the right to be the presumptive Dem nominee that is our issue.

Harris' situation, where she can run for President without winning any electoral votesin a presidential primary is unique and unprecedented in modern electoral history. That statement remains true, regardless of how many times you "Ford, Ford, Ford." I am not sure why this point is difficult to comprehend, but I hope this post helps provide explanation and clarity for you.
Click to expand...
You don't win electoral votes in primaries/caucuses. You win delegates to the party convention. They are similar but not the same.
 
#29,499
#29,499
Ritzwatch said:
I specifically mentioned Harris potentially being the first person elected president without receiving any electoral votes. Even bringing up Ford's rise to president is seems silly, but I feel you already know that. Some 20% of our Presidents ascended into office under principles of succession without being elected to that office. Ford is one of them

I don't think Andrew Johnson ever won electoral votes before becoming President. I don't think Harry Truman did. I don't think Lyndon Johnson did. I doubt Fillmore, Arthur or Coolidge did, either, though I am not sure about them or the others who also ascended to the Presidency upon death of the sitting president. It is not presidential succession that is the issue here, at least not to the rest of us. It is the manner is which VPHarris earned (or didn't earn) the right to be the presumptive Dem nominee that is our issue.

Harris' situation, where she can run for President without winning any electoral votesin a presidential primary is unique and unprecedented in modern electoral history. That statement remains true, regardless of how many times you "Ford, Ford, Ford." I am not sure why this point is difficult to comprehend, but I hope this post helps provide explanation and clarity for you.
Click to expand...
.... and how many primaries did Hubert Humphrey participate in when he was nominated by the Democratic Party in 1968? Humphrey became the nominee of the Democratic Party in 1968 only because he was the preferred candidate of Democratic Party bosses, who controlled the vast majority of the delegates after LBJ backed out and RFK was assassinated.
 
#29,500
#29,500
utvolpj said:
So you believe there's no difference in elections/primaries and the constitutional succession plan?
Click to expand...
The biggest problem here ... is that you keep trying to assert that I said something which I didn't actually say. I have still never said even one damn word about the line of succession or anything having been Un-Constitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top