Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Trump under pressure there’s just a possibility that Nanc

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Trump under pressure there’s just a possibility that Nancy Pelosi could become President in 2019

This is a remote possibility and the stuff of West Wing but there’s just a chance that the Democrat who’s likely to be elected Speaker of the House next month, Nancy Pelosi, could become president in 2019.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • It's not just that Trump and Pence go; it's that Pence isn't replaced with either. After all, both Nixon and Agnew fell from 1972 but it wasn't the Speaker who succeeded.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,970
    I think they need a female President, preferably an attractive-looking one.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302
    another douglas....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302
    CD13 said:

    I think they need a female President, preferably an attractive-looking one.

    A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,267
    A non Trump, simply because they are a non Trump.
  • eekeek Posts: 2,588

    It's not just that Trump and Pence go; it's that Pence isn't replaced with either. After all, both Nixon and Agnew fell from 1972 but it wasn't the Speaker who succeeded.

    Yep - I can see circumstances where Pence goes and there are definitely circumstances where Trump goes. I just cannot see any in which Pence goes and isn't replaced by someone else before Trump goes.

    The circumstances required for Pence to go and not be replaced are a lot more than 60 to 1....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    There's more chance of @Alastair_Meeks having a countdown to Brexit party on 29th March with balloons and streamers.
  • The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,267
    Two hours in an NHS waiting room. Does anyone want to have a fight about something?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    edited December 2018
    If something untoward happened to Pence would he not be replaced and the replacement become President (as with Gerald Ford IIRC)?

    Can we really see the Republican Party letting both the Presidency and the VP become vacant at the same time so that their least favourite House Democrat takes over? 200/1 seems more than a tad skinny.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited December 2018
    Certainly the demise of Trump is at the top of my 2019 wish list. You read sometimes about abusive relationships whereby the victim stays in it long after it becomes clear to friends & family that their loved one is being systematically oppressed and stripped of all self-respect. There typically comes a point at which if they have not managed to escape, they never will and the story ends badly. For me, the American people are approaching that point.
  • The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    kinabalu said:

    Certainly the demise of Trump is at the top of my 2019 wish list. You read sometimes about abusive relationships whereby the victim stays in it long after it becomes clear to friends & family that their loved one is being systematically oppressed and stripped of all self-respect. There typically comes a point at which if they have not managed to escape, they never will and the story ends badly. For me, the American people are approaching that point.

    Oi, some of us have money on his re-election I will have you know. What is more important, the security and safety of the world or my bet with Wm Hill? Where are your priorities?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,124
    edited December 2018

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.

    Perhaps politically plausible, if Trump's VP nominee is selected more based on his willingness to pardon Trump than any other merits. The house Dems would be on that like a hawk.
  • kinabalu said:

    Certainly the demise of Trump is at the top of my 2019 wish list. You read sometimes about abusive relationships whereby the victim stays in it long after it becomes clear to friends & family that their loved one is being systematically oppressed and stripped of all self-respect. There typically comes a point at which if they have not managed to escape, they never will and the story ends badly. For me, the American people are approaching that point.

    We desperately need the Democrats to come up with a good nominee for 2020 to put the Trump era behind us. So given their propensity to not just shoot themselves in the foot but blow it off with a giant bazooka, I remain nervous...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    @ DavidL

    :-)

    Well I've bet big style on him surviving a full 1st term.

    Emotional hedge. If he does, at least I dull the pain with a look at my b/f balance.
  • I think the 25% on Trump going in 2019 is wrong. If he goes of his own accord he loses a lot of defences against prosecution for his various crimes. The Senate can't take him down for fear of his base. The 25th Amendment might work but it feels a bit too exotic. He's a fat bastard but not by American standards, and he must be getting excellent medical care. So I think it's closer to a 90% chance that he just keeps shambling on.
  • The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    IIRC, it's Congress rather than the Senate which needs to confirm a VP replacement, though it's not specified how that confirmation takes place.
  • Mr. Kinabalu, I hope your boyfriend balance is positive :p
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    kinabalu said:

    @ DavidL

    :-)

    Well I've bet big style on him surviving a full 1st term.

    Emotional hedge. If he does, at least I dull the pain with a look at my b/f balance.

    Most American Presidents get into real trouble in their second term. It takes that long for Washington to overcome the powers and protections afforded a sitting President. Off the top of my head, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton come to mind. If he gets re-elected I really don't see Trump surviving a second term.
  • The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    If he's already under a cloud as a conspirator in whatever took Trump down then they could credibly stall for a bit. But I wonder if they'd really *want* to do this with so little of the term left. Republicans of all stripes would be royally outraged, riled up and ready to vote. The Dems would be better with a damaged VP limping on to the election, IMHO.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704

    I think the 25% on Trump going in 2019 is wrong. If he goes of his own accord he loses a lot of defences against prosecution for his various crimes. The Senate can't take him down for fear of his base. The 25th Amendment might work but it feels a bit too exotic. He's a fat bastard but not by American standards, and he must be getting excellent medical care. So I think it's closer to a 90% chance that he just keeps shambling on.

    And Pence seems to be a much younger, clean living, happily married, archetypal right wing nut with no obvious risk factors that I can see.
  • The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    If he's already under a cloud as a conspirator in whatever took Trump down then they could credibly stall for a bit. But I wonder if they'd really *want* to do this with so little of the term left. Republicans of all stripes would be royally outraged, riled up and ready to vote. The Dems would be better with a damaged VP limping on to the election, IMHO.
    Yes and Pelosi I understand is not particularly popular. The feeling is they won the House in the midterms in spite of her rather than because of her. If they foisted her onto the US as president because of some congressional jiggery-pokery they would, as you quite rightly identify, risk a 2020 backlash.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,871
    edited December 2018

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671

    We desperately need the Democrats to come up with a good nominee for 2020 to put the Trump era behind us. So given their propensity to not just shoot themselves in the foot but blow it off with a giant bazooka, I remain nervous...

    Yes. The Dems have a big responsibility to get it right. To turn the page and burn the chapter requires not just a win but a hammering. One doesn't like to root for a recession but that is the one and only thing that I am confident will do the business.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,970
    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.
  • The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    If he's already under a cloud as a conspirator in whatever took Trump down then they could credibly stall for a bit. But I wonder if they'd really *want* to do this with so little of the term left. Republicans of all stripes would be royally outraged, riled up and ready to vote. The Dems would be better with a damaged VP limping on to the election, IMHO.
    Yes and Pelosi I understand is not particularly popular. The feeling is they won the House in the midterms in spite of her rather than because of her. If they foisted her onto the US as president because of some congressional jiggery-pokery they would, as you quite rightly identify, risk a 2020 backlash.
    Also, surely far less likely that Trump is impeached and convicted if it's going to end with President Pelosi than with a GOP president effectively foisted on Trump by something approaching congressional agreement.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    If he's already under a cloud as a conspirator in whatever took Trump down then they could credibly stall for a bit. But I wonder if they'd really *want* to do this with so little of the term left. Republicans of all stripes would be royally outraged, riled up and ready to vote. The Dems would be better with a damaged VP limping on to the election, IMHO.
    Yes and Pelosi I understand is not particularly popular. The feeling is they won the House in the midterms in spite of her rather than because of her. If they foisted her onto the US as president because of some congressional jiggery-pokery they would, as you quite rightly identify, risk a 2020 backlash.
    Also, surely far less likely that Trump is impeached and convicted if it's going to end with President Pelosi than with a GOP president effectively foisted on Trump by something approaching congressional agreement.
    I can't really see the Democrats blocking a Mitt Romney type centrist. Especially if he undertook not to pardon Trump.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671

    I think the 25% on Trump going in 2019 is wrong. If he goes of his own accord he loses a lot of defences against prosecution for his various crimes. The Senate can't take him down for fear of his base. The 25th Amendment might work but it feels a bit too exotic. He's a fat bastard but not by American standards, and he must be getting excellent medical care. So I think it's closer to a 90% chance that he just keeps shambling on.

    Sadly in agreement. Trump to survive 2019 at 1/3 is a great value bet.

    Actually I would prefer him to be massacred at the polls than removed some other way. Just imagine the reaction of his base if he is 'martyred' at the hands of the 'liberal elite'. We'd never hear the end of it.

    American Gammon: The Night They Drove Old Trumpy Down.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258
    edited December 2018

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    I think that would be very unwise of the Democrats, to put it mildly. To be seen as trying to take the Presidency by stealth would not play well with even swing voters.

    When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.

    Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    If he's already under a cloud as a conspirator in whatever took Trump down then they could credibly stall for a bit. But I wonder if they'd really *want* to do this with so little of the term left. Republicans of all stripes would be royally outraged, riled up and ready to vote. The Dems would be better with a damaged VP limping on to the election, IMHO.
    Yes and Pelosi I understand is not particularly popular. The feeling is they won the House in the midterms in spite of her rather than because of her. If they foisted her onto the US as president because of some congressional jiggery-pokery they would, as you quite rightly identify, risk a 2020 backlash.
    Also, surely far less likely that Trump is impeached and convicted if it's going to end with President Pelosi than with a GOP president effectively foisted on Trump by something approaching congressional agreement.
    Bear in mind 67 senators have to vote to convict. That means nearly 40% of Republicans have to vote on conviction.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258
    edited December 2018
    CD13 said:

    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.

    I gather it was tossed out...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    Certainly if both Trump and Pence are caught in scandal and impeached Pelosi would become President, even if a long shot.

    In any case once she becomes Speaker in January Trump will be unable to get any legislation through without agreeing it with her first
  • ydoethur said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    I think that would be very unwise of the Democrats, to put it mildly. To be seen as trying to take the Presidency by stealth would not play well with even swing voters.

    When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.

    Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
    Because the GOP have been punished by the voters for their flagrant gerrymandering and worse.
  • ydoethur said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    I think that would be very unwise of the Democrats, to put it mildly. To be seen as trying to take the Presidency by stealth would not play well with even swing voters.

    When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.

    Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
    That must the vote in the House, not the Senate?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,925
    ydoethur said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    I think that would be very unwise of the Democrats, to put it mildly. To be seen as trying to take the Presidency by stealth would not play well with even swing voters.

    When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.

    Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
    It is very unlikely to happen , but the backdrop is very different to the 1973 scenario when Agnew was forced to quit. Trump did not win a landslide - indeed he comfortably lost the popular vote. More recently the Democrats scored a big win in the Congessional elections for the House of Representatives.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,220
    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.

    I gather it was tossed out...
    It was hard, but they had to finish it off.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.

    I gather it was tossed out...
    It was hard, but they had to finish it off.
    Oh, come on, Dr! :smile:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258

    ydoethur said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    I think that would be very unwise of the Democrats, to put it mildly. To be seen as trying to take the Presidency by stealth would not play well with even swing voters.

    When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.

    Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
    That must the vote in the House, not the Senate?
    Yes, sorry, I meant the House. I was going to add the Senate as well but decided it wasn't important as the Republicans control that. However, I managed to delete the wrong one!

    The vote in the senate was 92-3, if anyone is interested.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258
    edited December 2018
    Scott_P said:
    That would be a great deal funnier if it had 'Deal' and 'No Deal' on the signpost ('no deal' obviously being falling off the cliff).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671

    Mr. Kinabalu, I hope your boyfriend balance is positive :p

    :-)

    Speaking of which, Robert De Niro and Christopher Walken. Mike and Nick in The Deer Hunter. Very nice.

    But more to the point it is those characters, in that film, who come to mind (to my mind at least) when talk is of the rust belt. And it was the rust belt wot done it, of course, for Donald Trump.

    So would Mike and Nick have voted for Trump, if a presidential election had been a part of the film and if Trump had been a candidate?

    I'd love to say "No!" but in truth I can't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305

    ydoethur said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    I think that would be very unwise of the Democrats, to put it mildly. To be seen as trying to take the Presidency by stealth would not play well with even swing voters.

    When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.

    Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
    Because the GOP have been punished by the voters for their flagrant gerrymandering and worse.
    Indeed. Despite gerrymandering the Democrats made their biggest gain in House seats in November since 1974 and there are now more Democrats in Congress than Republicans for the first time since 2010 and Trump has less support from Republican Representatives and Senators than Obama did from Democrats in Congress back then
  • MJWMJW Posts: 533
    Other than simultaneous death in office, the only way I can see this happening would be in early to mid 2020 - a scandal or scandals (existing or otherwise) take out Trump and Pence in quick succession with the presidential race underway. The Republicans, in disarray and needing time to choose a new nominee, agree to Pelosi as a caretaker president until January 2021 in the hope they can run a fresh name and win, all the while whinging about her and trying to rile up their base.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242
  • ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:
    That would be a great deal funnier if it had 'Deal' and 'No Deal' on the signpost ('no deal' obviously being falling off the cliff).
    Unfortunately it still wouldn't be funny.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    Trump’s Labour Secretary appears to have covered up what reads almost like a one man Rotherham scandal in his previous job as a federal prosecutor:
    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

    It is an astonishing and disturbing story.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    edited December 2018
    Another tough day on the markets with Germany being particularly bad. WTI futures down to $45.45, close to a 15 month low.

    Its very thin and exaggerated trading at the moment but it is starting to feel like a recession is coming.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    Masood seriously needs someone to stay with him to make a game of this.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,545
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    I think that would be very unwise of the Democrats, to put it mildly. To be seen as trying to take the Presidency by stealth would not play well with even swing voters.

    When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.

    Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
    Because the GOP have been punished by the voters for their flagrant gerrymandering and worse.
    Indeed. Despite gerrymandering the Democrats made their biggest gain in House seats in November since 1974 and there are now more Democrats in Congress than Republicans for the first time since 2010 and Trump has less support from Republican Representatives and Senators than Obama did from Democrats in Congress back then
    The scale of gerrymandering is breathtaking. In Wisconsin the Dems statewide lead would need to be 16 points before they would take a majority of the seats in the state house.
  • Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.

    I gather it was tossed out...
    It was hard, but they had to finish it off.
    A lot of people are happy that it ended.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,541

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.

    I gather it was tossed out...
    It was hard, but they had to finish it off.
    A lot of people are happy that it ended.
    Indeed. It was felt that it had reached a climax.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,220
    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.

    I gather it was tossed out...
    It was hard, but they had to finish it off.
    A lot of people are happy that it ended.
    Indeed. It was felt that it had reached a climax.
    Some people feel that they had boobed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378
    @Gardenwalker FPT

    You picked up on my comment that 50% of Brexit dept civil servants are stockpiling food

    I just want to be clear that’s not “news” or “fact”

    My sister was told it by a friend who works in the department and repeated it to me

    Even ignoring the potential for exaggeration in either of those transmissions (I translated “about half” as 50% but I trust you will forgive me for that) it is at best an internal department rumour as I very much doubt they have statistical support for the figure
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,545
    Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    We are talking about a situation where Pence and Trump have been taken out due to colluding with a hostile foreign power to steal an election.
  • eekeek Posts: 2,588
    Charles said:

    @Gardenwalker FPT

    You picked up on my comment that 50% of Brexit dept civil servants are stockpiling food

    I just want to be clear that’s not “news” or “fact”

    My sister was told it by a friend who works in the department and repeated it to me

    Even ignoring the potential for exaggeration in either of those transmissions (I translated “about half” as 50% but I trust you will forgive me for that) it is at best an internal department rumour as I very much doubt they have statistical support for the figure

    I commented here earlier this month the blind panic I saw when DEFRA offered me a contract (I didn't accept it as it's a death march project).. The idea that we are going to be at all ready in March is a complete joke....
  • Alistair said:

    Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    We are talking about a situation where Pence and Trump have been taken out due to colluding with a hostile foreign power to steal an election.
    We are also talking a situation where the GOP Senators would have to vote to take out both President and Veep. I can't see that happening.

    The only way this could potentially happen is dual-morbidity. Otherwise the Senate won't pull the trigger even if there is a smoking gun (they might have if it meant eg President Ryan but never for President Pelosi).
  • Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    It’ll be like the Merrick Garland nomination.

    The GOP would be reaping what they sowed.

    Plus the Americans would want a VPOTUS who wouldn’t pardon the Trump crime family.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,541
    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr D,

    "A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."

    I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.

    I gather it was tossed out...
    It was hard, but they had to finish it off.
    A lot of people are happy that it ended.
    Indeed. It was felt that it had reached a climax.
    Some people feel that they had boobed.
    It's possible, I suppose. I don't keep abreast of such issues.
  • Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,541
    Parenthetically, @rcs1000 and @TheScreamingEagles , can you ignore the "off-topics" that I have done over the past few days. They were fat-finger, not real.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 40,765

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like.

    Are they not trying to change the rules in several places?
  • Scott_P said:

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like.

    Are they not trying to change the rules in several places?
    The Republicans seem to have lost sight of the concept of democracy in many places.
  • DavidL said:

    Another tough day on the markets with Germany being particularly bad. WTI futures down to $45.45, close to a 15 month low.

    Its very thin and exaggerated trading at the moment but it is starting to feel like a recession is coming.

    I imagine household energy prices will start falling soon, then? The cost of gas and electricity surely have some connection to the price of oil.

    No? Oh well.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926

    DavidL said:

    Another tough day on the markets with Germany being particularly bad. WTI futures down to $45.45, close to a 15 month low.

    Its very thin and exaggerated trading at the moment but it is starting to feel like a recession is coming.

    I imagine household energy prices will start falling soon, then? The cost of gas and electricity surely have some connection to the price of oil.

    No? Oh well.
    Energy companies take steps to fix their costs for a given period, and in turn offer fixes to consumers. There’s no conspiracy, just sensible risk management.

    The only thing that quickly responds to changing crude oil prices is petrol and diesel. From memory, it takes 2-3 weeks for this to feed through to the pump.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 12,118
    edited December 2018

    DavidL said:

    Another tough day on the markets with Germany being particularly bad. WTI futures down to $45.45, close to a 15 month low.

    Its very thin and exaggerated trading at the moment but it is starting to feel like a recession is coming.

    I imagine household energy prices will start falling soon, then? The cost of gas and electricity surely have some connection to the price of oil.

    No? Oh well.
    Have you tried looking ?

    Petrol prices have certainly fallen significantly during the last two months.
  • DavidL said:

    Another tough day on the markets with Germany being particularly bad. WTI futures down to $45.45, close to a 15 month low.

    Its very thin and exaggerated trading at the moment but it is starting to feel like a recession is coming.

    I imagine household energy prices will start falling soon, then? The cost of gas and electricity surely have some connection to the price of oil.

    No? Oh well.
    Have you tried looking ?

    Petrol prices have certainly fallen significantly during the last two months.
    Yes, I have tried looking. Wholesale energy prices seem weirdly hard for a private citizen to get. Ofgem purportedly publish monthly averages but despite touting "data correct for November 2018" their chart only goes to August. The Google results for "UK wholesale energy prices" are stuffed with either vague news articles about general increases, or past predictions from investment advisors, rather than up to date current hard numbers.

    Petrol is an obvious and direct correlation but of no concern to me, unfortunately.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238

    Scott_P said:

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like.

    Are they not trying to change the rules in several places?
    The Republicans seem to have lost sight of the concept of democracy in many places.
    Seasons greeting now I'm back from assorted family visits.

    And I see that the season of goodwill isn't particularly noticeable in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
  • DavidL said:

    Another tough day on the markets with Germany being particularly bad. WTI futures down to $45.45, close to a 15 month low.

    Its very thin and exaggerated trading at the moment but it is starting to feel like a recession is coming.

    I imagine household energy prices will start falling soon, then? The cost of gas and electricity surely have some connection to the price of oil.

    No? Oh well.
    Have you tried looking ?

    Petrol prices have certainly fallen significantly during the last two months.
    Yes, I have tried looking. Wholesale energy prices seem weirdly hard for a private citizen to get. Ofgem purportedly publish monthly averages but despite touting "data correct for November 2018" their chart only goes to August. The Google results for "UK wholesale energy prices" are stuffed with either vague news articles about general increases, or past predictions from investment advisors, rather than up to date current hard numbers.

    Petrol is an obvious and direct correlation but of no concern to me, unfortunately.
    I imagine the data is sent in arrears so the data to November could include prices to August. Data from December could then include September etc
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378

    Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,545
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

    And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:

    1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

    You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
  • Scott_P said:
    as long as what we need can be broken down into loads weighing no more than 5 Iranians I think the import infrastructure is already in place (other nationalities are available).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378
    Alistair said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:


    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

    And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The only circumstances where this can happen

    2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.

    I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.

    I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
    The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
    The last time people voted to fill the office of VP (clumsy wording I know but IIRC the VP isn’t voted for but automatically the running mate of the chosen President) they chose a Republican

    If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

    You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
    There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 71,834
    edited December 2018
    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    Err no.

    Selection/ratification of the Vice President would be conducted under the Twenty-fifth amendment, which was passed in 1967.

    Why was section II of the Twenty-fifth amendment needed?

    Because the Constitution didn't specify any procedures/mechanisms in the event of a vacancy for Vice President.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302
    Scott_P said:
    Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:



    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.

    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

    You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
    There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
    There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378

    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    Err no.

    Selection/ratification of the Vice President would be conducted under the Twenty-fifth amendment, which was passed in 1967.

    Why was section II of the Twenty-fifth amendment needed?

    Because the Constitution didn't specify any procedures/mechanisms in the event of a vacancy for Vice President.
    Ok so the the rough edges arise from politicians from a previous era assuming that those that followed them would have the same respect for the rules of the game and would see them as boundaries
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.

    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

    You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
    There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
    There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
    My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.

    Everything else is detail
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147
    edited December 2018
    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    The premise is that it would not just be Trump who was compromised but the whole Trump "regime", for want of a better word. It's perfectly conceivable that Pence wouldn't be a viable President.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258
    edited December 2018

    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    Err no.

    Selection/ratification of the Vice President would be conducted under the Twenty-fifth amendment, which was passed in 1967.

    Why was section II of the Twenty-fifth amendment needed?

    Because the Constitution didn't specify any procedures/mechanisms in the event of a vacancy for Vice President.
    Mr Eagles, I suggest Charles was trying to say the 25th Amendment dated from the era of organised parties.

    An era that seems to have ended abruptly two years ago.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
    'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147
    Charles said:

    My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.

    Everything else is detail

    If the choice of the people cannot be delivered, perhaps the democratic thing to do is ask them again.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258

    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    The premise is that it would not just be Trump who was compromised but the whole Trump "regime", for want of a better word. It's perfectly conceivable that Pence wouldn't be a viable President.
    If Trump resigns, Pence automatically becomes President under the 25th Amendment if he is still in office. There is no choice in the matter.

    And remember exactly the same rules apply to removing the Veep as apply to removing the POTUS. It's very far from easy.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378

    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    The premise is that it would not just be Trump who was compromised but the whole Trump "regime", for want of a better word. It's perfectly conceivable that Pence wouldn't be a viable President.
    Sure - but Pence should be replaced by a Republican (I think the original conversation was Congress foisting a Democrat VP on a Republican President)
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,114
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    The premise is that it would not just be Trump who was compromised but the whole Trump "regime", for want of a better word. It's perfectly conceivable that Pence wouldn't be a viable President.
    If Trump resigns, Pence automatically becomes President under the 25th Amendment if he is still in office. There is no choice in the matter.

    And remember exactly the same rules apply to removing the Veep as apply to removing the POTUS. It's very far from easy.
    and if Pence resigns.. I assume he would have to have appointed his own VP?
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.

    You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.

    I’m not picking and choosing

    The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.

    Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.

    You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
    There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
    There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
    My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.

    Everything else is detail
    1) The people vote for an individual not a party.
    2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,258

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.

    (Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)

    The premise is that it would not just be Trump who was compromised but the whole Trump "regime", for want of a better word. It's perfectly conceivable that Pence wouldn't be a viable President.
    If Trump resigns, Pence automatically becomes President under the 25th Amendment if he is still in office. There is no choice in the matter.

    And remember exactly the same rules apply to removing the Veep as apply to removing the POTUS. It's very far from easy.
    and if Pence resigns.. I assume he would have to have appointed his own VP?
    If Pence becomes President he is entitled to appoint a Veep subject to approval by Congress.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,285

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
    'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
    Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,267
    VP Ivanka
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
    'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
    Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
    And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
    'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
    If they have a skill that is needed, they are more than welcome.
  • Good evening, my fellow Britons.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
    'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
    Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
    And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
    You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
    'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
    Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
    And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
    You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
    Don’t they already have to show they wouldn’t be a burden on the state if they retire there? Fail to see how it’ll be any different.
  • ** Second ***

    :)
This discussion has been closed.