• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Obama become Veep?

Cordelier said:
The 12th Amendment covers election to the Vice Presidency... it's last sentence is pretty explicit as far as that goes. If you can't be elected President, then you can't be elected Vice President.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that.

It says: "...But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."


No reference to standing for election at all.


ELIGIBLE not ELECTED.
 
Rich2018 said:
Obama should have stood as VP to Hilary in 2008 and 2012. Then stood for PotUSA in 2016.

That way he'd have had 8 years experience in the White House before taking on the big job himself.
Click to expand...

Hillary was a weak candidate. Not only that, she was too stupid and arrogant to learn the lessons of her defeat in 2008. If you want to run for President, you need more than a name. Something - anything - will beat nothing every single time.
 
Rich2018 said:
It doesn't say that.

It says: "...But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."


No reference to standing for election at all.


ELIGIBLE not ELECTED.
Click to expand...

He can stand for election, sure... but the popular vote doesn't really matter. What matters is the electoral college vote... and any electoral college votes cast for an Obama Vice Presidency will be constitutionally invalidated by the 12th Amendment.
 
Rich2018 said:
Intelligence Or lack of) is not a qualification to be PotUSA.

The Constitution doen't specify any minimum education level either.
Click to expand...

Biden has already ran for president twice and failed. He is clearly too stupid to get himself elected president.
 
Cordelier said:
Hillary was a weak candidate. Not only that, she was too stupid and arrogant to learn the lessons of her defeat in 2008. If you want to run for President, you need more than a name. Something - anything - will beat nothing every single time.
Click to expand...

To get elected president you have to have a personality that appeals to more then just those voting a party line. Hillary lacks that. And in the 2016 race Hillary also lacked the health to run for president much less serve.
 
Cordelier said:
He can stand for election, sure... but the popular vote doesn't really matter. What matters is the electoral college vote... and any electoral college votes cast for an Obama Vice Presidency will be constitutionally invalidated by the 12th Amendment.
Click to expand...

How so, they will be electoral college votes for VICE PRESIDENT.
 
Rich2018 said:
How so, they will be electoral college votes for VICE PRESIDENT.
Click to expand...

Yes... but the 22nd Amendment makes him constitutionally ineligible to be elected President... ergo he cannot be elected Vice President by the terms of the last sentence of the 12th Amendment. If I were a Democratic elector, I wouldn't cast my Vice Presidential vote for him because of the very real possibility that such a vote would be constitutionally invalid.
 
ObamacareFail said:
To get elected president you have to have a personality that appeals to more then just those voting a party line. Hillary lacks that. And in the 2016 race Hillary also lacked the health to run for president much less serve.
Click to expand...

She's the Democratic equivalent of Mitt Romney.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why?

He's one of the top four greatest presidents in living memory.

Top Four:

FDR
JFK
Clinton
Obama.
Click to expand...

Those are 4 of the worst Presidents we have ever had.
FDR let Pearl Harbor happen to get us into World War 2
JFK got us in to Vietnam
FDR.JFK,and Clintons were all sexual hound dogs.I cant blame FDR and Clinton tho,their wives were hogs
And Obama,he wasnt even born in the USA
 
Cordelier said:
Yes... but the 22nd Amendment makes him constitutionally ineligible to be elected President... ergo he cannot be elected Vice President by the terms of the last sentence of the 12th Amendment. If I were a Democratic elector, I wouldn't cast my Vice Presidential vote for him because of the very real possibility that such a vote would be constitutionally invalid.
Click to expand...

What is the last sentence of the 12 amendment ?

Because it doesn't mention election or standing for election.
 
gulfman said:
Those are 4 of the worst Presidents we have ever had.
FDR let Pearl Harbor happen to get us into World War 2
JFK got us in to Vietnam
FDR.JFK,and Clintons were all sexual hound dogs.I cant blame FDR and Clinton tho,their wives were hogs
And Obama,he wasnt even born in the USA
Click to expand...


1. How was he supposed to stop it ? Declare war on Japan because of what they might do ?
Getting in to WWII and helping win it was probably the best thing to USA has ever done

2. No he didn't, he wanted to pull back. It was Johnson who allowed the escalation into a full blown war.
JFK saved the world in 1962 with his faultless handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis - god forbid i the US had a president like Bush Jr or Trump then.

3. FDR was wheelchair bound. You have a point though - but not sure how that affects their performance in office

4. Yes he was.
 
Rich2018 said:
What is the last sentence of the 12 amendment ?

Because it doesn't mention election or standing for election.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The whole context of the 12th Amendment is about the process of electing of the President and Vice President.
 
Rich2018 said:
1. How was he supposed to stop it ? Declare war on Japan because of what they might do ?
Getting in to WWII and helping win it was probably the best thing to USA has ever done

2. No he didn't, he wanted to pull back. It was Johnson who allowed the escalation into a full blown war.
JFK saved the world in 1962 with his faultless handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis - god forbid i the US had a president like Bush Jr or Trump then.

3. FDR was wheelchair bound. You have a point though - but not sure how that affects their performance in office

4. Yes he was.
Click to expand...

On point #2.... Don't you think North Vietnam might have had a little something to do with that?
 
Cordelier said:
What are you talking about? The whole context of the 12th Amendment is about the process of electing of the President and Vice President.
Click to expand...

The LAST sentence of the 12 amendment to the Constitution of the USA. Which you claimed :

...e cannot be elected Vice President by the terms of the last sentence of the 12th Amendment....
Click to expand...



Actually reads:



"... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."


No mention of the process of election at all.
 
Rich2018 said:
The LAST sentence of the 12 amendment to the Constitution of the USA. Which you claimed :





Actually reads:



"... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."


No mention of the process of election at all.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry... I assumed you read everything above that as well.
 
Cordelier said:
Of course.... but who gives a damn what the South Vietnamese people wanted? North Vietnam was more powerful and aggressive, so they should have just gotten their way, right?
Click to expand...

In 1776 there were people in Georgia who were loyal to King George III.

But the revolutionaries were more aggressive and more powerful. They got what they wanted.


The people of South Vietnam were between a rock and a hard place - the government of South Vietnam was an utterly repugnant regime. Ho Chi Minh's brand of communism wasn't as bad but not exactly everyone's first choice.


The point is though that the Vietnam War was a war of independence. The USA saw it as an aggressive take over but North Vietnam saw it as evicting the last colonial power.
 
Rich2018 said:
In 1776 there were people in Georgia who were loyal to King George III.

But the revolutionaries were more aggressive and more powerful. They got what they wanted.


The people of South Vietnam were between a rock and a hard place - the government of South Vietnam was an utterly repugnant regime. Ho Chi Minh's brand of communism wasn't as bad but not exactly everyone's first choice.


The point is though that the Vietnam War was a war of independence. The USA saw it as an aggressive take over but North Vietnam saw it as evicting the last colonial power.
Click to expand...

What about Korea? In your opinion, were we wrong to intervene in 1950 when the North Koreans invaded the South?
 
I believe Obama could run for President in Kenya.He was born there.
 
Cordelier said:
What about Korea? In your opinion, were we wrong to intervene in 1950 when the North Koreans invaded the South?
Click to expand...


Well there were two major differences to Korea and Vietnam:

Firstly it was authorized by the UN - it may have seemed a US intervention but it was actually a UN mission. Vietnam didn't have UN approval.

Secondly Korea was a winnable war. Korea is a peninsula meaning the UN forces had a massive advantage over US forces in Vietnam. It was also a straight forward conventional war - there were no Korean "VC" at least not on any significant scale.


There is also a third reason, the government of S.Korea was (eventually) to field an effective military force to defend itself.
 
Rich2018 said:
Well there were two major differences to Korea and Vietnam:

Firstly it was authorized by the UN - it may have seemed a US intervention but it was actually a UN mission. Vietnam didn't have UN approval.

Secondly Korea was a winnable war. Korea is a peninsula meaning the UN forces had a massive advantage over US forces in Vietnam. It was also a straight forward conventional war - there were no Korean "VC" at least not on any significant scale.


There is also a third reason, the government of S.Korea was (eventually) to field an effective military force to defend itself.
Click to expand...

Although I'm a firm supporter of the UN, I wouldn't be comfortable with giving it veto power over US foreign and military policy... so, as far as UN authorization goes, it was a handy way for President Truman to avoid having to obtain Congressional authorization for intervening in Korea, but I don't think it adds all that much to the legitimacy question. If the Soviets didn't boycott the Security Council and proceeded to exercise their veto, I'm pretty sure the US would have intervened anyway - don't you?

On your second point.... "winnable" wars are only clear in hindsight, are they not? I'm sure World War II looked pretty "unwinnable" to Britain in the summer of 1940....were they wrong to not throw in the towel?

Also, President Johnson didn't commit US ground forces to the fighting until the NVA started sending units down the Ho Chi Minh Trail in 1965. If the conflict had remained ARVN vs. VC - as had been up to that point - then there would have been no US ground forces deployed.

Third, as a percentage of overall military manpower, the South Korean contribution to the conflict was roughly equivalent to South Vietnam's (about 60%)... battle deaths compared to the US were also equivalent - both countries had about 4 times as many military killed as the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom