• 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!

Constitutional Line of Succession. Frightening thought!

He did a good job, but still lost the second term. Why, I'm not sure. Maybe doing a good job and getting elected take different skill sets.

Read my lips, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanon .
 
He did a good job, but still lost the second term. Why, I'm not sure. Maybe doing a good job and getting elected take different skill sets.

there are several reasons and had nothing to do with his resume

1) timing. both the fact that the GOP had held the White House for 20 of 24 years and there was fatigue among the voters and there was lots of corporate belt tightening at the time

2) he was unable to understand that compromising with the Democrats (read my lips-no new taxes) would get him NO CREDIT from the Democrats and cause resentment among many of us who had voted for him (I voted libertarian that year)

3) Clinton was young and charismatic-while I tend to discount this claim-one study said that a large number of women who voted for Clinton over Bush did so because they found Slick Willy more sexually desirable.

4) Bush had an attitude that was off-putting to some. Some people noted that Bush's attitude was "how the hell can the public support someone as unqualified as Clinton over me" and with that attitude came the "screw the voters if that is what they want"

Bush was a guy who did lots of good things for the USA-from volunteering for one of the most dangerous combat positions in WWII (carrier based torpedo bombers had rather low life expectancies early in the pacific theater due to Japanese air superiority ) to taking tough jobs at bad periods -head of the RNC right after watergate and taking over the CIA after the brutal Church commission investigations. These were tough and thankless jobs that Bush stepped up to do. Its easy to see how he could have come to believe that the USA should have been a bit more grateful of what he had done
 
there are several reasons and had nothing to do with his resume

1) timing. both the fact that the GOP had held the White House for 20 of 24 years and there was fatigue among the voters and there was lots of corporate belt tightening at the time

2) he was unable to understand that compromising with the Democrats (read my lips-no new taxes) would get him NO CREDIT from the Democrats and cause resentment among many of us who had voted for him (I voted libertarian that year)

3) Clinton was young and charismatic-while I tend to discount this claim-one study said that a large number of women who voted for Clinton over Bush did so because they found Slick Willy more sexually desirable.

4) Bush had an attitude that was off-putting to some. Some people noted that Bush's attitude was "how the hell can the public support someone as unqualified as Clinton over me" and with that attitude came the "screw the voters if that is what they want"

Bush was a guy who did lots of good things for the USA-from volunteering for one of the most dangerous combat positions in WWII (carrier based torpedo bombers had rather low life expectancies early in the pacific theater due to Japanese air superiority ) to taking tough jobs at bad periods -head of the RNC right after watergate and taking over the CIA after the brutal Church commission investigations. These were tough and thankless jobs that Bush stepped up to do. Its easy to see how he could have come to believe that the USA should have been a bit more grateful of what he had done

Voters don't vote for a candidate because they're grateful. There are a lot of reasons for votes, sexual attraction no doubt among them. Blind partisanship is a large factor, unfortunately.

One good thing Bush I did for the country was to go into Kuwait and send Saddam Hussain packing, then go home. Later, we seem to have forgotten that last part.
 
Voters don't vote for a candidate because they're grateful. There are a lot of reasons for votes, sexual attraction no doubt among them. Blind partisanship is a large factor, unfortunately.

One good thing Bush I did for the country was to go into Kuwait and send Saddam Hussain packing, then go home. Later, we seem to have forgotten that last part.

you are correct but I believe Bush had that attitude that the voters were somewhat acting like ingrates.
 
Exactly right, and that same Constitution that gives us the order of succession also limits the power of the executive branch. That's something we keep forgetting, to our detriment.

That's because there is no evidence that the power of the executive branch is limited. The Neocon notion of the Unitary Executive has been the reality since Bush 43. Barack Obama loved the idea, and so does The Donald.

Why should we remember something that is not practiced? If it is not practiced, does it really exist at all?
 
Looked up the included list (yes from Wikipedia) and it provides no comfort if the unimaginable happens.View attachment 67216536

Can you imagine if we got to #4?

I'm discomforted by the fact someone would have to look it up to learn what it is. What does that suggest about the state of education in the United States?
 
Looked up the included list (yes from Wikipedia) and it provides no comfort if the unimaginable happens.View attachment 67216536

Can you imagine if we got to #4?

I think it all boils down to one's political perspective or ideology. I would love to have Pence, Ryan, Hatch instead of Trump. In fact any other Republican that ran for the nomination would do nicely. Beginning with Tillerson, a lot of the rest I know little to nothing about.

But Sessions, Price, Carson, Perry are good. The Generals I know little outside of the fact they were generals.
 
I'm discomforted by the fact someone would have to look it up to learn what it is. What does that suggest about the state of education in the United States?

Come on. It's rarely been a factor. Most people learn this stuff, but since it never comes into play, few remember the whole sequence. I couldn't remember past 4 myself.
 
That's because there is no evidence that the power of the executive branch is limited. The Neocon notion of the Unitary Executive has been the reality since Bush 43. Barack Obama loved the idea, and so does The Donald.

Why should we remember something that is not practiced? If it is not practiced, does it really exist at all?

Because if it's not being practiced, which seems to be more and more the case, then we're headed for a strong man rule and away from a government of the people.
 
Come on. It's rarely been a factor. Most people learn this stuff, but since it never comes into play, few remember the whole sequence. I couldn't remember past 4 myself.

I agree it would be a bit much to know who much past 4 or 5, but those first 4 shouldn't require looking up to know.
 
Because if it's not being practiced, which seems to be more and more the case, then we're headed for a strong man rule and away from a government of the people.

"when the people become uneducated and don't know what kind of government they have, it shall turn into a democracy followed by a dictatorship"


classical republic - democracy - dicatorship

rule of law - rule of the people - rule of one
 
Last edited:
Because if it's not being practiced, which seems to be more and more the case, then we're headed for a strong man rule and away from a government of the people.

Not to be argumentative, but IMO we've been there for quite some time. I'm currently reading Lewis Lapham's book Age Of Folly, which is really a collection of his writings before, during and after 911 and the invasion of Afghanistan. I had forgotten how little debate there was regarding the AUMF. I had forgotten Robert Byrd's dissent by reading some wisdom from Abraham Lincoln into the record.

Archibald MacLeish: "The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself."

Abraham Lincoln: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion...and you allow him to make war at pleasure...If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us', but he would say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'"

The Unitary Executive has become standard practice here in the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom