master.on
New Member
Poll: How much free, extra time as president will Trump get if elections get postponed because of the coronavirus scare?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Poll: How much free, extra time as president will Trump get if elections get postponed coronavirus?
- Thread starter master.on
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus election trump
They won’t. It’s against the constitution. He would be removed from office forcibly if necessary.
That's categorically incorrect. The Constitution has no language to enforce removing a president under these conditions. Have you even read the Constitution? Have you taken the steps to digest the language in the Constitution or you just happen to understand what it all means off the rip? You could do me a favor, because I'm feeling a little lost regarding my understanding of the Constitution now, please show me where it states he will be removed because it's explicitly against the Constitution as you stated.
Lol. My lord, the idiocy.
There is nothing on the books currently, on a federal level, that deals with a situation like this. Some states have plans in place that can help provide insight into how these situations have been dealt with prior to this, but those plans are a starting point, at best. In all actuality they are more like a reminder that "shit happens" and thats it because the laws that are being referenced are about maintaining voter options during 100 year floods, post tornado touchdowns etc.
The laws don't account for virus transmission, surface cleansing, etc. This is a much larger problem than a localized flood or something of the like, however, when voting day comes and the presidency is at stake I believe we will be past this isolation phase.
Congress is the body that governs when the election takes place. If this "when" was to be changed, it would have to be a decision that's in lock step with the states because federal elections aren't the only thing on the dance card when we vote.
Let's say all states are being "invaded" or are getting beat up by a "natural disaster". They would certainly agree to an amended date for elections.
What does this mean for the sitting president? Well, if they have no laws or case studies on record other than localized issues (hurricane Sandy i.e.) then it stands to reason we are making that case study as we speak.
I know this is a new issue that literally ZERO percentage of us have ever dealt with (unless you were somehow in Africa and caught up in the Ebola issue a few years ago) but that last thing we need is chuckleheads making shit up. If you look at yourself in a mirror and think you're looking at a smart person do yourself a favor and be a smart person. Use facts to bolster your claims please.
Let's say all states are being "invaded" or are getting beat up by a "natural disaster". They would certainly agree to an amended date for elections.
What does this mean for the sitting president? Well, if they have no laws or case studies on record other than localized issues (hurricane Sandy i.e.) then it stands to reason we are making that case study as we speak.
I know this is a new issue that literally ZERO percentage of us have ever dealt with (unless you were somehow in Africa and caught up in the Ebola issue a few years ago) but that last thing we need is chuckleheads making shit up. If you look at yourself in a mirror and think you're looking at a smart person do yourself a favor and be a smart person. Use facts to bolster your claims please.
The difficulty with saying something is or is not constitutional is the fact that constitutional law has very little to do with the actual Constitution. It's a system built on cherry picking and selective misinterpretations, and it changes based on the current political climate.
For example, drug prohibition is absolutely unconstitutional based on the text of the document, and we even have a precedent showing that was the belief at least until the early 20th century. If those laws were constitutional, so would be alcohol prohibition, but that required a constitutional amendment.
I don't think they will delay the vote, because I believe the virus is going to be mostly gone by then. Early predictions of a 2022 peak didn't take into consideration the high percentage of infected who never have symptoms. Based on revised data I'm told it will likely peak before mid summer, and fall off rapidly from there. The big casualty at that point is going to be the fear stoking media, and its already tarnished reputation.
For example, drug prohibition is absolutely unconstitutional based on the text of the document, and we even have a precedent showing that was the belief at least until the early 20th century. If those laws were constitutional, so would be alcohol prohibition, but that required a constitutional amendment.
I don't think they will delay the vote, because I believe the virus is going to be mostly gone by then. Early predictions of a 2022 peak didn't take into consideration the high percentage of infected who never have symptoms. Based on revised data I'm told it will likely peak before mid summer, and fall off rapidly from there. The big casualty at that point is going to be the fear stoking media, and its already tarnished reputation.
There is language in the 1st article about the process and powers for federal voting but finding anything that can be used to formulate a legal process for this situation is hard to come by. It would most certainly be a ruling based on the current climate, no doubt.
Honestly, i can't see Congress pulling a sitting president in this situation, unless the president was causing or actively compounding the issues. For the cards that have been dealt, I feel like Trump is doing fine. Testing kits or not, he's fine. The virus lives for multiple weeks on some extremely common surfaces, meaning that the "not infected" grade your test showed you yesterday could very well be "infected" today. Layman's terms: your population is already fucked when the first case presents itself. Every president, parliament member, authoritarian leader/ruler on the planet is in the same boat. The exception to what the globe is doing seems to be Boris Johnson, and that's going to be one hell of a case study when this is all done.
Honestly, i can't see Congress pulling a sitting president in this situation, unless the president was causing or actively compounding the issues. For the cards that have been dealt, I feel like Trump is doing fine. Testing kits or not, he's fine. The virus lives for multiple weeks on some extremely common surfaces, meaning that the "not infected" grade your test showed you yesterday could very well be "infected" today. Layman's terms: your population is already fucked when the first case presents itself. Every president, parliament member, authoritarian leader/ruler on the planet is in the same boat. The exception to what the globe is doing seems to be Boris Johnson, and that's going to be one hell of a case study when this is all done.
agreed. I wish editorials were outlawed in "news reporting". An opinions relevancy from anyone other than a leading authority on infectious diseases is fucking useless.
It would be political suicide for sure, but when has that stopped them?
I absolutely don’t know everything, I don’t consider myself to be smarter than average, but I do happen to read a bit from more than single sources too. My point is Congress would never go along with any plan to extend elections given the disastrous handling to this point of the virus epidemic. Sure maybe a week or two or maybe a month—but no way given the years in the poll specified here. The hate (deservedly or not) is strong against this administration and there’s zero chance for an agreement on nearly anything. This article does a decent job outlining the hurdles.
Can Trump Cancel Or Postpone The Election Over The Coronavirus?
Absolutely uncharted territory here. All I ask for is unity, and understanding that this is exclusively a global issue.
I've often said that the only thing that'll bring unity to the masses would be something like the movie Independence Day. An alien species comes to earth, mission: seek and destroy. Well, to me, this virus is fitting of that alien invader definition. With that being said, as a global community, we should be after killing the virus and not each other.
I'm all good with business as usual after the damn thing is contained though. Merica' lol
I think you're wrong when you say they never would, and the language is written in such a way they actually do have that power.
If a global pandemic is in the state it's in currently, and it happens to occur during an election period, Congress would undoubtedly postpone the election. Massachusetts has been shutting down since Wednesday, if elections were to be held on Tuesday of next week how do you suppose we all vote? There would be no working provisions to vote, they are all at home.
I could literally pontificate for hours about this shit, but I'll leave you with that simple question. At it's core it ends all other arguments.
One could suggest getting a viable plan outlined for an alternative means of national voting, but that doesn't answer the immediate need. All it does is hint at future answers. The immediate need puts an unreal amount of strain on an already exasperated system.
And since you brought it up, I'd like to discuss the disastrous handling of the virus. I'm assuming you're referring to testing kits? Border and travel restrictions? What else? How would you suggest that things have been handled? What are the testing kit stock numbers at the manufacturer and distribution centers that are currently available? Are the points of origin actually shipping product at this time? What's the process and time frame for American medical manufacturing and testing authorities to generate real tests? How the fuck do you know the tests that are being used globally are actually testing correctly?
There are way to many variables to put a definitive answer on anyone's handling of this. The one thing that is a certain is distance and time is needed right now, which just about everyone has endorsed, globally. Cough** Boris couch**
And your article literally disproved your original point that it was against the Constitution.
I'm going to go outside and play now. I'm installing a 30amp weatherproof receptacle for my trailer, grilling some food and playing with the dogs and neice. I also have alfalfa that I have to figure out how to grow out in the forest out back, trying to get the deer population up without putting a feeder out. I love watching them in the morning, majestic fucks.
It's my position that Trump should have done nothing about the virus and just let it run the course. We're over populated, it targets boomers, this is a win win. Just think what this country would be like if we all woke up tomorrow and all the boomers were gone.
And the constitution really doesn't matter. It's a purposely ambiguous document that can be interpreted by any self important asshole living today the way he/she chooses. The people living back 200+ years were backwards fucks, slave holders, they had no idea what true freedom was and the people living today haven't a clue either. I'd never trust anyone to list out what my rights are, they should immediately burn these documents and any other document that is so pompous to assume power over anyone.
And the constitution really doesn't matter. It's a purposely ambiguous document that can be interpreted by any self important asshole living today the way he/she chooses. The people living back 200+ years were backwards fucks, slave holders, they had no idea what true freedom was and the people living today haven't a clue either. I'd never trust anyone to list out what my rights are, they should immediately burn these documents and any other document that is so pompous to assume power over anyone.
