Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   The US Military would really like to get a "get out of jail free" card in the form of a decisive landslide win - by either candidate   (reuters.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1695 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Oct 2020 at 10:04 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



51 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-10-30 8:49:33 AM  
Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.
 
2020-10-30 8:53:01 AM  
Lotta people in authority who would like nothing better than to have no responsibility for anything. Gee, I wonder how we ended up with Trump.
 
2020-10-30 8:55:17 AM  
They have one already... they'll do nothing no matter the outcome.
 
2020-10-30 9:40:00 AM  

NewportBarGuy: They have one already... they'll do nothing no matter the outcome.


who put the air force in charge?
 
2020-10-30 9:47:29 AM  
The military goes where the money is, and Trump doesn't have any.  It's quite awkward.
 
2020-10-30 9:51:24 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The military goes where the money is, and Trump doesn't have any.  It's quite awkward.


64.media.tumblr.comView Full Size


Maybe we can convince them that Trump keeps the map to his treasure stores up his own ass.
 
2020-10-30 10:07:25 AM  

vudukungfu: NewportBarGuy: They have one already... they'll do nothing no matter the outcome.

who put the air force in charge?


If we were meant to actually do stuff, they wouldn't give us such comfortable office chairs.
 
2020-10-30 10:07:26 AM  
Cause it's thirds there too. 1/3  for one side,1/3 for the other, 1/3 that's wishy washy and who will... just follow orders.
 
2020-10-30 10:07:48 AM  

Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.


I hope that they would, but it is far, far better if they never have to.  Precedents can't be unset.

/I voted and did my part
 
2020-10-30 10:08:05 AM  
Nice that they think they're relieved after the election.  They still have three months of a lame-duck Trump possibly issuing illegal orders that get lots of folks killed.

None of us get to breathe a sigh of relief until Biden is sworn in.
 
2020-10-30 10:09:35 AM  
"We dusted off some old regime change playbooks just in case, but honestly it'd be a lot simpler if we didn't have to go through them.  I don't even remember what country we were gonna invade with these."
 
2020-10-30 10:11:12 AM  
Wow. How cowardly.
 
2020-10-30 10:12:30 AM  
Insurrection Act fears?
*click*
Trump is crazy enough to do it so they are right to worry.
 
2020-10-30 10:13:18 AM  

Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.


There's no oil involved, so theyre not sure how to proceed.
 
2020-10-30 10:14:14 AM  
Did I seriously just read an article that tried to tell me the Pentagon doesn't have an opinion on who wins the Presidential election?
 
2020-10-30 10:15:15 AM  
If it really comes down to it and no one else has the nads to step up Trump is going to get dragged out of the office by....
Girl Scouts. But it will take a platoon of at least 30 of them and a large load stretcher
 
2020-10-30 10:15:38 AM  

Blathering Idjut: Nice that they think they're relieved after the election.  They still have three months of a lame-duck Trump possibly issuing illegal orders that get lots of folks killed.

None of us get to breathe a sigh of relief until Biden is sworn in.


If Biden wins I am taking that sigh.

I might go back to worrying soon after,

But I am sure as shiat taking that sigh.
 
2020-10-30 10:15:59 AM  

chaosangel: Wow. How cowardly.


It's cowardly to not want to be put in the position to choose between shooting your fellow countrymen or disobeying your oath of service?  I too would prefer that the military not be necessary to adjudicate a Democratic election as well as hopefully resolve the peaceful transfer of power.
 
2020-10-30 10:16:09 AM  
It's best for everyone if the military doesn't decide it needs to step in and settle the election for us. They aren't trained for governing and just because someone is in a uniform doesn't mean they aren't a shiatty person you wouldn't want in charge of anything.
 
2020-10-30 10:16:48 AM  
The absolute shiat-show is a double digit Biden win in the popular vote and contested swing states - If Biden wins the popular vote by more than 10M but somehow loses in the electoral college we are going to have armed riots and pitched battles in the streets.

There's no way people give the Electoral College and "Oh you....! ;)" smile if its that lopsided in the popular vote.

/but that IS the Constitution.  So as a military leader you're forced to resign or go against the obvious will of the American people.  And Trump would LOVE nothing more than to have the top echelon of the military be nothing but loyalists.
 
2020-10-30 10:21:51 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-30 10:26:35 AM  

Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.


Oaths are worthless if not enforced, just like every other part of our Constitution, laws, and government.

People have always treated oaths like they're something sacred. They're not. They're "pinky promises" read out loud and can be broken just as easily and remorselessly.
 
2020-10-30 10:33:59 AM  

Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.


You and 14 likes would rather have the military as the final decider on interpreting the US Constitution?

Once you open the door to the military deciding who should be the leader, you can't close that door.  Ask plenty of other countries with a constitution, democratic institutions of varying levels of quality but the military is considered a key or potential political player.

The position of the military is actually very reasonable.  Please clearly decide who is the next President and keep us out of politics and civilian affairs.
 
2020-10-30 10:42:36 AM  
u.s army as pretty much been trained to kill anything that gets in it's way with little regard to any kind of consequences. they are not the people you want doing crowd control locally.
 
2020-10-30 10:43:42 AM  

SirEattonHogg: Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.

You and 14 likes would rather have the military as the final decider on interpreting the US Constitution?

Once you open the door to the military deciding who should be the leader, you can't close that door.  Ask plenty of other countries with a constitution, democratic institutions of varying levels of quality but the military is considered a key or potential political player.

The position of the military is actually very reasonable.  Please clearly decide who is the next President and keep us out of politics and civilian affairs.


Their oath includes defending the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That last bit matters.
 
2020-10-30 10:46:22 AM  
Look, if I want MY freedom defended, I would much rather have it take the form of haphazardly targeted bombings in countries that we have nothing to do with and near constant torrent of "defense" industry graft. Like God intended. Non of this "protect the safety of the people of our own country" gayness!
 
2020-10-30 10:52:25 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: SirEattonHogg: Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.

You and 14 likes would rather have the military as the final decider on interpreting the US Constitution?

Once you open the door to the military deciding who should be the leader, you can't close that door.  Ask plenty of other countries with a constitution, democratic institutions of varying levels of quality but the military is considered a key or potential political player.

The position of the military is actually very reasonable.  Please clearly decide who is the next President and keep us out of politics and civilian affairs.

Their oath includes defending the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That last bit matters.


You want the military to make the decision who our enemies are?  In particular, domestic ones?

I personally don't want them making policy and I don't want them to play kingmaker.  Once the military gets a taste for politics, well, you can kiss our system, both good and bad, goodbye.
 
2020-10-30 10:54:40 AM  

SirEattonHogg: AdmirableSnackbar: SirEattonHogg: Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.

You and 14 likes would rather have the military as the final decider on interpreting the US Constitution?

Once you open the door to the military deciding who should be the leader, you can't close that door.  Ask plenty of other countries with a constitution, democratic institutions of varying levels of quality but the military is considered a key or potential political player.

The position of the military is actually very reasonable.  Please clearly decide who is the next President and keep us out of politics and civilian affairs.

Their oath includes defending the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That last bit matters.

You want the military to make the decision who our enemies are?  In particular, domestic ones?

I personally don't want them making policy and I don't want them to play kingmaker.  Once the military gets a taste for politics, well, you can kiss our system, both good and bad, goodbye.


If they don't make that decision it seems it will be made for them. If we need the military to help oust Trump it would mean we're out of other options.

And spare me your pearl-clutching, it's not as if our system is working on any level as it is.
 
2020-10-30 10:59:31 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: SirEattonHogg: AdmirableSnackbar: SirEattonHogg: Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.

You and 14 likes would rather have the military as the final decider on interpreting the US Constitution?

Once you open the door to the military deciding who should be the leader, you can't close that door.  Ask plenty of other countries with a constitution, democratic institutions of varying levels of quality but the military is considered a key or potential political player.

The position of the military is actually very reasonable.  Please clearly decide who is the next President and keep us out of politics and civilian affairs.

Their oath includes defending the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That last bit matters.

You want the military to make the decision who our enemies are?  In particular, domestic ones?

I personally don't want them making policy and I don't want them to play kingmaker.  Once the military gets a taste for politics, well, you can kiss our system, both good and bad, goodbye.

If they don't make that decision it seems it will be made for them. If we need the military to help oust Trump it would mean we're out of other options.

And spare me your pearl-clutching, it's not as if our system is working on any level as it is.


If January 20th comes along and the election is still seriously contested, the military will need to decide whose orders (if any) to follow, just like other executive agencies. That doesn't mean they should be weighing in before things have gotten to that point, much less before voting has ended.
 
2020-10-30 11:08:41 AM  

buserror: AdmirableSnackbar: SirEattonHogg: AdmirableSnackbar: SirEattonHogg: Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.

You and 14 likes would rather have the military as the final decider on interpreting the US Constitution?

Once you open the door to the military deciding who should be the leader, you can't close that door.  Ask plenty of other countries with a constitution, democratic institutions of varying levels of quality but the military is considered a key or potential political player.

The position of the military is actually very reasonable.  Please clearly decide who is the next President and keep us out of politics and civilian affairs.

Their oath includes defending the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That last bit matters.

You want the military to make the decision who our enemies are?  In particular, domestic ones?

I personally don't want them making policy and I don't want them to play kingmaker.  Once the military gets a taste for politics, well, you can kiss our system, both good and bad, goodbye.

If they don't make that decision it seems it will be made for them. If we need the military to help oust Trump it would mean we're out of other options.

And spare me your pearl-clutching, it's not as if our system is working on any level as it is.

If January 20th comes along and the election is still seriously contested, the military will need to decide whose orders (if any) to follow, just like other executive agencies. That doesn't mean they should be weighing in before things have gotten to that point, much less before voting has ended.


I mean, that's fixed up in the Presidential Succession Act and amendments.

If - somehow - we get to January without having elected a President, the office goes to the President pro tempore of the Senate. Same as if the Traitor somehow cancelled the election.
 
2020-10-30 11:16:49 AM  

erik-k: buserror: If January 20th comes along and the election is still seriously contested, the military will need to decide whose orders (if any) to follow, just like other executive agencies. That doesn't mean they should be weighing in before things have gotten to that point, much less before voting has ended.

I mean, that's fixed up in the Presidential Succession Act and amendments.

If - somehow - we get to January without having elected a President, the office goes to the President pro tempore of the Senate. Same as if the Traitor somehow cancelled the election.


That assumes there's agreement on whether a President has been elected (or who it was).  And then there's the question of whether having a member of Congress act as President is consitutional.  BTW, Speaker of the House comes before President pro tempore.
 
2020-10-30 11:20:10 AM  
I guarantee that senior military leadership does not want to deal with Trump another four years.
 
2020-10-30 11:25:42 AM  

bluejeansonfire: Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.

Oaths are worthless if not enforced, just like every other part of our Constitution, laws, and government.

People have always treated oaths like they're something sacred. They're not. They're "pinky promises" read out loud and can be broken just as easily and remorselessly.


Bingo.  People lie to Congress all the time.  Under oath, not under oath, it makes no difference if there's no distinction, and there's no distinction if there's no enforcement.
 
2020-10-30 11:39:41 AM  
Oh, they want a decisive landslide win, do they?

That's nice.  I want a pony.

/Yeah, an honest election would be a blowout for Biden, but we all know *that* ain't in the cards...
 
2020-10-30 11:41:42 AM  

vudukungfu: NewportBarGuy: They have one already... they'll do nothing no matter the outcome.

who put the air force in charge?


Stargate Command, backed by the Asgard.
 
2020-10-30 11:45:09 AM  

berylman: If it really comes down to it and no one else has the nads to step up Trump is going to get dragged out of the office by....
Girl Scouts. But it will take a platoon of at least 30 of them and a large load stretcher


They can lure him out with a pack of Samoas on a string.
 
2020-10-30 11:46:52 AM  

odinsposse: It's best for everyone if the military doesn't decide it needs to step in and settle the election for us. They aren't trained for governing and just because someone is in a uniform doesn't mean they aren't a shiatty person you wouldn't want in charge of anything.


See: Lieutenant Niedermeyer, Major Frank Burns, Colonel Flagg...
 
2020-10-30 11:46:58 AM  

SirEattonHogg: Harlee: Anything to avoid having to actually act on their oath to defend the Constitution? Well, OK then.

You and 14 likes would rather have the military as the final decider on interpreting the US Constitution?

Once you open the door to the military deciding who should be the leader, you can't close that door.  Ask plenty of other countries with a constitution, democratic institutions of varying levels of quality but the military is considered a key or potential political player.

The position of the military is actually very reasonable.  Please clearly decide who is the next President and keep us out of politics and civilian affairs.


You have a good point.
 
2020-10-30 11:48:56 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Did I seriously just read an article that tried to tell me the Pentagon doesn't have an opinion on who wins the Presidential election?


The Pentagon (and military services) must not have an opinion on who should win.

Individual service members as citizens are welcome to have an opinion but we cannot, and should not ever suggest that our personal opinion is the opinion or stance of the Armed Forces.

The armed services are a monster that is tolerated because we try to keep our damage in check to just the target and we are controlled by the citizenry (by civilians that are elected).

Civilians asking us and looking to us to "fix it" in any direction are honestly shirking their responsibility and duty to us.

We are supposed to defend the Constitution and the government, not define it or set it up.
 
2020-10-30 11:53:43 AM  

fortheloveof: Doctor Funkenstein: Did I seriously just read an article that tried to tell me the Pentagon doesn't have an opinion on who wins the Presidential election?

The Pentagon (and military services) must not have an opinion on who should win.

Individual service members as citizens are welcome to have an opinion but we cannot, and should not ever suggest that our personal opinion is the opinion or stance of the Armed Forces.

The armed services are a monster that is tolerated because we try to keep our damage in check to just the target and we are controlled by the citizenry (by civilians that are elected).

Civilians asking us and looking to us to "fix it" in any direction are honestly shirking their responsibility and duty to us.

We are supposed to defend the Constitution and the government, not define it or set it up.


If the people do their jobs, vote Trump out, and Trump works to maintain his office despite the will of the people and the Constitution, I would hope that the military would step up to enforce the Constitution if necessary.
 
2020-10-30 11:56:37 AM  

odinsposse: It's best for everyone if the military doesn't decide it needs to step in and settle the election for us. They aren't trained for governing and just because someone is in a uniform doesn't mean they aren't a shiatty person you wouldn't want in charge of anything.


This is a really important point. We have training (and licensing) for driving a car. We have training (and licensing) for operating a nuclear reactor. We have training (and licensing) for being a doctor. We have training (and licensing) for practicing law. We even have training (and licensing) for being a farking cosmetician.

But any asshole with a smarmy smile and a quick mouth can be a politician who makes the rules that - among other things - govern training and licensing for driving cars, running reactors, performing surgery, arguing before a judge, and curling someone's hair.

Doesn't it seem like we are missing something here? Could it be that is way everything is always screwed up?

Just asking questions, here....
 
2020-10-30 11:59:56 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: fortheloveof: Doctor Funkenstein: Did I seriously just read an article that tried to tell me the Pentagon doesn't have an opinion on who wins the Presidential election?

The Pentagon (and military services) must not have an opinion on who should win.

Individual service members as citizens are welcome to have an opinion but we cannot, and should not ever suggest that our personal opinion is the opinion or stance of the Armed Forces.

The armed services are a monster that is tolerated because we try to keep our damage in check to just the target and we are controlled by the citizenry (by civilians that are elected).

Civilians asking us and looking to us to "fix it" in any direction are honestly shirking their responsibility and duty to us.

We are supposed to defend the Constitution and the government, not define it or set it up.

If the people do their jobs, vote Trump out, and Trump works to maintain his office despite the will of the people and the Constitution, I would hope that the military would step up to enforce the Constitution if necessary.


Ultimately if someone refuses to leave the building that's up to the Secret Service to handle. However regardless of who sits in the White House the president is the person that wins the election.

Someone squatting in a building does not make them president.
 
2020-10-30 12:01:54 PM  

fortheloveof: AdmirableSnackbar: fortheloveof: Doctor Funkenstein: Did I seriously just read an article that tried to tell me the Pentagon doesn't have an opinion on who wins the Presidential election?

The Pentagon (and military services) must not have an opinion on who should win.

Individual service members as citizens are welcome to have an opinion but we cannot, and should not ever suggest that our personal opinion is the opinion or stance of the Armed Forces.

The armed services are a monster that is tolerated because we try to keep our damage in check to just the target and we are controlled by the citizenry (by civilians that are elected).

Civilians asking us and looking to us to "fix it" in any direction are honestly shirking their responsibility and duty to us.

We are supposed to defend the Constitution and the government, not define it or set it up.

If the people do their jobs, vote Trump out, and Trump works to maintain his office despite the will of the people and the Constitution, I would hope that the military would step up to enforce the Constitution if necessary.

Ultimately if someone refuses to leave the building that's up to the Secret Service to handle. However regardless of who sits in the White House the president is the person that wins the election.

Someone squatting in a building does not make them president.


Yeah you're not getting the scenario I'm talking about. That's OK, hopefully what I'm talking about doesn't happen and we don't have to worry.
 
2020-10-30 12:08:03 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Marcus Aurelius: The military goes where the money is, and Trump doesn't have any.  It's quite awkward.

[64.media.tumblr.com image 532x310]

Maybe we can convince them that Trump keeps the map to his treasure stores up his own ass.


Or oil.  Of course it's crude oil.
 
2020-10-30 12:14:40 PM  

Harlee: odinsposse: It's best for everyone if the military doesn't decide it needs to step in and settle the election for us. They aren't trained for governing and just because someone is in a uniform doesn't mean they aren't a shiatty person you wouldn't want in charge of anything.

This is a really important point. We have training (and licensing) for driving a car. We have training (and licensing) for operating a nuclear reactor. We have training (and licensing) for being a doctor. We have training (and licensing) for practicing law. We even have training (and licensing) for being a farking cosmetician.

But any asshole with a smarmy smile and a quick mouth can be a politician who makes the rules that - among other things - govern training and licensing for driving cars, running reactors, performing surgery, arguing before a judge, and curling someone's hair.

Doesn't it seem like we are missing something here? Could it be that is way everything is always screwed up?

Just asking questions, here....


That's a great argument for electing candidates with solid education and experience, but actual licensing would mean that the government gets to decide who can run for office, which is very easily abused and is a hallmark of authoritarian pseudo-"democracies" such as Iran.
 
2020-10-30 12:29:49 PM  

buserror: Harlee: odinsposse: It's best for everyone if the military doesn't decide it needs to step in and settle the election for us. They aren't trained for governing and just because someone is in a uniform doesn't mean they aren't a shiatty person you wouldn't want in charge of anything.

This is a really important point. We have training (and licensing) for driving a car. We have training (and licensing) for operating a nuclear reactor. We have training (and licensing) for being a doctor. We have training (and licensing) for practicing law. We even have training (and licensing) for being a farking cosmetician.

But any asshole with a smarmy smile and a quick mouth can be a politician who makes the rules that - among other things - govern training and licensing for driving cars, running reactors, performing surgery, arguing before a judge, and curling someone's hair.

Doesn't it seem like we are missing something here? Could it be that is way everything is always screwed up?

Just asking questions, here....

That's a great argument for electing candidates with solid education and experience, but actual licensing would mean that the government gets to decide who can run for office, which is very easily abused and is a hallmark of authoritarian pseudo-"democracies" such as Iran.


I have the same issue with security clearances.
 
2020-10-30 12:39:08 PM  

buserror: Harlee: odinsposse: It's best for everyone if the military doesn't decide it needs to step in and settle the election for us. They aren't trained for governing and just because someone is in a uniform doesn't mean they aren't a shiatty person you wouldn't want in charge of anything.

This is a really important point. We have training (and licensing) for driving a car. We have training (and licensing) for operating a nuclear reactor. We have training (and licensing) for being a doctor. We have training (and licensing) for practicing law. We even have training (and licensing) for being a farking cosmetician.

But any asshole with a smarmy smile and a quick mouth can be a politician who makes the rules that - among other things - govern training and licensing for driving cars, running reactors, performing surgery, arguing before a judge, and curling someone's hair.

Doesn't it seem like we are missing something here? Could it be that is way everything is always screwed up?

Just asking questions, here....

That's a great argument for electing candidates with solid education and experience, but actual licensing would mean that the government gets to decide who can run for office, which is very easily abused and is a hallmark of authoritarian pseudo-"democracies" such as Iran.


Point taken, but I am wondering if that issue could be avoided if the process was completely 100% transparent? IOW, candidates who want to run for office know up front that everything about their application process for the training and licensing, as well as everything about their past lives, is open to scrutiny. Then the bureaucrats who were saying Yea or Nay would have to publicly justify their decisions.

Also, full disclosure of everything about a candidate might be a good thing in and of itself. Might avoid some well hidden Roy Moores, ACBs, etc.

I have to say, aside from the hurdle of getting one correctly programmed*, I am becoming more and more in favor of benevolent limited autocracy by a sapient and independent super-AI.

Though in the novel I'm writing I am seeing where even that might be screwed up (by a guy named Murphy, and good intentions).

* Aye, that's the rub.
 
2020-10-30 12:44:42 PM  

buserror: Harlee: odinsposse: It's best for everyone if the military doesn't decide it needs to step in and settle the election for us. They aren't trained for governing and just because someone is in a uniform doesn't mean they aren't a shiatty person you wouldn't want in charge of anything.

This is a really important point. We have training (and licensing) for driving a car. We have training (and licensing) for operating a nuclear reactor. We have training (and licensing) for being a doctor. We have training (and licensing) for practicing law. We even have training (and licensing) for being a farking cosmetician.

But any asshole with a smarmy smile and a quick mouth can be a politician who makes the rules that - among other things - govern training and licensing for driving cars, running reactors, performing surgery, arguing before a judge, and curling someone's hair.

Doesn't it seem like we are missing something here? Could it be that is way everything is always screwed up?

Just asking questions, here....

That's a great argument for electing candidates with solid education and experience, but actual licensing would mean that the government gets to decide who can run for office, which is very easily abused and is a hallmark of authoritarian pseudo-"democracies" such as Iran.


Addendum: Trump has access to the nuclear codes. There is no assurance that I am aware of that he would be stopped from using them, were push come to shove. A malignant narcissist literally has the means to destroy the human race and the world.

If we somehow escape that fate with him, don't you think we need to install a whole bunch of safeguards about the character and sanity of our leaders, to forestall a recurrence?
 
2020-10-30 12:50:49 PM  
If there's a decisive landslide win for Trump, there will be riots in the street. He could still win, but it would only be by a thin margin, like 2016. A landslide for Trump would be a crystal clear indication that the election was stolen.

If the military doesn't want to possibly have to fight citizens rebelling over the election results, it needs to be a Biden landslide.
 
2020-10-30 1:01:38 PM  

buserror: erik-k: buserror: If January 20th comes along and the election is still seriously contested, the military will need to decide whose orders (if any) to follow, just like other executive agencies. That doesn't mean they should be weighing in before things have gotten to that point, much less before voting has ended.

I mean, that's fixed up in the Presidential Succession Act and amendments.

If - somehow - we get to January without having elected a President, the office goes to the President pro tempore of the Senate. Same as if the Traitor somehow cancelled the election.

That assumes there's agreement on whether a President has been elected (or who it was).  And then there's the question of whether having a member of Congress act as President is consitutional.  BTW, Speaker of the House comes before President pro tempore.


Oh, that's right... I was thinking of the "Traitor cancels the entire election" scenario in which we therefore no longer have a House as no members were elected. These are the sort of plausible scenarios one conflates in functional, not-broken nations, right?

But I suppose you're right about the "who" part. I don't think there's much doubt about the "if" - it's whoever gets >= 270 EV, modulo the GOPers trying to just steal state EVs by having their governors name electors.

/Once again... yeah... this is totally a normal, reasonable thing that members of functioning countries discuss right?
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.