Frankly, the nonsense from FN, as highlighted by DFN, is always ridiculous and unimportant. But after the catastrophic debate it’s almost therapeutic to read when the “Normie” media are unloading on Biden all day.
You wrote: "Johnson was arguing that since the president is chosen in a national vote he or she wouldn’t abuse their power."
You added that it doesn’t make sense.
I would also add that it’s not true that it’s a “national vote," due to the Electoral College. Certain states/regions have more clout with their votes than others. It’s not one voter, one vote. The president-elect can enter office biased. Johnson is #3 in presidential succession.
Writing what you do takes brains, stamina and commitment. My addition is a nit compared to what you accomplish with each post. I am constantly impressed.
"The president and the vice president are the only two officers in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." That's his exact quote. His logic being the president is voted by everyone in the country so therefore they can't be a criminal. Why not? It doesn't matter if the electoral college is involved or not. Even if he was more exact and said "The president and vice president are the only two officers in our constitutional system that are elected by 270 or more electoral votes". It doesn't change the weakness of his argument. It doesn't matter HOW the president is elected. Anyone in a position of power can abuse that power if they are not checks on the power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we elected a president by popular vote only his argument still holds no weight. It doesn't matter if it's electoral college, a slate of Senators, even a random lottery, it doesn't matter if he won 90% of the popular vote, nothing will stop a criminal from committing crimes if he or she thinks they can get away with those crimes.
For Johnson to assume the presidency both the president and the vice president would have to die at the same time. In the case of the Kennedy assassination we just went without a vice president for 14 months. The Speaker didn't become the vice president. I just looked it up.
I have to work with what the Speaker actually said. That’s his logic. He didn’t bring up the electoral college so it would be odd for me to bring it up. He said that since the president is the only elected official elected by all of the people - he or she could not be a criminal. That’s his reasoning. That reasoning doesn’t make sense because they are countless examples of leaders all over the world who have committed countless crimes who were elected in landslide elections. That’s his logic. His logic doesn’t make sense. Sure I could bring up the electoral college but it wouldn’t change his stupid argument. The electors vote for whomever wins the majority in their state they’re not rogue actors who just pick a president. In theory they might but my beef was with his incredibly weak argument that a president who wins an election will somehow be less likely to commit crimes. It just doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing to support that argument. Anyone in a position of power can abuse their power regardless of how they got there.
Incredible stupidity! When you tell a lie that is so stupid and unbelievable that there isn’t an opposite truth to go with it.
Frankly, the nonsense from FN, as highlighted by DFN, is always ridiculous and unimportant. But after the catastrophic debate it’s almost therapeutic to read when the “Normie” media are unloading on Biden all day.
The line about Hunter Biden getting the nuclear codes was so over the top stupid.
You wrote: "Johnson was arguing that since the president is chosen in a national vote he or she wouldn’t abuse their power."
You added that it doesn’t make sense.
I would also add that it’s not true that it’s a “national vote," due to the Electoral College. Certain states/regions have more clout with their votes than others. It’s not one voter, one vote. The president-elect can enter office biased. Johnson is #3 in presidential succession.
Writing what you do takes brains, stamina and commitment. My addition is a nit compared to what you accomplish with each post. I am constantly impressed.
"The president and the vice president are the only two officers in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." That's his exact quote. His logic being the president is voted by everyone in the country so therefore they can't be a criminal. Why not? It doesn't matter if the electoral college is involved or not. Even if he was more exact and said "The president and vice president are the only two officers in our constitutional system that are elected by 270 or more electoral votes". It doesn't change the weakness of his argument. It doesn't matter HOW the president is elected. Anyone in a position of power can abuse that power if they are not checks on the power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we elected a president by popular vote only his argument still holds no weight. It doesn't matter if it's electoral college, a slate of Senators, even a random lottery, it doesn't matter if he won 90% of the popular vote, nothing will stop a criminal from committing crimes if he or she thinks they can get away with those crimes.
Thanks for setting me straight.
For Johnson to assume the presidency both the president and the vice president would have to die at the same time. In the case of the Kennedy assassination we just went without a vice president for 14 months. The Speaker didn't become the vice president. I just looked it up.
I have to work with what the Speaker actually said. That’s his logic. He didn’t bring up the electoral college so it would be odd for me to bring it up. He said that since the president is the only elected official elected by all of the people - he or she could not be a criminal. That’s his reasoning. That reasoning doesn’t make sense because they are countless examples of leaders all over the world who have committed countless crimes who were elected in landslide elections. That’s his logic. His logic doesn’t make sense. Sure I could bring up the electoral college but it wouldn’t change his stupid argument. The electors vote for whomever wins the majority in their state they’re not rogue actors who just pick a president. In theory they might but my beef was with his incredibly weak argument that a president who wins an election will somehow be less likely to commit crimes. It just doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing to support that argument. Anyone in a position of power can abuse their power regardless of how they got there.