StringerBell wrote: » Got sent a video this morning of a fox news host losing it a little with one of the trump spokespeople who couldn't answer the simple questions, instructive stuff
EltonJohn69 wrote: » Link ?
AMENDMENT XXV Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment. Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4.Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Tell me how wrote: » Pretty sure it was this one. It's 8+ minutes but the interview is only up to 4:16. The person after it makes a valid point, when even Fox are saying they don't know what you are at, you've pretty much gone down the rabbit hole.
robinph wrote: » If one TV network increases it's viewership by 10 million and the other increases it by 50 million then the one which only managed 10 million is going to have it's shareholders knocking at the door wanting to know WTF is going on with the failure in a massively growing market, the CEO will get booted out the door unceremoniously, and they will then likely soon get bought up by the bigger network.
VinLieger wrote: » No they wouldn't, if the total available market increases but your market share actually decreases regardless of your total number going up questions would absolutely be asked about why the others went up more. Networks absolutely care about how well the others are doing vs themselves as regards overall market share.
jmayo wrote: » Oh FFS. The TV network was just a simple analogous situation as regards viewing figures, not to be taken literally as to whether or not network execs would be fired or whether or not the network would be bought out. Jeeze.
harr wrote: » Will Trumps Constant wild claims on Twitter affect his running again in 4 years ? Will the GOP get sick of him and once out of the White House won’t be put for forward for re-election again. Also why does Twitter allow him spout such wild claims without total censorship , I know they have warnings on his posts but you would imagine he would only be allowed do this for so long.
spacecoyote wrote: » They've said that he'll lose the essential immunity to posting rubbish as soon as he is out of office. Cant see the GOP just jettisoning him out to the wilderness, that's too big a risk to them of splitting their base
harr wrote: » Surely their base is well split already ? I have relatives in Arizona all would be Republicans and in this election some actually voted for Biden and argue among themselves more than they do with friends and family who would be democrats . I think the base is well and truly split ..
Quin_Dub wrote: » There is a certain cohort of traditional GOP voters that voted for Biden this time out , not sure it's a massive group though. If you look at the states where Biden won, but the GOP Senator held their seats - The % difference in those vote totals gives you a rough idea of that impact. It's not massive , significant in terms of winning/losing and election but it's not a huge number overal I'd suggest.
Itssoeasy wrote: » I don’t understand why the transition team for Biden and Harris don’t bring a lawsuit(seems to be a way to focus minds in America) against the director of the GSA. Forget trump and his pity party, Emily Murphy as director is ignoring the law which her predecessors have followed. It says apparent winner which under any metric joe Biden is yet she seems hell bent on trying to stay loyal to trump who we know won’t be loyal to her if history is any indication. Having just read up on her time in this job she’s not exactly getting top marks.
prawnsambo wrote: » The thinking is that Trump is looking for this kind of approach. He thinks he has something they want. What he would look for in return is anyone's guess, but it's the way he thinks. So they are literally ignoring him and pointedly replying to questions on the matter as if it was of no consequence. Biden said the other day that Harris being on the intel committee means the team have access to the information they need anyway. Biden himself was 8 years in the WH, so what does he need? Money is about the only thing and that's minor enough. So they won't pander to Trump on this in any way until Trump is forced by events to admit reality.
Foxtrol wrote: » They need insight into the details of policies and plans etc. For example, they currently have very little insight into the details of what the current plan is for vaccine rollout. Biden's team can have their own plans but if what Trump has in motion completely goes against that then they need to know in advance, otherwise they go in day 1 with no knowledge and have to start from scratch and it will cause huge delays. If they know now they can be ready to go when they arrive and take action straight away.
prawnsambo wrote: » This will all resolve before January 20th. It's not as though Biden doesn't know what resources he'll need. Whether the Trump admin has anything in train is another question that I'd be 50/50 on in any case.
Itssoeasy wrote: » It’s not the point though whether Biden knows how it works it’s a legal process that has happened since 1963 since the act became law.
prawnsambo wrote: » The point is not to pander to Trump and just leave him swinging in the wind. He will have to concede eventually. The last thing Biden wants or needs is to seem beholden to him.
Itssoeasy wrote: » I’m not saying to pander to trump because the way the general service administration and its role in the transition work doesn’t require trumps approval or any involvement thankfully. The administrator in charge has decided to not do it.
Even so, the JPMorgan strategist laid out several developments that could cast doubt on that outcome, including that one or more states submit competing slates of electors. Those competing slates would then be resolved January 6 by the new Congress through rules spelled out in the Electoral Count Act of 1887. "The nightmare scenario for markets," according to Cembalest, would be if Senate Republicans declare the ECA unconstitutional, flip three states in Trump's favor to give him the required 270 electoral votes and Democrats refuse to participate. "All of which sets up the prospect of dueling inaugurations," Cembalest wrote, noting that this outcome was only "narrowly averted" in 1876. Another risk laid out by Cembalest is if Barr directs investigators to "seize or impound election records" to probe for voter fraud, slowing down the process.
prawnsambo wrote: » I don't think she's decided. She's been told. She's out of a job if she goes against Trump. Same as what happened to Krebs.
VinLieger wrote: » Yes he won a lower percentage of the total turnout than he did last time therefore he is less popular than he was in 2016 with the total number of voters.
V8 Interceptor wrote: » You said he was less popular than last time despite him polling 10 million more this time. That's clearly not true. The fact that Biden is more popular than Hillary or anyone else is neither here nor there. Donald Trump got more votes than last time so, by your barometer of popularity ie votes, he is more popular.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » But he's still toast. A Pyrrhic victory.
V8 Interceptor wrote: » True. Its incredible to me that Joe Biden of all people polled the most votes in US Presidential history. Yes there was a very big anti-Trump vote that mobilised but can that alone explain his extraordinary numbers?
V8 Interceptor wrote: » Whatever about the US election, would any of you guys be comfortable with mail in voting here? I wouldn't. I think going down to the booth and posting your ballot is the safest and most tried and trusted method there is.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)
