So... Trump gets his second term, then drops dead. What then would a president Pence do?

[zinfamous]

He'll divorce Mother, come out of the closet, get gay-married on the WH lawn, and evangelical heads will explode across the country.

 

[ShookKnight]

24/7 Coke & Twink/Bear Parties in the White House.

Pence would just rage party all the time with mountains of blow and a sea of Twinks & Bears.

A White House Press Conference would just be Mike dressed in leather, glaring down at the Press Corp, as a slew of coked out gay guys giggle at everything the Press Corp asks. Mike would emerge from the White House from time to time with a black eye, cut lip and/or bleeding nose.

Air Force One would be repainted in black, with veins all over it.

The 1st Lady would be totally liquored up, all the time.

 

[brandonbull]

He would tell Democrats maybe they will have better luck in 2028.

 

[Commodus]

He would tell Democrats maybe they will have better luck in 2028.

Uh huh. It's pretty funny, virtually everything you post can be translated as "all hail the Republican dictatorship, may democracy die forever!"

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Uh huh. It's pretty funny, virtually everything you post can be translated as "all hail the Republican dictatorship, may democracy die forever!"

Umm no, because if Trump dies in office after winning in 2020 and Pence becomes President he'd probably be re-elected in 2024. Hence Brandonbull saying to the Democrats "better luck in 2028" which is when the next presidential election would be. No dictatorship, just the Republic and the Constitution rolling along.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

can you impeach two prezzies in a row?

We'll find out when the Repukes try to impeach Bloomie in '21.

 

[Mai72]

I give you Barron Trump. Your next POTUS!

 

[ch33zw1z]

PP would declare Christianity the official national religion and ramp up the holy war.

 

[Commodus]

Umm no, because if Trump dies in office after winning in 2020 and Pence becomes President he'd probably be re-elected in 2024. Hence Brandonbull saying to the Democrats "better luck in 2028" which is when the next presidential election would be. No dictatorship, just the Republic and the Constitution rolling along.

My point still stands. You're both so convinced that Republicans have a divine right to rule that you're assuming Pence would likely win in 2024 because... why? Because people would feel sorry for Pence? Because Trump is so 'beloved' (despite clear signs to the contrary) that voters would feel obligated to continue his legacy?

I know evidence-based reasoning is a foreign concept to Trump supporters, but you'll have to provide receipts if you're going to explain how you 'know' the likely outcome of a theoretical election four years out, with a different leader, despite his predecessor being reviled by more than half of the population.

Also, it's pretty rich for you to point to the Republic and Constitution when the current President is demonstrably threatening both (see: his false beliefs that he's unassailable and can interfere in legal matters).

 

[zinfamous]

Umm no, because if Trump dies in office after winning in 2020 and Pence becomes President he'd probably be re-elected in 2024. Hence Brandonbull saying to the Democrats "better luck in 2028" which is when the next presidential election would be. No dictatorship, just the Republic and the Constitution rolling along.

lol!

 

[Muse]

can you impeach two prezzies in a row?

Why not. You can no doubt impeach the same prick twice.

 

[brandonbull]

My point still stands. You're both so convinced that Republicans have a divine right to rule that you're assuming Pence would likely win in 2024 because... why? Because people would feel sorry for Pence? Because Trump is so 'beloved' (despite clear signs to the contrary) that voters would feel obligated to continue his legacy?

I know evidence-based reasoning is a foreign concept to Trump supporters, but you'll have to provide receipts if you're going to explain how you 'know' the likely outcome of a theoretical election four years out, with a different leader, despite his predecessor being reviled by more than half of the population.

Also, it's pretty rich for you to point to the Republic and Constitution when the current President is demonstrably threatening both (see: his false beliefs that he's unassailable and can interfere in legal matters).

I think no such thing. It's the Progressheviks, such as yourself, that think they have been given a monopoly on ruling the world, intellect, moral superior, facts, and logic. it seems that the Constitution and stupid people block Progressheviks' path in ascending to their collective throne.

 

[brandonbull]

Why not. You can no doubt impeach the same prick twice.

The Democrats made it look easy. Have Adam Schiff create witnesses, a screen play and poof! you have a unlimited peach mint.

 

[Commodus]

I think no such thing. It's the Progressheviks, such as yourself, that think they have been given a monopoly on ruling the world, intellect, moral superior, facts, and logic. it seems that the Constitution and stupid people block Progressheviks' path in ascending to their collective throne.

The irony of this response is hilarious.

You don't give a shit about the Constitution. Trump demonstrably oversteps his boundaries on a daily basis, and you cheer him on while he does it. You love corruption, you revel in it, just so long as there's an "(R)" attached to the person doing it.

And no, I don't think the "Progressheviks" should have a monopoly. But I want whoever governs to operate based on observable evidence, sound reasoning, a basic level of integrity and empathy for people who don't look and act like them. Right now, the Republicans don't fit any of those bills. They ignore 'inconvenient' science and agency data; their reasoning is a childlike "whatever the Democrats want, we oppose;" Trump practices overt nepotism and other corrupt practices that his party actively defends; and it's a party that not only tolerates xenophobia and misogyny, but doesn't mind that a confirmed white supremacist is the President's political advisor.

Until the Republicans get back to a baseline level where there's some semblance of intelligence, good faith and compassion in their governance, they shouldn't be in power.

 

[Muse]

The irony of this response is hilarious.

You don't give a shit about the Constitution. Trump demonstrably oversteps his boundaries on a daily basis, and you cheer him on while he does it. You love corruption, you revel in it, just so long as there's an "(R)" attached to the person doing it.

And no, I don't think the "Progressheviks" should have a monopoly. But I want whoever governs to operate based on observable evidence, sound reasoning, a basic level of integrity and empathy for people who don't look and act like them. Right now, the Republicans don't fit any of those bills. They ignore 'inconvenient' science and agency data; their reasoning is a childlike "whatever the Democrats want, we oppose;" Trump practices overt nepotism and other corrupt practices that his party actively defends; and it's a party that not only tolerates xenophobia and misogyny, but doesn't mind that a confirmed white supremacist is the President's political advisor.

Until the Republicans get back to a baseline level where there's some semblance of intelligence, good faith and compassion in their governance, they shouldn't be in power.

Well said and I just put an ignore on brandonbull, well deserved.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The Democrats made it look easy. Have Adam Schiff create witnesses, a screen play and poof! you have a unlimited peach mint.

Brought to you by the ministry of Truth, Justice and the American way!!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The irony of this response is hilarious.

You don't give a shit about the Constitution. Trump demonstrably oversteps his boundaries on a daily basis, and you cheer him on while he does it. You love corruption, you revel in it, just so long as there's an "(R)" attached to the person doing it.

And no, I don't think the "Progressheviks" should have a monopoly. But I want whoever governs to operate based on observable evidence, sound reasoning, a basic level of integrity and empathy for people who don't look and act like them. Right now, the Republicans don't fit any of those bills. They ignore 'inconvenient' science and agency data; their reasoning is a childlike "whatever the Democrats want, we oppose;" Trump practices overt nepotism and other corrupt practices that his party actively defends; and it's a party that not only tolerates xenophobia and misogyny, but doesn't mind that a confirmed white supremacist is the President's political advisor.

Until the Republicans get back to a baseline level where there's some semblance of intelligence, good faith and compassion in their governance, they shouldn't be in power.

Since you make the claim that President Trump oversteps the Constitution daily how about a few examples? True violations of the Constitution, not hurt feelings or shoulda, woulda, couldas.

Even the 2 farcials of impeachment weren't crimes.

 

[Commodus]

Since you make the claim that President Trump oversteps the Constitution daily how about a few examples? True violations of the Constitution, not hurt feelings or shoulda, woulda, couldas.

Even the 2 farcials of impeachment weren't crimes.

Emoluments Clause: he frequently profits from foreign contributions to his businesses. There are three ongoing lawsuits over this.

Overstepping the authority granted to him by the Constitution, such as misappropriating defense funds for his border wall and ignoring congressional subpoenas (despite Trump's lies, his administration is legally required to honor them).

Appointments Clause violations: notice how numerous administration members are "acting" leaders, even when they've been in place for long stretches of time? Yeah, that's a Constitutional violation because they haven't been confirmed by the Senate.

I have evidence on my side. As usual, you have only bullshit.

 

[brycejones]

I think no such thing. It's the Progressheviks, such as yourself, that think they have been given a monopoly on ruling the world, intellect, moral superior, facts, and logic. it seems that the Constitution and stupid people block Progressheviks' path in ascending to their collective throne.

Source for your claims about Democrats seeking Russian interference in the elections since the 80s?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Emoluments Clause: he frequently profits from foreign contributions to his businesses. There are three ongoing lawsuits over this.

Overstepping the authority granted to him by the Constitution, such as misappropriating defense funds for his border wall and ignoring congressional subpoenas (despite Trump's lies, his administration is legally required to honor them).

Appointments Clause violations: notice how numerous administration members are "acting" leaders, even when they've been in place for long stretches of time? Yeah, that's a Constitutional violation because they haven't been confirmed by the Senate.

I have evidence on my side. As usual, you have only bullshit.

I have judgements by numerous Federal Judges on Emolments over the last 3+ years that haven't found it's a violation. What judgement on federal funds do you have ? The fact that Democrats are blocking appointments isn't a violation either. You're out!

 

[Commodus]

I have judgements by numerous Federal Judges on Emolments over the last 3+ years that haven't found it's a violation. What judgement on federal funds do you have ? The fact that Democrats are blocking appointments isn't a violation either. You're out!

Knew you'd pull crap like this: when presented with facts, pretend the facts don't count. There are still three ongoing lawsuits over emoluments, and there's still no doubt that Trump directly profits from foreign dignitaries staying at his hotels and resorts. And news flash: Republicans control the Senate. If the Senate doesn't confirm an appointment, it's because there's bipartisan dissatisfaction with the choices. Trump isn't supposed to wait around for the Senate to rubber-stamp his picks; he's supposed to choose people who'll stand a good chance of receiving Senate approval.

Also, I noticed that you conveniently dodged Trump overstepping his authority on issues like the budget and subpoenas. I mean, we all know why that is (because there's not even a shred of defense for it), but your silence on it is deafening.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Knew you'd pull crap like this: when presented with facts, pretend the facts don't count. There are still three ongoing lawsuits over emoluments, and there's still no doubt that Trump directly profits from foreign dignitaries staying at his hotels and resorts. And news flash: Republicans control the Senate. If the Senate doesn't confirm an appointment, it's because there's bipartisan dissatisfaction with the choices. Trump isn't supposed to wait around for the Senate to rubber-stamp his picks; he's supposed to choose people who'll stand a good chance of receiving Senate approval.

Also, I noticed that you conveniently dodged Trump overstepping his authority on issues like the budget and subpoenas. I mean, we all know why that is (because there's not even a shred of defense for it), but your silence on it is deafening.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Appeals court rules Trump can use nearly $4 billion in military funds for border wall

The White House called the initial decision to block on the use of military funds for the border wall "illegitimate" and hailed the appeals court decision as a victory.

www.texastribune.org

So obviously a legal use of the funds, contrary to your position.

It's been over 3 years since claims of wrongdoing on the emoluments clause, so oviously not a problem. What is justice delayed?

 

[Commodus]

Appeals court rules Trump can use nearly $4 billion in military funds for border wall

The White House called the initial decision to block on the use of military funds for the border wall "illegitimate" and hailed the appeals court decision as a victory.

www.texastribune.org

So obviously a legal use of the funds, contrary to your position.

It's been over 3 years since claims of wrongdoing on the emoluments clause, so oviously not a problem. What is justice delayed?

How about the subpoenas? And no, it wasn't "obviously" a legal use of the funds if it took an appeals court to address the matter.

And I'm sorry, but when there are unresolved lawsuits over emoluments, that doesn't mean they're "obviously not a problem." Even if they don't, it's a pretty sad commentary on the state of the US that the President can directly profit from his decisions and has a "blind trust" that's anything but blind. Jimmy Carter didn't even want to touch his peanut farm while in office; why do you believe a much worse conflict of interest is acceptable?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Since you make the claim that President Trump oversteps the Constitution daily how about a few examples? True violations of the Constitution, not hurt feelings or shoulda, woulda, couldas.

Even the 2 farcials of impeachment weren't crimes.

your really going there....hahahahaaaaa