Current Events > This first Presidential election since 1976 to not have a Biden, Bush or Clinton

Topic List	Page List: 1
BlueTigerLion 07/22/24 1:21:55 PM #1:	on the ticket. https://twitter.com/BW_Jones/status/1815089568942833759 About time --- Hey now. <cite>BlueTigerLion posted [p:981406744] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>on the ticket.https://twitter.com/BW_Jones/status/1815089568942833759About time</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#2	Post #2 was unavailable or deleted.
BewmHedshot 07/22/24 1:35:40 PM #3:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Chelsea Clinton come on down! ~~please don't actually~~ <cite>BewmHedshot posted [p:981406945] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Chelsea Clinton come on down!please don't actually</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DragulaRULEZ 07/22/24 1:47:55 PM #4:	Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky. --- "I'm going to have to disagree with everything you say from now on. Go ahead, say babies shouldn't be skinned alive, see which side I'm on." <cite>DragulaRULEZ posted [p:981407107] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SaikyoStyle 07/22/24 1:51:26 PM #5:	DragulaRULEZ posted... Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky. Instant win --- Taxes, death, and trouble. Brunt/Gaila 2024. Make Ferenginar Great Again! <cite>SaikyoStyle posted [p:981407143] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>DragulaRULEZ posted... </cite><quote>Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky.</quote>Instant win</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
K181 07/22/24 1:51:40 PM #6:	Biden is a dumb inclusion. Bush and Clinton were both involving two people with a good heap of nepotism involved. Biden was his own person and is an obvious tack on for the Bush/Clinton duopoly from 1980-2008 and again in 2016. --- Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, I could care less. <cite>K181 posted [p:981407148] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Biden is a dumb inclusion. Bush and Clinton were both involving two people with a good heap of nepotism involved. Biden was his own person and is an obvious tack on for the Bush/Clinton duopoly from 1980-2008 and again in 2016.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 07/22/24 1:52:22 PM #7:	Here's how Hiliary can still win... --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:981407153] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Here's how Hiliary can still win...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aarrgus 07/22/24 1:55:11 PM #8:	K181 posted... Biden is a dumb inclusion. Bush and Clinton were both involving two people with a good heap of nepotism involved. Biden was his own person and is an obvious tack on for the Bush/Clinton duopoly from 1980-2008 and again in 2016. Yea this is a silly inclusion. Unless..... Hunter Biden VP? lol. --- Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the *** is my roof?* <cite>aarrgus posted [p:981407190] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>K181 posted... </cite><quote>Biden is a dumb inclusion. Bush and Clinton were both involving two people with a good heap of nepotism involved. Biden was his own person and is an obvious tack on for the Bush/Clinton duopoly from 1980-2008 and again in 2016.</quote>Yea this is a silly inclusion. Unless..... Hunter Biden VP? lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metal_Gear_Raxis 07/22/24 1:56:21 PM #9:	K181 posted... Biden is a dumb inclusion. Bush and Clinton were both involving two people with a good heap of nepotism involved. Biden was his own person and is an obvious tack on for the Bush/Clinton duopoly from 1980-2008 and again in 2016. --- As the morning sun rises, my lingering memories fade. I no longer see your silhouette. It's too far gone into the haze. <cite>Metal_Gear_Raxis posted [p:981407199] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>K181 posted... </cite><quote>Biden is a dumb inclusion. Bush and Clinton were both involving two people with a good heap of nepotism involved. Biden was his own person and is an obvious tack on for the Bush/Clinton duopoly from 1980-2008 and again in 2016.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfDevsman 07/22/24 1:56:35 PM #10:	Why stop there? It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton or Ford since 1972. --- There's a difference between canon and not-stupid. <cite>ReturnOfDevsman posted [p:981407205] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Why stop there? It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton or Ford since 1972.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gray_Areas 07/22/24 2:18:18 PM #11:	You know what, I actually have a question that is tangentially related to this topic. What would happen if Obama or Clinton were the VP on the ticket? Obviously Amendment 22 (the one limiting presidential terms) says that no one can be elected to the office of President more than twice. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. And technically Amendment 12 says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," but if the only reason said person is constitutionally ineligible is by virtue of needing to be "elected to the office of the President more than twice," then what would it mean if they were instead specifically elected to the office of Vice President and therefore still only elected to the office of President no more than twice? Unless the "office of the President" counts both president and VP (which I am not seeing as being specified in the Constitution proper), is this a loophole? Later parts of Article II seems to define the President and Vice President as separate offices and Article I (the part that defines Congress's roles) defines specific duties to the Vice President. The closest thing I can see as specifying who counts as holding the "office of President" is Article II, Section I of the Constitution which reads: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows My understanding of those commas in the statement would mean that the statement should technically be read as something like "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years. [The President] shall be elected together with the Vice President chosen for the same Term." <cite>Gray_Areas posted [p:981407572] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>You know what, I actually have a question that is tangentially related to this topic. What would happen if Obama or Clinton were the VP on the ticket?Obviously Amendment 22 (the one limiting presidential terms) says that no one can be elected to the office of President more than twice.<quote>No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.</quote>And technically Amendment 12 says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," but if the only reason said person is constitutionally ineligible is by virtue of needing to be "elected to the office of the President more than twice," then what would it mean if they were instead specifically elected to the office of Vice President and therefore still only elected to the office of President no more than twice?Unless the "office of the President" counts both president and VP (which I am not seeing as being specified in the Constitution proper), is this a loophole? Later parts of Article II seems to define the President and Vice President as separate offices and Article I (the part that defines Congress's roles) defines specific duties to the Vice President. The closest thing I can see as specifying who counts as holding the "office of President" is Article II, Section I of the Constitution which reads:<quote>The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows</quote>My understanding of those commas in the statement would mean that the statement should technically be read as something like "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years. [The President] shall be elected together with the Vice President chosen for the same Term."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bandit_Keith 07/22/24 2:27:49 PM #12:	Gray_Areas posted... And technically Amendment 12 says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," but if the only reason said person is constitutionally ineligible is by virtue of needing to be "elected to the office of the President more than twice," then what would it mean if they were instead specifically elected to the office of Vice President and therefore still only elected to the office of President no more than twice? That...doesn't matter? If you have been elected president twice, then you are ineligible to be vice president. It's pretty cut and dry to me. If you can't run for president, then you can't be a vice president. --- http://i.imgur.com/nq0Fn6a.jpg <cite>Bandit_Keith posted [p:981407715] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Gray_Areas posted... </cite><quote>And technically Amendment 12 says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," but if the only reason said person is constitutionally ineligible is by virtue of needing to be "elected to the office of the President more than twice," then what would it mean if they were instead specifically elected to the office of Vice President and therefore still only elected to the office of President no more than twice?</quote>That...doesn't matter? If you have been elected president twice, then you are ineligible to be vice president. It's pretty cut and dry to me. If you can't run for president, then you can't be a vice president. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SocialistGamer 07/22/24 2:28:38 PM #13:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Jeb!s return --- Capcom is the best developer ever! Steam ID: SocialistGamer92 <cite>SocialistGamer posted [p:981407724] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Jeb!s return</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaxEffingBemis 07/22/24 2:28:42 PM #14:	BewmHedshot posted... Chelsea Clinton come on down! ~~please don't actually~~ Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton?? --- She took pity on me, horizontally, but most likely because of my band <cite>MaxEffingBemis posted [p:981407727] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>BewmHedshot posted... </cite><quote>Chelsea Clinton come on down!please don't actually</quote>Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton??</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gray_Areas 07/22/24 2:32:49 PM #15:	Bandit_Keith posted... That...doesn't matter? If you have been elected president twice, then you are ineligible to be vice president. It's pretty cut and dry to me. If you can't run for president, then you can't be a vice president. I mean, most likely, yeah. The exact wording used was just what I was playing around with. It kind of a weird twist of words since Amendment 12 says they're constitutionally ineligible to be president but only because Amendment 22 says they are unable to be "elected as president." If they aren't being "elected as president," it's a fun little hypothetical grey area to play with. <cite>Gray_Areas posted [p:981407781] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Bandit_Keith posted... </cite><quote>That...doesn't matter? If you have been elected president twice, then you are ineligible to be vice president. It's pretty cut and dry to me. If you can't run for president, then you can't be a vice president.</quote>I mean, most likely, yeah. The exact wording used was just what I was playing around with. It kind of a weird twist of words since Amendment 12 says they're constitutionally ineligible to be president but only because Amendment 22 says they are unable to be "elected as president." If they aren't being "elected as president," it's a fun little hypothetical grey area to play with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 07/22/24 2:38:01 PM #16:	Bush was a dynasty because there was 2 presidents and 2 governors. Clintons really isn't but people call it that for some reason. Biden is just one guy. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:981407837] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Bush was a dynasty because there was 2 presidents and 2 governors.Clintons really isn't but people call it that for some reason.Biden is just one guy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gray_Areas 07/22/24 2:41:28 PM #17:	WingsOfGood posted... Bush was a dynasty because there was 2 presidents and 2 governors. Clintons really isn't but people call it that for some reason. Biden is just one guy. Yeah, I guess the Clintons are more of a political power couple than a political dynasty. <cite>Gray_Areas posted [p:981407884] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite><quote>Bush was a dynasty because there was 2 presidents and 2 governors.Clintons really isn't but people call it that for some reason.Biden is just one guy.</quote>Yeah, I guess the Clintons are more of a political power couple than a political dynasty.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnsteadyOwl 07/22/24 2:44:49 PM #18:	ReturnOfDevsman posted... Why stop there? It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton or Ford since 1972. It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton, Ford, or Nixon on the ticket since 1964. --- "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." <cite>UnsteadyOwl posted [p:981407936] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfDevsman posted... </cite><quote>Why stop there? It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton or Ford since 1972.</quote>It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton, Ford, or Nixon on the ticket since 1964.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NES4EVER 07/22/24 2:54:57 PM #19:	DragulaRULEZ posted... Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky. George Clinton has years of experience in Parliament, making him a natural for the job. --- *nu-horsemen 4evar* [A GameFAQs Moderator was deleted by this message] <cite>NES4EVER posted [p:981408070] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>DragulaRULEZ posted... </cite><quote>Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky.</quote>George Clinton has years of experience in Parliament, making him a natural for the job.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfDevsman 07/22/24 3:23:50 PM #20:	UnsteadyOwl posted... It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton, Ford, or Nixon on the ticket since 1964. Holy shit you're right!!! --- There's a difference between canon and not-stupid. <cite>ReturnOfDevsman posted [p:981408518] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>UnsteadyOwl posted... </cite><quote>It's the first without a Biden, Bush, Clinton, Ford, or Nixon on the ticket since 1964.</quote>Holy shit you're right!!!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BewmHedshot 07/22/24 3:27:49 PM #21:	MaxEffingBemis posted... Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton?? A wild Rush Hour reference appeared! <cite>BewmHedshot posted [p:981408577] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>MaxEffingBemis posted... </cite><quote>Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton??</quote>A wild Rush Hour reference appeared!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
not_KDTProjekt 07/22/24 3:49:53 PM #22:	DragulaRULEZ posted... Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky. Just saw him play with Parliament a few weeks ago. I'm down. <cite>not_KDTProjekt posted [p:981408929] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>DragulaRULEZ posted... </cite><quote>Harris then chooses George Clinton as her running mate. Lets get funky.</quote>Just saw him play with Parliament a few weeks ago. I'm down.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DrizztLink 07/22/24 3:51:29 PM #23:	This is the first election not to have Lincoln on the ballot. Except for all the other ones. --- He/Him http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/images/slowpoke.gif https://i.imgur.com/M8h2ATe.png https://i.imgur.com/6ezFwG1.png <cite>DrizztLink posted [p:981408951] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>This is the first election not to have Lincoln on the ballot.Except for all the other ones.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trumble 07/22/24 3:52:10 PM #24:	I get treating Clintons and Bushes as significant, but is there any other politically relevant Biden? --- I fought the Trumble and the Trumble won. <cite>Trumble posted [p:981408967] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>I get treating Clintons and Bushes as significant, but is there any other politically relevant Biden?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Simon_Gruber 07/22/24 4:03:40 PM #25:	MaxEffingBemis posted... Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton?? Is it Chelsea or Kelsey? <cite>Simon_Gruber posted [p:981409156] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>MaxEffingBemis posted... </cite><quote>Who you think you got, Chelsea Clinton??</quote>Is it Chelsea or Kelsey?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
K181 07/22/24 4:16:10 PM #26:	Were people in 2004 all like, "wow, this is the first presidential election without a Gore since 1988?" --- Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, I could care less. <cite>K181 posted [p:981409403] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Were people in 2004 all like, "wow, this is the first presidential election without a Gore since 1988?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 07/22/24 4:40:51 PM #27:	K181 posted... Were people in 2004 all like, "wow, this is the first presidential election without a Gore since 1988?" I think people were still pissed about 9/11 --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:981409781] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>K181 posted... </cite><quote>Were people in 2004 all like, "wow, this is the first presidential election without a Gore since 1988?"</quote>I think people were still pissed about 9/11</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
masterpug53 07/22/24 4:45:14 PM #28:	Gimme a call when we finally have the first Presidential election since 2016 without a Trump. --- Simple questions deserve long-winded answers that no one will bother to read. <cite>masterpug53 posted [p:981409839] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Gimme a call when we finally have the first Presidential election since 2016 without a Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#29	Post #29 was unavailable or deleted.
Enclave 07/22/24 5:03:46 PM #30:	Kamala needs a running mate still. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b3249289.jpg --- The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist. <cite>Enclave posted [p:981410137] in This first... [t:80814761]...</cite> <quote>Kamala needs a running mate still.https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b3249289.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > This first Presidential election since 1976 to not have a Biden, Bush or Clinton (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > This first Presidential election since 1976 to not have a Biden, Bush or Clinton