What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Watching MSNBC, interesting that the question of 25th Amendment, Section 4 keeps coming up.

Over, under about that?

Given the ratcheting up of people abandoning dump, and his increase in anger- I'm thinking that Christmas is when we see President Pence. Or at least someone other that dump. He's going to be unhinged, and I Kelly may have to do something to contain him. Especially if NK gets worse.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Tucker Carlson looks like he wants to cry.

Fun at CNN and MSNBC, sadness at Faux.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

alfablue said:
Give me a break. On a national level, minorities are not even close to being represented on campus,
Click to expand...

One of those things everybody knows must be true... so it's the kind of thing I tend to question.

2010 Census has the following US Demographics:

White- 63.7%

Black -12.2%

Hispanic/Latino - 16.3%

Asian - 4.7%

The National Center for Education Statistics has the following Demographic breakdown for 2014 students enrolled in college:

White- 58%

Black- 14%

Hispanic/Latino - 17%

Asian- 7%

So if that's correct, it seems like minorities are a little over represented and whites a little under.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

alfablue said:
Tucker Carlson looks like he wants to cry.

Fun at CNN and MSNBC, sadness at Faux.
Click to expand...

Wow, 10min of that was too much. Too many excuses and apologies. They seem to think that dump said meant actual policies. Can't they tell by now that dump has zero agenda? He's done nothing to do anything at all in congress. Nothing. They think that he's going to actually do work and promote some kind of agenda that is going to revive the coal, steel, and whatever other thing that is in decline.

Lest we forget, when dump wanted to look into unfair steel dumping into the US to save US jobs, imports INCREASED to the US. Not decreased, no increased jobs, more money left this country.

These guys are delusional.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Handyman said:
They are about both. That is the beautiful thing about the real world things have multiple meanings. These are racist icons and are symbols of a bunch of traitors. (many of whom where...wait for it...RACISTS!!) This isnt rocket science.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "mostly."

And that is also why I ask, in a serious tone, not a mocking one (as Trump did), where is the line? Honest question. Are there other memorials/statues that will be torn down in the future? If so, who and why? Are there "untouchables?" If so, why? Do certain people get a pass because of the position they held, or level of importance in American history? What if they were all the racist for a while, then changed their views?

I really would like to hear people's input. It's a sticky and difficult subject to discuss for obvious reasons, but IMO, it needs to be discussed. I mentioned earlier, and I agreed with you, that Lake Calhoun's name change was silly (for those not in the know, a local lake was reverted back to the Native American name, because of Calhoun's racism). I don't think this practice will end, but there will be a line drawn. I am curious as to where everyone thinks society will draw that line?
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

alfablue said:
Watching MSNBC, interesting that the question of 25th Amendment, Section 4 keeps coming up.

Over, under about that?

Given the ratcheting up of people abandoning dump, and his increase in anger- I'm thinking that Christmas is when we see President Pence. Or at least someone other that dump. He's going to be unhinged, and I Kelly may have to do something to contain him. Especially if NK gets worse.
Click to expand...

Congress has to agree to it, and the way I read it, Trump could just keep filing written declarations to re-assume his powers, and make them vote on it every 21 days for the rest of his term. So, it's a sloppy way to go about it. Also, I don't think Trump fits the definition. None of his issues (stupidity, bellicosity, narcissism, racism) are mentally or physically incapacitating to the point that he's unable to carry out the duties of office. They also aren't crimes.

Either Mueller builds a criminal case that they can use to impeach him, or we're stuck with him through 2020. I do however, suspect that "The Generals" have a verbal agreement with enough members of the rest of the cabinet that if Trump orders a preemptive nuclear strike because Lil Kim says something that hurts his fee-fees, they have the majority needed to Article 25 him immediately, so they can temporarily avert the crisis.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
That's why I said "mostly."

And that is also why I ask, in a serious tone, not a mocking one (as Trump did), where is the line? Honest question. Are there other memorials/statues that will be torn down in the future? If so, who and why? Are there "untouchables?" If so, why? Do certain people get a pass because of the position they held, or level of importance in American history? What if they were all the racist for a while, then changed their views?

I really would like to hear people's input. It's a sticky and difficult subject to discuss for obvious reasons, but IMO, it needs to be discussed. I mentioned earlier, and I agreed with you, that Lake Calhoun's name change was silly (for those not in the know, a local lake was reverted back to the Native American name, because of Calhoun's racism). I don't think this practice will end, but there will be a line drawn. I am curious as to where everyone thinks society will draw that line?
Click to expand...

This all comes out in negotiation between the different groups in our country. Each of our lines will be different -- the national consensus will be the line, and it will always be fluid. Popular sovereignty is messy, but it's the best system we have so far.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Wisko McBadgerton said:
One of those things everybody knows must be true... so it's the kind of thing I tend to question.

2010 Census has the following US Demographics:

White- 63.7%

Black -12.2%

Hispanic/Latino - 16.3%

Asian - 4.7%

The National Center for Education Statistics has the following Demographic breakdown for 2014 students enrolled in college:

White- 58%

Black- 14%

Hispanic/Latino - 17%

Asian- 7%

So if that's correct, it seems like minorities are a little over represented and whites a little under.
Click to expand...

So since that's a fact, since Wisconsin is not even 3% African American, that's not a problem. Or just over 2% hispanic. No big deal.

That data is kind of misleading, as it is a sum of all schools, and many of the big schools are not even close to that. Kind of like how separate but equal is ok. When it isn't.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
That's why I said "mostly."

And that is also why I ask, in a serious tone, not a mocking one (as Trump did), where is the line? Honest question. Are there other memorials/statues that will be torn down in the future? If so, who and why? Are there "untouchables?" If so, why? Do certain people get a pass because of the position they held, or level of importance in American history? What if they were all the racist for a while, then changed their views?

I really would like to hear people's input. It's a sticky and difficult subject to discuss for obvious reasons, but IMO, it needs to be discussed. I mentioned earlier, and I agreed with you, that Lake Calhoun's name change was silly (for those not in the know, a local lake was reverted back to the Native American name, because of Calhoun's racism). I don't think this practice will end, but there will be a line drawn. I am curious as to where everyone thinks society will draw that line?
Click to expand...

A lot of this needs to be put into context.

If Lee has a statue at Washington and Lee, put up for his efforts there, just after his death- that should stay. That was a lot of good he did. But to honor his war record- with all fo the questions around it (was he for or against slavery, he was as US general who changed sides, etc)- that would be a misplaced honor.

And the intent of the monument needs to be known, too. If there's a monument to soldiers who died- a statue of lee is stupid. He didn't even come close to sacrificing his life.

Context and reason matters.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Kepler said:
This all comes out in negotiation between the different groups in our country. Each of our lines will be different -- the national consensus will be the line, and it will always be fluid. Popular sovereignty is messy, but it's the best system we have so far.
Click to expand...

Agree with you and alfa as far as fluidity and context. You can post your PERSONAL views, I won't ask you to. How far do you think our SOCIETY will go, in general? There will always be some detractors, no matter what, it's the nature of the beast.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

alfablue said:
So since that's a fact, since Wisconsin is not even 3% African American, that's not a problem. Or just over 2% hispanic. No big deal.

That data is kind of misleading, as it is a sum of all schools, and many of the big schools are not even close to that. Kind of like how separate but equal is ok. When it isn't.
Click to expand...

what are the #s at spelman, howard, and morehouse? :p

do the populations of states define how much a "U of" should allow? or since those tend to rake in the federal funding should then be representative of the country's pop?

i'd prefer U Wisconsin and U Michigan to follow the country's. admissions should try to replicate the country, yes. proportional future leaders should be educated to move into the part of society that leads through business, education, etc. important first step here to try and funnel these folks into those roles.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Kepler said:
This all comes out in negotiation between the different groups in our country. Each of our lines will be different -- the national consensus will be the line, and it will always be fluid. Popular sovereignty is messy, but it's the best system we have so far.
Click to expand...

so a national decree? not a states decision?
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
Agree with you and alfa as far as fluidity and context. You can post your PERSONAL views, I won't ask you to. How far do you think our SOCIETY will go, in general? There will always be some detractors, no matter what, it's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

I think it will continue to move in the direction of letting more people have their say. That's what the jackwagons who voted for Trump are angry about. In their ideal 50s Amerika blacks and women and non-Christians didn't count; their opinions and concerns were trivialized and ignored or even laughed at. Now they are fully engaged and fully respected equal citizens, and these dumbf-cks are crying that their privilege is gone.

White Christian males used to give the rest of us permission to speak; when they decided they'd heard enough or we were being "inappropriate" or "divisive" they called in the cops to break our heads. Now we're saying, "go f-ck yourself, we don't need your permission." And that gives them the sads.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Kepler said:
I think it will continue to move in the direction of letting more people have their say. That's what the jackwagons who voted for Trump are angry about. In their ideal 50s Amerika blacks and women and non-Christians didn't count; their opinions and concerns were trivialized and ignored or even laughed at. Now they are fully engaged and fully respected equal citizens, and these dumbf-cks are crying that their privilege is gone.

White Christian males used to give the rest of us permission to speak; when they decided they'd heard enough or we were being "inappropriate" or "divisive" they called in the cops to break our heads. Now we're saying, "go f-ck yourself, we don't need your permission." And that gives them the sads.
Click to expand...

That is a well thought out post, but doesn't answer the question. The underlined is my question. How far do you think the people will go? Not you specifically, but the gen pop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top