The Race For 2024

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why do you think Granholm, with no energy background whatsoever, was the best person for this job? Can you even articulate a reason?

Because she was appointed by a person who
A: knows more about the job requirements and the candidates’ capabilities than you or I, and
B: has the best interests on America in mind, unlike the guy you say you didn’t vote for.

Get a clue.

I know of almost no politicians elected in the last 40 years that know more than even you, and fewer than that who have the best interest of America in mind.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why do you think Granholm, with no energy background whatsoever, was the best person for this job? Can you even articulate a reason?

Because she was appointed by a person who
A: knows more about the job requirements and the candidates’ capabilities than you or I, and
B: has the best interests on America in mind, unlike the guy you say you didn’t vote for.

Get a clue.

I know of almost no politicians elected in the last 40 years that know more than even you, and fewer than that who have the best interest of America in mind.

Shows how much you know.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Why do you think Granholm, with no energy background whatsoever, was the best person for this job? Can you even articulate a reason?

The same way Buttigieg can head up the DoT. You don’t need a subject matter expert at this level. You need highly intelligent people with strong leadership skills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am more concerned for his 2nd term though. He will be 86 in January 2029, the end of his second term - if he makes it that far.

Life expectancy at 82 for men is 7.32 years. Most 82 year olds make it to 86; Wealthy 82 year olds with access to the highest level of healthcare, with a personal medical team on permanent standby, and with a twenty-four hour close personal protection team who plan all travel and defend against any external risks, are very unlikely to die before making it that far.

It's not like Mr Biden is going to have a fall in his kitchen, and not be found until his neighbours complain about the smell.

He doesn't have most of the risks of death that cause that 7.32 years figure to be as low as it is, for the average 82 year old American man.

Most of the causes of death at that age are medical and not preventable.

But are treatable. Especially for a guy that has a full trauma center just down the hall from his residence.

Most of the things that kill you at that age it wouldn't matter if you're in a trauma center. Trauma centers are very good if you get banged up. Having immediate medical help is a big benefit if you have a heart attack. Having immediate access to a scanner is of advantage if you have an ischaemic stroke--but note that TPA itself has a mortality rate above 1%. And if it's a hemmoragic stroke all they can do is say that it is one. Otherwise, that medical gear is unlikely to save you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am more concerned for his 2nd term though. He will be 86 in January 2029, the end of his second term - if he makes it that far.

Life expectancy at 82 for men is 7.32 years. Most 82 year olds make it to 86;

6.77 in the version of the table I found, but whatever. And for 62 year olds it's 19.03 and it's 12.30 even for a 72 year old. I wasn't saying that p(Biden dying in office)>0.5. But it is far higher than for a younger candidate, all things being equal. Since you are fond of the actuarial life table, if we add up death probabilities for ages 82-85, I get p=0.376. More than one in three.

Note that the two values are almost exactly .5 years apart. I rather suspect it's a case of people at their 82nd birthday vs people who are 82 years old.

I also think actuarial tables are not of too much value at that age--many of the things that kill you take time to develop and thus the person who is 82 without any major health issues probably has a substantially longer life expectancy than the average 82 year old. Plenty of 82 year olds will already be heading down the road to what will eventually kill them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would suggest that in either case, Biden or Trump, having been elected in 2024, has a FAR greater chance of dying in office by assassination, than by anything age related.

I disagree. They do not have 1/5 chance of dying by assassination. That's preposterous.

I find it not at all preposterous given how polarized the country has become.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why do you think Granholm, with no energy background whatsoever, was the best person for this job? Can you even articulate a reason?

Because she was appointed by a person who
A: knows more about the job requirements and the candidates’ capabilities than you or I, and
B: has the best interests on America in mind, unlike the guy you say you didn’t vote for.

Get a clue.

I know of almost no politicians elected in the last 40 years that know more than even you, and fewer than that who have the best interest of America in mind.

Shows how much you know.

You think there are politicians smarter than Elixir? He can't even tell us why he has a phobia about gas ovens.

 

[Copernicus]

You think there are politicians smarter than Elixir? He can't even tell us why he has a phobia about gas ovens.

We could all start insulting each other rather than discussing the topic, but that has nothing to do with Granholm's ability to administer the EPA. She has proven herself an intelligent politician and capable administrator. I do think that she learned some things about energy policy as governor of Michigan, given that her state had to deal with energy issues and federal rules governing them. Had she not been born in Canada of Canadian parents, she would have made a wonderful candidate for the US presidency, but that's one of many residual flaws in our 18th century Constitution. I don't really know that she has accomplished much of significance during her tenure as Secretary of Energy, but I think that she was a reasonably competent pick for that position.

 

[ZiprHead]

Appeal filed in Colorado 14th Amendment case - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

www.citizensforethics.org

The six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters who challenged Donald Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot following his actions on January 6th last night filed an appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court challenging the judge’s rulings that the president is not an “officer of the United States” and that the president’s oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” is not an oath to “support” the Constitution as required by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Not only did the district court rule in favor of the petitioners on every factual issue necessary to disqualify Trump from the ballot–including the historic ruling that he engaged in insurrection against the Constitution as president, it also found for the petitioners on every legal issue necessary to remove Trump save for the one. The six voters are represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the firms Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC, KBN Law, LLC and Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC.

The idea that the writers of the 14th amendment didn't want the president office included is patently ridiculous. They just went through the civil war but they would be okay to have Jefferson Davis as the president? I cannot decipher the thinking that they would be okay with that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

 

[Copernicus]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

Actually, the court found that the case was not premature. What better time to rule on a candidates eligibility to be on a ballot than before the election? The judge found it to be a fact that he participated in the insurrection. That was a legal ruling, and it would have disqualified him from being on the ballot if the judge had found that he had held office and taken an oath to defend the Constitution. For some reason, she felt that the presidency did not qualify as such an office, but it is really hard to understand how she arrived at that conclusion. Other legal scholars have questioned it, so an appeal seems reasonable. If that part of her ruling is overturned, then Trump should be barred from running in Colorado. The appeals court would need to find she was wrong on the lower court's ruling of facts, and that is something that rarely happens on appeal.

 

[ZiprHead]

The legal definition of "Officer" from WexLaw:

In general, an officer is a person who has the obligation of carrying out the responsibilities and functions of an office, whether it be duty or charge, a position of trust, or the right to engage in public or private employment.

• A public officer is typically described as someone who has been elected or appointed to perform the duties of an office for the public good. Constitutional clauses or a statute must be used to create a public office. Statutes determine the qualifications, responsibilities, and salary of public officials.

 

[ZiprHead]

Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Copernicus]

Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Have you read the judge's ruling? I haven't found anything yet to explain how she arrived at her conclusion that the office of the President was excluded from the amendment. It seems so blatantly absurd, that one has to wonder whether she did that in order to avoid being targeted by some deranged MAGA supporter with a gun.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

Fine, I accuse the entire 118th Congress of the United States of treason; I accuse them individually, collectively, and severally.

 

[Copernicus]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

Fine, I accuse the entire 118th Congress of the United States of treason; I accuse them individually, collectively, and severally.

Excellent. Hire a lawyer and take them to court. Don't spare any expenses on legal fees. Maybe other libertarians will chip in to support your efforts.

 

[bilby]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

Fine, I accuse the entire 118th Congress of the United States of treason; I accuse them individually, collectively, and severally.

Sorry to break this devastating news to you, but posting an accusation here doesn't constitute filing a lawsuit; For that, you will need to make your accusation in a court of law with jurisdiction to consider your suit.

Courts rarely rule on the legal status of accusations made on Internet fora, or in pubs or debating societies, preferring instead to confine their deliberations only to cases actually brought before the court.

 

[Elixir]

The judge found it to be a fact that he participated in the insurrection. That was a legal ruling

This is the important and durable part of the ruling. Trump is an insurrectionist. So found a court of law. There are ramifications to this finding, that may or may not include disqualification from holding office.

 

[Elixir]

I know of almost no politicians elected in the last 40 years that know more than even you, and fewer than that who have the best interest of America in mind.

IMO that says more about you than it does about them.