🔥 Popular | Latest

chrisray-the-lariat-king: pon-raul: waisted-daisiess: thetrippytrip: If he manages to get that story viral, he’ll get a job 5 times better than his last one #youknowwhatImean BLOW THIS SHIT UP That’s Home Depot national policy 101 If an armed attacker comes into the store and threatens you, you will be fired for any form of retaliation, they tell you this on like day 1 More reasons Home Depot is Trash: Emplovee Saves Child From Kidnapper, Instead Of Promotion Gets This Letter Saying He's Fired This is Dillon Reagan. He recently stopped a child from getting kidnapped while he was at work OREGON EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT PO Box 14135 Satem, Oregon 97309 5068 (503) 292-2057, (541) 388-6207 or (877) 345 3484 (tol tree) Fax to (866) 345 1878 Administrative Decision OILLON T REAGAN Date Issued June 29,2017 Appeal Deadline Date: uly 19,2017 Cust ID: OUTCOME/RESULTADO. You are ALLOWED benefits on this claim, if otherwise eligible. Se le OTORGAN los beneficios en este reclamo, si de otra manera es elegible. FINDINGS You were employed by THE HOME DEPOT until June 19, 2017 when you were fired because you assisted the police in preventing a kidnapping. This was not a willful or wantonly negligent violation of the standards of behavior an employer has the right to expect of an employee LEGAL CONCLUSION/CONCLUSION JURÍDICA: You were fired but not for misconduct connected with work Usted no fue despedido por mala conducta relacionada con el trabajo. Dillon Reagan Jun 9 at 11:21pm HoPot Update: The Friday before Mother's Day, I was involved in a kidnapping attempt at my place of work. A woman had been assaulted and her child had been abducted by a drunk, violent man who was making a quick exit with the child in his arms. My co-worker and I called the police and followed their directions to follow at a distance to make sure they could find them when the squad care arrived on scene. Because of the actions of my co-worker and myself, that child was rescued from his abductor and the man was arrested on the spot. Today, Home Depot terminated my employment. I was fired for stopping a kidnapper from successfully abducting a child. FML chrisray-the-lariat-king: pon-raul: waisted-daisiess: thetrippytrip: If he manages to get that story viral, he’ll get a job 5 times better than his last one #youknowwhatImean BLOW THIS SHIT UP That’s Home Depot national policy 101 If an armed attacker comes into the store and threatens you, you will be fired for any form of retaliation, they tell you this on like day 1 More reasons Home Depot is Trash
Save
lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99). This is important! Tell your Friends. I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐 From Slate: The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections. That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription. You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription!  I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors). Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements. Pass this information on, potentially save a life. : WEAR ABC 3 News, Pensacola shared a V link. 1hr. CVS puts out generic competitor to EpiPen at a 6th the price weartv.com 263 26 Comments 99 Shares Like Comment Share lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99). This is important! Tell your Friends. I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐 From Slate: The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections. That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription. You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription!  I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors). Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements. Pass this information on, potentially save a life.

lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Simi...

Save
barnvs: ughleni: ughleni: my roommate and i are looking for some fre$h apartment decor the reviews seem pretty good so uhhhh we did this. it’s up , on a wall . in our apartment her name is doris hey folks just wanted to let you know that on this the evening of our lord tuesday august 16th this wall decal arrived in the mail and turned out to be fucking enormous and was placed upon our wall in our home. where we live : Tools &Home Improvement Painting Supplies&Wall Treatments Wall Stickers & Murals Wallmonkeys WM335116 Senior Woman with Asthma Inhaler Peel and Stick Wall Decals (24 in H x 21 in W) by Wallmonkeys Wall Decals nuu19 customer reviews Price: $32.98 Sale: $27.98 & FREE Shipping You Save: $5.00 (15%) Note: Not eligible for Amazon Prime In stock Estimated Delivery Date: Aug. 3 - 8 when you choose Expedited at checkout. Ships from and sold by WallMonkeys. Size: 24"H x 21"W-Medium 18"H x 15"W - Small $22.98 24"H x 21"W-Medium $27.98 30"H x 26"W-Medium-large $39.98 36"H x 31"W-Large $49.98 Roll over image to zoom in ☆☆☆☆☆ opted for the jumbo size version and it looks great over my fireplace By C. Cooper on March 13, 2016 Size: 24"H x 21 "W. Medium I opted for the jumbo size version and it looks great over my fireplace. I get a lot of comments about this but most of the positive comments come from my stoner friends. They wish they can toke to that age and they wonder where she got that miniature bong. barnvs: ughleni: ughleni: my roommate and i are looking for some fre$h apartment decor the reviews seem pretty good so uhhhh we did this. it’s up , on a wall . in our apartment her name is doris hey folks just wanted to let you know that on this the evening of our lord tuesday august 16th this wall decal arrived in the mail and turned out to be fucking enormous and was placed upon our wall in our home. where we live
Save
Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments): kitfisto sandy cheeks would've voted trump that evil southern rat ass bitch thecouchwitch Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who lives in a foreign land that she respects the customs of and she would be offended you would even accuse her of this. varkarrus mr krabs would've voted trump lishadra Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money through hard work (and being a cheapskate and get rich quick schemes but those still require some effort on his part) whereas Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would consider him an insult to richness for which he could not stand Plankton would've voted Trump You think he needs competition taking over the world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it. arcon Bubble Bass Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God. Dammit. Fuck the-collecting-turnip Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump fgsshinyhoard okay im just gonna put down my things here Plankton would not want competition, he would not vote for him Krabs would never respect a guy who bankrupted himself four times, he would not vote for him Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist receiving grants from academies to further her research in foreign lands, so she would never vote for him. Also, she would never respect a man who made such sexist comments since Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet snail like a traditional sports coach) and she kicked HIS ass over a fucking field Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for anyone Spongebob is too nice and would never vote for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad words" during their campaign. Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even vote because he thinks there would be no point. Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to vote Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian and would not vote for anyone that crippled such services Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of humiliating them, and would approve of such a person. Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him because he's a wealthy narcissist. Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is therefore not eligible to vote ohdebt Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and also a firm supporter and member of the fine arts community. He would actively vote against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince me otherwise Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments)
Save
Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm: c3po sandy cheeks would ve voted trump that evil southern rat ass bitch Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who lives in a foreign land that she respects the customs of and she would be offended you would even accuse her of this. varkarrus mr krabs would've voted trump lishadra Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump. Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money through hard work (and being a cheapskate and get rich quick schemes but those still require some effort on his part) whereas Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would consider him an insult to richness for which he could not stand Plankton would've voted Trump. You think he needs competition taking over the world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it. legarcon Bubble Bass Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God Dammit. Fuck. the-collecting-turnip Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump fgsshinyhoard okay im just gonna put down my things here Plankton would not want competition, he would not vote for him Krabs would never respect a guy who upted not vote for him himself four times, he would Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist re- ceiving grants from academies to further her research in foreign lands, so she would never vote for him. Also, she would never respect a man who made such sexist comments since Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet snail like a traditional sports coach) and she kicked HIS ass over a fucking field. Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for anyone Spongebob is too nice and would never vote for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad words" during their campaign. Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even vote because he thinks there would be no point. Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to vote Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian and would not vote for anyone that crippled such services. Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of humiliating them, and would approve of such a person. Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him because he's a wealthy narcissist. Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is therefore not eligible to vote ohdebt Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and also a firm supporter and member of the fine arts community. He would actively vote against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince me otherwise Gary is a snail, which is seemingly the cat of the Spongebob universe, so he can't vote. However, Gary is more intelligent than almost every character on that show, and would never vote for Trump if he could Source: c3po #i fucking died # she has a record 332,823 notes Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm
Save
startrekgifs: grandpa-mermaid: askawelfarecaseworker: ramblinganthropologist: solitarelee: bi-trans-alliance: outforhealth: ironlion919: ppaction: Here’s what Donald Trump doesn’t want you to know: ACA open enrollment begins TODAY! Spread the word and #GetCovered. Also, the time to enroll has been CUT IN HALF. They tried to kill off the ACA, but could only manage to damage it. *****You have until Dec. 15! Don’t delay!***** healthcare.gov GO GO GO Reminder: the deadline is December 15 I did this last year and inexplicably turned out to be eligible for Medicaid in WV, which I STILL have. Absolute and total lifechanger that’s letting me go to school instead of having to work full time.  #signal boost#i know the original tweet is dated 2017 but the enrolment dates are the same!#november 1 to december 15#i got confused and thought i was reblogging something outdated#but this goes for 2019 coverage! Copying @xfreischutz‘s tags because it was a really good point. The dates for now are the same as last year. Get out there and get you your health insurance! (Personal note: I qualified for Medicaid in Pennsylvania last year and I wasn’t expecting it. It really does help if you do it.) NOTE - the Trump administration has allowed the sale of short term and catastrophic coverage plans. DO NOT BUY THESE. THEY WILL NOT HELP YOU. THEY ARE PREDATORY. Make sure, if you qualify for ACA coverage, that you are purchasing a plan that is at least Silver tier! @vague-humanoid !! ENDS DECEMBER 15 !! : Andy Slavitt @ASlavitt Following It's on! 2018 ACA enrollment has begun. 80% can find plans under $75/month. Go to healthcare.gov. Spread the word. 1:05 AM -1 Nov 2017 startrekgifs: grandpa-mermaid: askawelfarecaseworker: ramblinganthropologist: solitarelee: bi-trans-alliance: outforhealth: ironlion919: ppaction: Here’s what Donald Trump doesn’t want you to know: ACA open enrollment begins TODAY! Spread the word and #GetCovered. Also, the time to enroll has been CUT IN HALF. They tried to kill off the ACA, but could only manage to damage it. *****You have until Dec. 15! Don’t delay!***** healthcare.gov GO GO GO Reminder: the deadline is December 15 I did this last year and inexplicably turned out to be eligible for Medicaid in WV, which I STILL have. Absolute and total lifechanger that’s letting me go to school instead of having to work full time.  #signal boost#i know the original tweet is dated 2017 but the enrolment dates are the same!#november 1 to december 15#i got confused and thought i was reblogging something outdated#but this goes for 2019 coverage! Copying @xfreischutz‘s tags because it was a really good point. The dates for now are the same as last year. Get out there and get you your health insurance! (Personal note: I qualified for Medicaid in Pennsylvania last year and I wasn’t expecting it. It really does help if you do it.) NOTE - the Trump administration has allowed the sale of short term and catastrophic coverage plans. DO NOT BUY THESE. THEY WILL NOT HELP YOU. THEY ARE PREDATORY. Make sure, if you qualify for ACA coverage, that you are purchasing a plan that is at least Silver tier! @vague-humanoid !! ENDS DECEMBER 15 !!

startrekgifs: grandpa-mermaid: askawelfarecaseworker: ramblinganthropologist: solitarelee: bi-trans-alliance: outforhealth: ironl...

Save
bowiecadmium: beckettwasright: nevver: Restrict the Vote Oregon should be the model for voting in the US. I’m gonna keep banging this drum. 70% voter turnout in a mid-term. We have automatic opt-out voter registration if you get a state ID or drivers license (“motor voter” registration). Voter registration is updated automatically if you move. It even pre-registers you when you’re 16 so you don’t have to worry when you turn 18! Voting 100% vote by mail - ballots go out on the registration deadline to all eligible voters. You can mail it in until the mail-in deadline, but ballot boxes are open throughout the state until 8pm on Election Day for you to drop them off. There’s even mechanisms in place to allow the homeless to vote without a permanent address! And! You can vote at the local county elections office if something is wrong with your ballot. If voting is easy - people vote! : Where it's easiest and hardest to vote State rankings on the 2016 Cost of Voting Index (1-easiest to vote, 50 hardest) NH-40 WA ME VT-21 MT 18 ND MN 12 OR MA-8 RI-27 CT-15 NJ-10 DE-25 ID SD 38 NY 26 Ml 45 28 IA PA NE он IN 43 47 30 cO VA 16 MO 29 KY 41 42 NC 24 SC 43 NM 36 34 MS AL GA 50 46 20 AK 25 32 19 WAPO.ST/WONKBLOG Source: 2016 Cost of Voting Index bowiecadmium: beckettwasright: nevver: Restrict the Vote Oregon should be the model for voting in the US. I’m gonna keep banging this drum. 70% voter turnout in a mid-term. We have automatic opt-out voter registration if you get a state ID or drivers license (“motor voter” registration). Voter registration is updated automatically if you move. It even pre-registers you when you’re 16 so you don’t have to worry when you turn 18! Voting 100% vote by mail - ballots go out on the registration deadline to all eligible voters. You can mail it in until the mail-in deadline, but ballot boxes are open throughout the state until 8pm on Election Day for you to drop them off. There’s even mechanisms in place to allow the homeless to vote without a permanent address! And! You can vote at the local county elections office if something is wrong with your ballot. If voting is easy - people vote!

bowiecadmium: beckettwasright: nevver: Restrict the Vote Oregon should be the model for voting in the US. I’m gonna keep banging this...

Save
lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99). This is important! Tell your Friends. I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐 From Slate: The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections. That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription. You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription!  I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors). Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements. Pass this information on, potentially save a life. : WEAR ABC 3 News, Pensacola shared a V link. 1hr. CVS puts out generic competitor to EpiPen at a 6th the price weartv.com 263 26 Comments 99 Shares Like Comment Share lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99). This is important! Tell your Friends. I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐 From Slate: The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections. That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription. You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription!  I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors). Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements. Pass this information on, potentially save a life.

lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Sim...

Save
fuckyeahwomenfilmdirectors: Kenyan ban on lesbian love story Rafiki is liftedShortly after the news that the film would premiere at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival the film was banned by the Kenya Film Classification Board “due to its homosexual theme and clear intent to promote lesbianism in Kenya contrary to the law”.Producer, writer and director Wanuri Kahiu successfully sued to have the ban lifted so that the film could be screened in Kenya and she would be eligible to submit her film for a Foreign Language Film Oscar.  On September 21, 2018 judge Wilfrida Okwany ruled in Kahiu’s favour writing, “I am not convinced that Kenya is such a weak society that its moral foundation will be shaken by seeing such a film.”The film will now be screened at some point in Kenya before the October 30th deadline for a minimum of 1 week to ensure Oscar eligibility. Rafiki is the story of the teenage daughters of two warring politicians who fall in love with each other despite prejudice from their friends, family, and society at large. The film has U.S. distribution, but no official theatrical release date as of yet. It will be released in France on September 26, 2018 and in Norway on November 16, 2018: fuckyeahwomenfilmdirectors: Kenyan ban on lesbian love story Rafiki is liftedShortly after the news that the film would premiere at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival the film was banned by the Kenya Film Classification Board “due to its homosexual theme and clear intent to promote lesbianism in Kenya contrary to the law”.Producer, writer and director Wanuri Kahiu successfully sued to have the ban lifted so that the film could be screened in Kenya and she would be eligible to submit her film for a Foreign Language Film Oscar.  On September 21, 2018 judge Wilfrida Okwany ruled in Kahiu’s favour writing, “I am not convinced that Kenya is such a weak society that its moral foundation will be shaken by seeing such a film.”The film will now be screened at some point in Kenya before the October 30th deadline for a minimum of 1 week to ensure Oscar eligibility. Rafiki is the story of the teenage daughters of two warring politicians who fall in love with each other despite prejudice from their friends, family, and society at large. The film has U.S. distribution, but no official theatrical release date as of yet. It will be released in France on September 26, 2018 and in Norway on November 16, 2018
Save
lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99). This is important! Tell your Friends. I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐 From Slate: The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections. That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription. You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription!  I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors). Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements. Pass this information on, potentially save a life. : WEAR ABC 3 News, Pensacola shared a V link. 1hr. CVS puts out generic competitor to EpiPen at a 6th the price weartv.com 263 26 Comments 99 Shares Like Comment Share lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Similar to when I went to CVS to pickup a 90$ prescription and they had their own generic version for 7.99). This is important! Tell your Friends. I can’t believe some insurances quit covering them 😐 From Slate: The generic Adrenaclick will cost $109.99 for two doses, compared with $649.99 for the same amount of drug in an EpiPen. That’s good news, both for financial and safety reasons: STAT reported last year that some parents and institutions had begun filling up syringes with epinephrine as a cost-cutting measure, a DIY solution that could pose great risk to the children who may have eventually needed injections. A more affordable alternative will help ensure safer epinephrine injections. That’s assuming, though, that the people who need these devices know exactly what to ask for when they’re sitting in their doctors’ offices. Otherwise, they’ll still be stuck with the overpriced product. Here’s why: The mechanism by which Adrenaclick injects the drug is slightly different from EpiPen’s mechanism, so the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the two are not therapeutically equivalent. That distinction is important because it means a prescription for an EpiPen cannot be filled with Adrenaclick. If you want the cheaper option, you have to have an Adrenaclick prescription. You must ask your doctor for an Adrenaclick prescription!  I also found a coupon from Impax on 0.15mg and 0.3mg epinephrine injection, USP auto-injectors, which appear to be the generic version of Adrenaclick; these coupons cover up to $100 per pack for 3 packs of these injectors (6 total injectors). Some customers may be automatically eligible for $100 off the retail price thus only paying $10 for a pack, but this may be good backup for those who for whatever reason do not meet those requirements. Pass this information on, potentially save a life.

lethargicactionhero: erykahisnotokay: runawayhurricane: totalharmonycycle: southernrepublicangirl: Ah the free market at work. (Sim...

Save
coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”. It’s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.   Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I don’t even think it’s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldn’t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”. It’s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.   Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I don’t even think it’s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldn’t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.
Save
urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.
Save
hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. “Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. “Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.
Save
coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.
Save
hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.
Save
terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 i read that article and it still doesn’t seem possible given “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”and at first i thought this’d be a good way to secure trump his second term, but… judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh. The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.It’s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldn’t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 i read that article and it still doesn’t seem possible given “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”and at first i thought this’d be a good way to secure trump his second term, but… judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh. The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.It’s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldn’t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.
Save
coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.
Save
hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57
Save