🔥 Popular | Latest

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
So you need to sword fight a T. rex: penfairy I visited the museum and I heard two bros in the dinosaur exhibit having an earnest discussion about the best way to kill a T-Rex with a sword and what kind of armour should be worn into the battle and they spoke with such passion I really wish the scientific community could have heard them. I'd love to know how palaeontologists would weigh in on The Great Debate penfairy For instance, was the bro in the weed shorts right? is it pointless to wear heavy armour when battling a T-Rex? Is it truly better to go into battle naked wielding dual swords? Or was the bro in the backwards cap correct? Should you go for a double-handed sword and iron armour? Will light bouncing off the armour really confuse and blind the beast? Realistically, what protection is armour against a dinosaur? Was Weed Shorts right when he proposed to use his superior agility to slash its tendons and stab the eyes when he brought it down? Or was Backwards Cap right when he said charge and slash open its sot belly?? What is the truth??17? excessively-english-little-b Hello, palaeontologist-in-training herel Thought I'd have a litte think into this because hey, who wants to do coursework on trilobites when you could be considering T, rex instead? Light and maneuverable is probably best when facing a rex. It's big and t's powerful but it's not going to making any quick sharp tums any time soon. According to our current estimates, a T rex would be able to crush a small car with its jaws, so realistically, no amount of armour is gonna protect you if it grabs you If the T. rex manages to grab you you re dead regardless. It could probably eat you within a couple of bites if it was trying Figures 1 & 2: Theoretical T. rex bite-force model fucking up a mini. Thank you, Bill Oddie and BBC's The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs. As far as armour goes, lighter is better, and at the end of the day isn't going to mean shit anyway. T rex can't slash at you with claws, so it's bite or bust, and if it bites YOU'RE bust So, lets say a point to Weed Shorts. Why NOT fight a T rex butt naked with swords T rex had good binocular vision. Dont believe Jurassic Park's lies-T rex was a hunter and could probably see you brilliantly whether you moved or not. " .That said, a T rex's eyesight will work about the same as modem birds of prey. Think hawk, or eagle. I reckon light bouncing off anything would be a fairly minor hindrance, or at least, wouldn't affect it any more than any other hunting bird. So, using light to blind and confuse the rex? May potentially work but might be hard and wouldn't do much for long. Don't rely on this for strategy τ rex actually had gastralia, sometimes called 'belly-ribs. protected and supported the internal organs. There would also be some seriously thick abdominal muscles to get through. Unless you're planning to do some precision stabbing with a very long sword, chances are you're not gonna be killing a rex by slicing open it's stomach. Also, being under its stomach is gonna put you in-reach of the Jaws of Death. These " I'm not sure how easy it would be, or how well it would work, to try and cut a T rex's tendons. Theoretically, sounds like it should work. However you're gonna need a lot of strength to get through them, probably I'd personally cut the throat rather than stab through the eyes once the rex is down, but that's probably personal preference. Once you've felled it, it's dead either wayl A T. rex unable to hunt is a dead T rex . Gastralia Figure 3: The gastralia of a T. rex. Bless u Scott Hartman for your skeletal As far as attack goes, the belly is not as weak a s pot as it seems. So, point to Weed Shorts on his execution plan. Sounds pretty solid. Overall, I'd say that Weed Shorts had the best plan to defeat the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex. If you ever see him again, congratulate him on his solid plan of attack My favorite thing about paleontologists (and any scientist really, but paleontologists in particular) is that you can ask them COMPLETELY BATSHIT INSANE questions and by God, they will give you a completely Serious answer Source penfairy move it #trex #dinosaurs #go for the throat is how wolverine did it #science side of tumblr So you need to sword fight a T. rex
Save
Follow ➡️ @holisticali ➡️You can find this at a local health food store, or you can also purchase it online! Salt is hygroscopic, so the lamps attract water molecules from the air; this means the lamps trap dirt, pollen, and smoke particles which are carried in water vapor. Once these airborne contaminants have been locked in the salt, clean water is re-released and thus it has a purifying effect on the air. Theoretically that is. Scientists know that salt does absorb water from the air but that it quickly reaches an equilibrium state (it doesn’t take up anymore water because it is saturated). This is the same for silica packets. Both can be revitalized by drying, which a burning and warming lamp does. So there is merit to this claim. What’s more is that the heat from the bulb inside that warms up the lamp releases negative ions. And there are the health-boosting effects of salt itself too. SOURCE: http:-www.criticalcactus.com-himalayan-pink-salt-lamp-health-benefits- HolisticAli Himalayan SaltLamp Himalaya IG 👉🏽 @holistic.ali FACEBOOK-YOUTUBE-SNAPCHAT 👉🏽 @holisticali SUBSCRIBE TO NEW YOUTUBE LINK IN BIO: DID YOU KNOW? HIMALAYAN SALT LAMPS NEUTRALIZE ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION IG/FB HⓞLISTI ALI WITH HIMALAYAN SALT LAMPS THE IONS RELEASED BY HEATING CAN BOOST BLOOD FLOW, IMPROVE SLEEP INCREASE LEVELS OF SEROTONIN IN THE BRAIN, AND CALM ALLERGY OR ASTHMA SYMPTOMS. Follow ➡️ @holisticali ➡️You can find this at a local health food store, or you can also purchase it online! Salt is hygroscopic, so the lamps attract water molecules from the air; this means the lamps trap dirt, pollen, and smoke particles which are carried in water vapor. Once these airborne contaminants have been locked in the salt, clean water is re-released and thus it has a purifying effect on the air. Theoretically that is. Scientists know that salt does absorb water from the air but that it quickly reaches an equilibrium state (it doesn’t take up anymore water because it is saturated). This is the same for silica packets. Both can be revitalized by drying, which a burning and warming lamp does. So there is merit to this claim. What’s more is that the heat from the bulb inside that warms up the lamp releases negative ions. And there are the health-boosting effects of salt itself too. SOURCE: http:-www.criticalcactus.com-himalayan-pink-salt-lamp-health-benefits- HolisticAli Himalayan SaltLamp Himalaya IG 👉🏽 @holistic.ali FACEBOOK-YOUTUBE-SNAPCHAT 👉🏽 @holisticali SUBSCRIBE TO NEW YOUTUBE LINK IN BIO

Follow ➡️ @holisticali ➡️You can find this at a local health food store, or you can also purchase it online! Salt is hygroscopic, so the...

Save
jackskellington84: sophettestuff: sanjha-a-kitani: schmergo: The official Starbucks facebook account reviewed my pitches for new Frappuccinos based on mythical creatures to follow the unicorn one I love how it starts out with the dragon one which could theoretically be done and then just devolves into “it’s just blood”. I know right jsjsjsj I love this too much : oo0 Verizon LTE 12:49 PM Search Starbucks 3 hrs . Hey Starbucks, as the unicorn frappuccino was so popular, thought I'd pitch a few suggestions for fraps based on other mythical creatures: Dragon frappuccino: Made with dragonfruit, cinnamon, and fiery hot chiles. A shameless ploy to acquire gold. Werewolf frappuccino: Seems like a normal chocolate frap (werewolves love chocolate) but the caffeine doesn't kick in until the next full moon. And boy howdy, does it kick in. Mermaid frappuccino: Extra foam and sea salt caramel drizzle. Comes with a free Danish in honor of Hans Christian Anderson. Centaur: Has an oatmeal raisin cookie crumble crust. Oats for the horse and raisins for the wine-lovina human Whinned cream is Write a comment.. Post o Verizon LTE 12:49 PM Q Searclh Fairy frappuccino: A delightful delicate flavor of honeysuckle and lavender, it has the unfortunate effect of making you fall in love with the next live creature that you see. Pixie frappuccino: MIXED WITH TGE POWDER OF WITH 15 PIXIE STICKS Elf frappuccino: Made with the most important food groups- candy, candy canes, candy corn, and syrup. Keebler cookie crumbles Hobbit frappuccino: Only served in size tall. Get one for breakfast and get a second one free! Ogre frappuccino: Looks green and putrid on the outside, but has layers of different flavors that will Smash your Mouth Zombie frappuccino: like a normal frap, but with SEVERAL extra shots of espresso Write a comment... Post ooo Verizon LTE 12:49 PM Q Searclh Wizard frappuccino: Butterbeer Witch frappuccino: You'd think it would be the same as the wizard frap, but it has eye of newt and toe of frog #everydaysexism Yeti frappuccino: Tastes like a lemon snow cone, with Himalayan pink salt Alien frappuccino: They actually do have this in the Starbucks at one government building in New Mexico, but it's on the secret menu Ghost frappuccino: Zero calories. Probably just blended ice. Poltergeist frappuccino: Hurls itself against the wall after you pay for it Vampire frappuccino: Blood. It's just blood. 2 Shares Write a comment... Э| Post ooo VerizonLTE 12:49 PM Search egan Anne Fraedric Or most of these monstrosities 1 HOUR AGO LIKE REPLY 2 Write a reply.. Starbucks Hi, Megan. Thanks for the awesome suggestions! They raise some interesting food safety and supply chain concerns, but hey, maybe it'll just be a fun challenge for our product development teams who are used to more traditional sourcing methods. ;) 1 HOUR AGO LIKED 13 REPLY Write a comment... Post jackskellington84: sophettestuff: sanjha-a-kitani: schmergo: The official Starbucks facebook account reviewed my pitches for new Frappuccinos based on mythical creatures to follow the unicorn one I love how it starts out with the dragon one which could theoretically be done and then just devolves into “it’s just blood”. I know right jsjsjsj I love this too much

jackskellington84: sophettestuff: sanjha-a-kitani: schmergo: The official Starbucks facebook account reviewed my pitches for new Frappu...

Save