Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

Dianne Feinstein (87) has formally announced/signed up to run in 2024 for reelection.  She would be 96 when her term ends if reelected.   Strom  Thurmond was 100 (served 47 years) when he left office.  Robert Byrd was 93, but had served 51 years.

The best way to keep Trump from running in 2024 is to invoke Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Think I brought this up under another thread, but can't remember where.  Potentially, both houses of Congress would have to vote that he engaged in insurrection and Biden would have to sign off on it.  Otherwise, he could sign up and then the government would have to prove he "engaged in insurrection."  Would ultimately end up in the Supreme Court.

"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Trump will run even if allowed to.  Frankly, I'm surprised that he is still alive today given his condition and the amount of self-inflicted stress he puts on himself.

But, he will want to keep people guessing and to wield any power that comes his way as a king-maker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElCid said:

Dianne Feinstein (87) has formally announced/signed up to run in 2024 for reelection. 

The way the CA primary elections are done (top two,  regardless of party end up in the General),   Feinstein will face another Dem.

CA has moved enough to the left that I don't see Feinstein being re-elected.

In fact I don't think she even wishes to run again,  but is now just saying so, because of all the calls for her to resign.    Her comments here was the straw that broke the camel's back with a majority of CA Dems.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like her, I can't forget the image of her when Mayor Moscone was killed in 1978 and she was sworn in as Mayor of San Francisco. Awful times for SF, then the Jonestown tragedy.

I think that situation with Lindsey Graham was due to the fact that Feinstein has always been a strong advocate for gay rights and gay individuals, even closety evil ones like Lindsey Graham.  I doubt that she will run again, but it's good to keep them guessing.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Age can be an asset and should not be eschewed. This man served as (Republican) Senator from Vermont into his 80s. He was one of those old Yankees from the period when Republicans were decent. He was the last Republican to be elected as Senator from Vermont and was succeeded by Democrat Patrick Leahy, himself a mere 80.

GeorgeAiken-VTSEN-.jpg

George Aiken

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

Biden is such a lame duck that Democrats are already starting to worry about 2024.

 Not as much as Mitch McConnell is worrying about it.

Word out on the street is that Mitch is so ****-off with trump after January 6th that the former majority leader of the Senate hasn't taken an impeachment conviction off the table.

Also Moscow Mitch ain't taking you know whose phone calls.

No love lost there.😘

This could be better than that Godzilla vs Kong movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The way the CA primary elections are done (top two,  regardless of party end up in the General),   Feinstein will face another Dem.

CA has moved enough to the left that I don't see Feinstein being re-elected.

In fact I don't think she even wishes to run again,  but is now just saying so, because of all the calls for her to resign.    Her comments here was the straw that broke the camel's back with a majority of CA Dems.

 

Wass this at the Barrett hearings?

It does sort of seem to be going overboard to pander to Graham.  Not that familiar with Feinstein, so will defer to your input.  Glad you responded, as I had hoped you would.

So, I guess your impression is that she is not "liberal" enough for CA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ElCid said:

Wass this at the Barrett hearings?

It does sort of seem to be going overboard to pander to Graham.  Not that familiar with Feinstein, so will defer to your input.  Glad you responded, as I had hoped you would.

So, I guess your impression is that she is not "liberal" enough for CA?

Yes,  at the Barrett hearing.    Feinstein isn't too liberal for me,  but,  like I said,   for the majority of Dems in the state.  

I still believe she will retire.   She is just saying that now since no one wishes to be seen as being pushed out,  especially an incumbent that has been in power as long as Feinstein.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yes,  at the Barrett hearing.    Feinstein isn't too liberal for me,  but,  like I said,   for the majority of Dems in the state.  

I still believe she will retire.   She is just saying that now since no one wishes to be seen as being pushed out,  especially an incumbent that has been in power as long as Feinstein.

 

Also she gets to collect campaign contributions until she bows out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this post doesn't belong here,  but I found it was the best fit:

With regards to mail-in-voting,    what should the process be?      I.e.  what type of checks should their be to ensure the person voting is a citizen,  meets the residency requirements for the county\district,   is only voting once,   and is actually the citizen they claim to be,  submitting a ballot?

   

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Maybe this post doesn't belong here,  but I found it was the best fit:

With regards to mail-in-voting,    what should the process be?      I.e.  what type of checks should their be to ensure the person voting is a citizen,  meets the residency requirements for the county\district,   is only voting once,   and is actually the citizen they claim to be,  submitting a ballot?

   

Good question as I have been wondering this myself.  One concern to me is how they "match" signatures.  I have thought of contacting my state representatives and advise them they need to start work on a "robust," but fair system now.

As far as citizenship, residency requirements, etc. that would be part of the original voter registration.  Not a part of mail-in-voting.

In fact, I think the federal government should issue guidelines.  They could establish rules for Federal elections and then the states would adopt them rather than trying to administer two systems - one for federal and one for all other elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...