That doesn’t follow at all.
There’s a process for removing him if enough people in congress believed that it was an issue, but there’s no reason to do so at this point in the presidency. Even the Republicans aren’t likely to try that.
There’s a process for removing him if enough people in congress believed that it was an issue, but there’s no reason to do so at this point in the presidency. Even the Republicans aren’t likely to try that.
I'm not saying all of this is certain or that Biden should be removed, but it is certainly plausible, if not likely.
If this is the criteria for “people who shouldn’t be president” then perhaps both parties should offer different candidates.
If you want to split hairs and say that the verbal diarrhea that comes out of his mouth every time he opens it is not in itself one giant "gaffe," I guess I'll just concede the point and move on. He's still a giant asshole, always, to everyone, so my original point still stands.
And why was his acceptance speech so "off the cuff" if it was at an official function where he had months to prepare?
You know Joe’s gaffes and Kamala’s broke catchphrase aren’t the same things.
I honestly don’t know what “Kamala’s broke catchphrase” is.
Joe Biden makes gaffes, appears to have problems with his memory on certain occasions, and is probably too old to run for another four years.
None of the above contradicts anything I previously said.
Of course you don’t. Ignorance is celebrated and you don’t ever consider that you are the one who was intentionally kept in the dark.
She is a moron, and it’s been kept from you. Like Joe’s condition was kept from you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0K3rbIEsZC0
Yet… you have strong opinions you are somehow confident in.
There you go again, asserting that you know what's in my head. Please stop.
I've seen mentions of that catchphrase floating around. Based on the wording you used, I thought you were referring to her saying the word "broke" in some context, and I wasn't sure what you were talking about.
Perhaps you should work on your communication skills some more before acting so haughty?
As we age we do have a decline in mental and physical function, but it is generally not uniform. From the reports I've heard his speaking ability is down, but his analytical abilities are still fine.
The man is still the Commander-in-Chief. Anyone of limited mental faculties (which clearly describes President Biden), irrespective of their politics, should not be in the chair if they are not of sound mind. Consequently, I believe the responsible act would be for President Biden to resign the Presidency and allow his Vice President to take the mantle.
| Even the Republicans aren’t likely to try that.
I actually don't think it's in the Republicans best interest to do so. Tactically, the Democrats would be wise to let Kamala Harris sit in the Oval Office and make her the nominee. It would legitimize her as both a nominee and a candidate. Given that isn't happening, the cynic in me believes that suggests the Democrats don't want her as their candidate.
Regardless, the political machinations are irrelevant. It is irresponsible for Joe Biden to continue as President given he is obviously unfit to continue as the nominee.
If Biden resigns and Harris becomes President, a new VP would need to be confirmed by the Senate, and the (GOP controlled) House.
What if the House refuses to take up the vote, similar to how McConnell refused to bring up Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court confirmation? In theory that kicks the election to the states, and each state counts as one vote, winner takes all.
I don’t think that’s a gamble the Democrats are willing to take, being that a majority of states (not a majority of the population) are GOP controlled.
“The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.” Article 1, Section 3
The parent was really saying that the president might need to respond to a nuclear attack at any time, therefore they should always be sober and ready to respond. Essentially, the president is oncall 24/7 for reacting to nuclear threats.
There are some protections though where the presidents orders can be disobeyed, which are mentioned in that Wikipedia article you linked.
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering#Discharge
> "What if [the president's] mind is deranged, disordered, even damagingly intoxicated? ... Can he launch despite displaying symptoms of imbalance? Is there anything to stop him?" Rosenbaum says that the answer is that launch would indeed be possible: to this day, the nuclear fail-safe protocols for executing commands are entirely concerned with the president's identity, not his sanity. The president alone authorizes a nuclear launch and the two-man rule does not apply to him.
Respectfully, you might want to read something more current on the subject. The excellent book Command and Control [1] is a good place to start.
The "protections" you appear to be alluding to presumably mean the "NCA"'s role in this. That's a term that has no official meaning since 2002 (and before that the president also had the sole authority to order nuclear strikes).