|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:As great of a troll as it would be to put Obama in one of the highest offices of power in government permanently, I wouldn't wish that on the poor guy, he deserves a much needed vacation from DC That's true, but it's not as if he'd really be subject to the same types of daily stress as he currently endures. Not to say that being a SC justice is low-pressure, but it's certainly more relaxed than being POTUS, and he doesn't really have to be in the spotlight. Plus he doesn't really have to gently caress around with partisan politics and bargaining with Congressional fuckwits. Mostly I just want him to be a justice in my dream world.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Obama is gonna make a hundred million dollars in speeches in the next decade. Stop trying to keep the black man down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
How common is it for past Presidents to take up a public position of any kind after their term?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Full Circle posted:How common is it for past Presidents to take up a public position of any kind after their term? It's pretty rare. Looks like the last time was Taft joining SCOTUS after leaving the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Full Circle posted:How common is it for past Presidents to take up a public position of any kind after their term? Presidents trend old. Most have either died in office or within 10 years of leaving it (of those, a good chunk within 5 years). Of the remaining who survive past 10 years, only SIX were born in the 20th century: Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Ford, HW Bush, and Clinton. As you might have noticed, most of that group were either too disgraced, too ill, or too done to bother. Carter stuck with humanitarian projects, HW Bush jumped out planes and opted for the background/full retirement, Nixon and Ford were tainted. Clinton has stayed close to the limelight. So the answer is: for the modern era, not very.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Adar posted:Obama is gonna make a hundred million dollars in speeches in the next decade. Stop trying to keep the black man down. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy motivated by money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy motivated by money. Two kids + being the most in demand speaker of this century will probably change that a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Adar posted:Two kids + being the most in demand speaker of this century will probably change that a bit. Yeah, he's going to milk the talk circuit for a while and I don't think there's anyone that can fault him for that. I can see Obama segue-ing into something similar to the CGI, too, if nothing else than just to keep occupied.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Has the funeral been scheduled yet? Obama needs to name a nominee already so these right wing jerks can put up or shut up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:Has the funeral been scheduled yet? Obama needs to name a nominee already so these right wing jerks can put up or shut up. 2/20, I think
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Presidents trend old. Most have either died in office or within 10 years of leaving it (of those, a good chunk within 5 years). That's a bit of a weasely use of statistics. A President must be at least 35, so being "born in the 20th Century" would exclude everyone from the first third of that century (and the youngest President was in his 40s when elected). Also if you notice, everyone since Nixon (i.e., everyone in the past 45-50 years) have survived longer than a decade (Bush Jr hasn't but he's probably not going to die in two years). So basically what you actually mean is "the Presidents from 1936 until 1968 weren't born in the 20th Century or didn't survive longer than a decade after office". Which yes, is technically true but is meaningless, since there were 5 presidents in that time period (one of which was assassinated in office). Especially when you get people like Harry Truman who survived almost 20 years after office, but was born a little too early.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's a bit of a weasely use of statistics. A President must be at least 35, so being "born in the 20th Century" would exclude everyone from the first third of that century (and the youngest President was in his 40s when elected). Eh, not as such. With the advent of radio, TV, the Internet, and political primaries, the landscape is practically alien to politicians born in the latter half the the 19th century (who'd occupy that pre-FDR portion of the 20th). Hoover and Truman would probably merit inclusion, though. Truman was damned near broke and was the literal first recipient of medicare; he wrote books and stayed in the background. Hoover went on to remain a fixture of the old smoke filled rooms, flirting with being nominated for another run at the WH for the next few elections, and then went on to get every major call wrong on WWII, even saying that war itself was highly unlikely in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:Has the funeral been scheduled yet? Obama needs to name a nominee already so these right wing jerks can put up or shut up. Saturday
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Carter stuck with humanitarian projects, Of all of them, Carter remained the closest by far to public service. He has spent his whole life post-presidency observing elections and actively mediating global conflict. He won the Nobel Peace prize for it, and his book on the Israeli / Palestine conflict is probably the most sane and constructive analysis of the situation ever published. He's much more politically active than Clinton, whose foundation is way more specifically humanitarian in the traditional NGO sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Adar posted:Obama is gonna make a hundred million dollars in speeches in the next decade. Stop trying to keep the black man down. And he'd make even more or have to make fewer speeches if you added a position on the SCOTUS 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Of all of them, Carter remained the closest by far to public service. He has spent his whole life post-presidency observing elections and actively mediating global conflict. He won the Nobel Peace prize for it, and his book on the Israeli / Palestine conflict is probably the most sane and constructive analysis of the situation ever published. He's much more politically active than Clinton, whose foundation is way more specifically humanitarian in the traditional NGO sense. Interesting. So he's politically active, just abroad rather than domestically. Can't say I blame him for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
DP'd harder than Ajax.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Interesting. So he's politically active, just abroad rather than domestically. Can't say I blame him for that. It's more than that, really. For decades he's been a sort of freelance ambassador that presidents call when they need someone who can handle their poo poo. He's the guy that dealt with Qaddafi and Kim Il Sung in the 90s for instance. Domestically, he's really into Habitat for Humanity. Swings hammers and poo poo. Basically, Carter is a complete badass and one of the best former presidents in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:It's more than that, really. For decades he's been a sort of freelance ambassador that presidents call when they need someone who can handle their poo poo. He's the guy that dealt with Qaddafi and Kim Il Sung in the 90s for instance. Domestically, he's really into Habitat for Humanity. Swings hammers and poo poo. Yeah, and I completely believe that Obama is going to be the same, or at least a combination between Carter and Bill Clinton. Going around, reminding people of the good parts of his administration, able to criticize Republicans without worrying about winning elections himself. It's well worth comparing to the the Republican ex-Presidents, which did some of the similar bully pulpit things, but mostly just played golf and bickered with each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I wouldn't be shocked if in a few years Obama gets bored and gets himself another Senate seat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Obama for mayor of DC-the most challenging position of his career, but with the lucrative opportunity to annoy the hell out of politicians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I wouldn't be shocked if in a few years Obama gets bored and gets himself another Senate seat. Wouldn't they still have to refer to him as "Mr. President?" That seems like it would get confusing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I wouldn't be shocked if in a few years Obama gets bored and gets himself another Senate seat. Have any presidents ever done that before? I can't imagine hillary would be pleased.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
When the Republicans stonewall Obama's nominees through the election, I hope the Democratic winner of the General brings props to their victory speech. Mention their views on Supreme Court nominees and state that among the most important qualifications is being able to lift these *holds up moderately large hammer and sickle*. Then they wait at least 3 days before confusingly responding to media questions that they just meant they needed to be fit enough to lift some weights, why would you think otherwise?Discendo Vox posted:Obama for mayor of DC. Of all the jobs put forth for Obama so far, this is by far the worst. Please stop hatting on Barry. UrbicaMortis posted:Have any presidents ever done that before? I can't imagine hillary would be pleased. John Quincy Adams served in the House for years after his Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Of all the jobs put forth for Obama so far, this is by far the worst. Please stop hatting on Barry. You're seriously underestimating how much fun you can have with politicians as the DC mayor. Two words: steak VAT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Does anyone have any good articles that cover/evaluate Scalia's rulings and accomplishments (took effort to avoid scare quotes) in detail but in an accessible way? I have a friend who is not very political but is curious why Scalia was so galvanizing. I'm not knowledgable enough to explain things myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I wouldn't be shocked if in a few years Obama gets bored and gets himself another Senate seat. Eh, I'm not feeling it. Secretary General of the UN on the other hand
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House? Zero. Obama is not going to be nominated to the SCOTUS and there is zero reason to believe he has any desire to be part of the judiciary. He's going to leave office having had a fairly successful 8 years and with no major scandals like his predecessors. He's going to be busy making millions of dollars in speaking fees as one of the most sought after people on the planet. If the next president is a Dem they'll likely call on Obama at times but otherwise he's basically going to be relaxing with Michelle and going around doing speaking gigs making millions of dollars and building his library.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:Have any presidents ever done that before? I can't imagine hillary would be pleased. Andrew Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1875, but that's the only time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
If God forbid Ginsburg had died instead of Scalia, would conservatives be putting up a fight since Ginsburg would be replaced with another liberal Judge? Or do you think this big unprecedented FU would've happened regardless as one final big FU?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:If God forbid Ginsburg had died instead of Scalia, would conservatives be putting up a fight since Ginsburg would be replaced with another liberal Judge? Or do you think this big unprecedented FU would've happened regardless as one final big FU? Yes, but not as desperately. Senators up for election wouldn't be jumping on board as fast but a Supreme Court seat is just too valuable to not make a stab at pushing it to a possible Republican President.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Swinging the court further right would be a good enough reason, but it's mostly just the final phase of their 8 year tantrum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:If God forbid Ginsburg had died instead of Scalia, would conservatives be putting up a fight since Ginsburg would be replaced with another liberal Judge? Or do you think this big unprecedented FU would've happened regardless as one final big FU? Nope. Cruz and his ilk would cry crocodile tears and vote no. But the Senate would confirm and there would be no general outrage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Nope. Cruz and his ilk would cry crocodile tears and vote no. But the Senate would confirm and there would be no general outrage. RBG dying instead means they could have a chance at locking down the SCOTUS as a conservative institute for a generation or more. We would absolutely see the same bullshit since the idea of a 5+Kennedy conservative SCOTUS in addition to holding Congress and maybe getting the White House means there would be zero chance of opposing any crazy poo poo they want to pass since the SCOTUS would move to outlaw SSM and enshrine religious discrimination as soon as the first ALEC-crafted case made it to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Really there's very few circumstances where the GOP wouldn't throw a shitfit about basically anything Obama does, even when it's part of his job description.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're seriously underestimating how much fun you can have with politicians as the DC mayor. Two words: steak VAT. Nope, Congress would never allow that. Congress already loves loving around with the District, Mayor Obama would probably get them to toss home rule and bring back the Commissioners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:Nope, Congress would never allow that. Congress already loves loving around with the District, Mayor Obama would probably get them to toss home rule and bring back the Commissioners. Correct. IIRC, they voted to legalize weed and congress was like "LOL gently caress YOUR SELF-DETERMINATION WE OWN THIS BITCH" https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...0beb_story.html FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:Nope, Congress would never allow that. Congress already loves loving around with the District, Mayor Obama would probably get them to toss home rule and bring back the Commissioners. FAUXTON posted:Correct. IIRC, they voted to legalize weed and congress was like "LOL gently caress YOUR SELF-DETERMINATION WE OWN THIS BITCH" Steak VAT is a much better political story because it's a revenue-generator that the overarching electorate would be sympathetic to, even more than pot. Congress voting it down, especially as part of the Obama mayoral fiscal reform platform, would do tremendous damage to incumbents. Ya gotta learn to play the angles. (see also rezoning K street as high-density residential and Georgetown as mixed industrial).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Steak VAT is a much better political story because it's a revenue-generator that the overarching electorate would be sympathetic to, even more than pot. Congress voting it down, especially as part of the Obama mayoral fiscal reform platform, would do tremendous damage to incumbents. Ya gotta learn to play the angles. (see also rezoning K street as high-density residential and Georgetown as mixed industrial). MIGF alt account spotted?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:RBG dying instead means they could have a chance at locking down the SCOTUS as a conservative institute for a generation or more. We would absolutely see the same bullshit since the idea of a 5+Kennedy conservative SCOTUS in addition to holding Congress and maybe getting the White House means there would be zero chance of opposing any crazy poo poo they want to pass since the SCOTUS would move to outlaw SSM and enshrine religious discrimination as soon as the first ALEC-crafted case made it to them. The only reason they're getting any sort of traction right now is because Obama would actually flip the court with a Scalia replacement. If him choosing someone is just keeping the status quo only the most fringe part of the right, the part that jerks off to impeachments and government shut downs, would get up in arms. The Senate would do a tiny bit of saber rattling and many a speech about the terrifying communist Obama influence, but there would be no real hot air in the sails. The usual group of Republican Senators who vote for Democratic nominees when they actually come to a vote aren't going to be very excited about stonewalling a liberal replacement of a liberal justice either. Also while the Media and "neutral" observers are currently willing to at least postulate the idea that the Republicans aren't totally full of poo poo right now, holding up the replacement of RGB with a liberal isn't going to be defended. Also there's no way the Cruz crew and the right wing media don't poo poo all over RGB in absentia. So in this situation Scalia is gonna be pised that fuckers are dissing his girl RGB. He'd be fine with the 5-4 status quo, as would the rest of the conservative block, and they'd be much more likely to vocally call out the bullshit. Further, the Republican Senators in questionably winnable races would pretty much have to publicly come out against trying to save RGB's seat for a conservative. Right now they can probably get by with pointing to Grassley and McConnell and shrugging their shoulders, because people will give far more weight to the idea Obama shouldn't flip the ideology of the court than he shouldn't replace a liberal justice. The only thing that gives this replacement nomination stonewalling any sort of traction with the general population is the nebulous idea of misplaced fairness and that the flipping of the court is a big deal. Take that away and the Republicans are just being dicks to be dicks in a far more public way than usual. The base isn't going to care any more than they did when Obama got Kagan and Sotomayor on the court either, so there's not nearly as much upside for all the downside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:34
|
|