• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Apparently some of the Republicans are talking about nominating Trump as speaker. The speaker doesn’t technically need to be a member of congress. I wonder if there are enough anti-Trump republicans in the House to block that. If it’s a close vote and certain congress people block Trump, they could get a mountain of hate.

    • clutchmatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Amazing that the founding fathers didn’t contemplate the possibility of a felon under active lawsuits becoming speaker

      • nxdefiant@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In defense of the founding fathers, they were all traitors to the crown and enemies of the state when they wrote that.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Considering no one would formalize game theory for 150 years it’s not particularly surprising.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t need to necessarily formalize game theory to consider things like: hey, we just gave the president the authority to pardon. Couldn’t they abuse that? What if they pardon someone who was doing something illegal that they ordered? What if they commit a crime and pardon themselves?

            I mean, that’s the most obvious one that you don’t really need formal game theory to know could be a problem. Then there are all the other problems. Checks and balances are good, but when a powerful faction uses its power to put loyalists into the thing that’s supposed to balance them, the system seems to unravel.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        They didn’t even contemplate the House Speaker being in the Presidential line of succession. Which is the reason they want to put Trump there. Not that it would work; they’d have to remove both the President and Vice President at the same time, and the Senate ain’t going to do that.

        • clutchmatic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          An angry mob with strong will to unalive certain people before the #3 in the line of succession would be a major concern

    • homesnatch@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Only 3-4 republican votes are needed to block any candidate since the Democrats will all be voting against.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but if Trump is on board, can you imagine the mountain of hate mail and death threats those 3-4 would receive? Would they have the guts to accept that consequence?

    • psmgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Speaker of the house is 3rd in line to take over if the VP and Pres are dead or unavailable.

      Question is if you think that MAGA and foreign intelligence would be up for forcing that issue.

      • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Making Trump speaker would be a major national security risk to Biden and Harris. Gives way too many lunatics big ideas is there’s a direct benefit to their movement. Not to mention it WAYYY to closely mirrors the arc of Hitlers rise. Failed coup attempt, followed by taking on a secondary post a few years later.