Hard no.
- It would create much more incentive to assassinate a president since it would result in a complete switch in control of government.
- It would make the president a lot less likely to step aside if health or other reasons made it so he really should not continue as president (of course, presidents have not been good in the past at stepping aside, even when they really should and have someone of the same party in succession).
- The VP would be completely frozen out, putting him in a poor position to take the reins if something happened to the president. There would be no 'tard-wrangling' with each other, the VP would be entirely ignored and left doing absolutely nothing except collecting a pay check.
I would actually go the other way -- allow the President to fire the VP and replace him with any Senate-confirmed cabinet member, and take the Speaker of the House out of the line of succession. The problem with the VP now is that it is supposedly an apprenticeship for the president, but because the President cannot fire the VP the President is very wary of giving the VP any real responsibility. And if the Speaker of the House is in the line of succession, the President would never want to fire a VP because then the line of succession could be going to the other party.
- Prev
- Next
He didn't make a dumb decision, he embezzled the customer funds into his own accounts and then gambled with them. It was straight up theft of billions of dollars.
If you believe various studies of how people value their own life, thefts of over $10 million should basically be considered the equivalent of murder.
Hmmm:
If I put 10 ounces of gold in a safe deposit box, and then the bank owner steals 5 ounces and loses it at a casino, but the price of gold triples, the bank still stole from me, even if the bank owner claims that I didn't lose any money since value of my assets are greater now than when I put them in the safe deposit box.
More options
Context Copy link