Talk:2875: 2024

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

It appears that only three US presidents so far have lived for over 30 years since their last election: Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and (technically) George H.W. Bush. One other (John Adams) had made it to 29. In addition, Gerald Ford had lived for over 29 years after the end of his presidency (and over 30 years after its start) but had technically never been elected.
Of course none of those five were two-term presidents so they in any case would not have been restricted from further election by the 22nd amendment (and John Adams additionally wasn't affected by it due to having died prior to its ratification). -- 22:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think he's suggesting that 30 years is enough -- that's only when half the tooth cells have been replaced. So we have to resort to dentistry and replace all the teeth. Barmar (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just made some "content and flow" edits to bring the Explanation up to a reasonable spec of explanatoriaciousness (which I fully expect to be buffed up and/or trimmed by others). I didn't directly explain that SCOTUS has nine (or more!) voting members, but there's the link(s) I added where this gets fairly well qualified for the person who might need to know this, and I refrained from suggestion reasons why one or both of the more recent Presidents might be best 'forgotten' (depending upon a person's own considerations on each matter), etc... I actually think that if all nine SCOTUSii all decided in one direction on the issues of Obama's teeth then it would be because of ideologically opposing views lining up by pure accident (e.g. some see/do not see pulling teeth as a valid way of becoming President for a third term, the rest see/do not see the pulling of teeth from Obama as laudible but would expect the next step to fail to happen for entirely separate reasons). And if someone definitely knows if FDR wore dentures (or not), particularly in his last five or so years, then that can surely be inserted as a valid (counter-)justifying fact. Anyway, probably done with my own polishing. For the moment, certainly. 03:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the book Party Politics in the Age of Roosevelt by Michael P. Riccards and Cheryl A. Flagg, FDR did have a partial denture to replace two of his front teeth, but that wouldn't satisfy Ponytail's plan. -- 04:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the reference to there being only 8 justices on the Supreme Court ... As far as I can tell, on January 1 2024 there are 9, unless I'm missing something? ModelD (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What reference? It says 9 - 19:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
It said 8 in some previous versions, like this one 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. It's 9.-- 09:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Ponytail is being inconsistent? She wants Obama to be considered a new person due to cellular replacement, so he can be elected ... because she likes him, and recognizes the "new" Obama as still being the President she liked. Nitpicking (talk)

Tell you what it also blows out of the water, though..? Any hint of 'birther' complaints. (Also might well be how Arnie had become a POTUS, in the future-history of Demolition Man!) 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not really inconsistent. What she liked about him weren't his cells, but the way he governed. And just as the Ship of Theseus sails just as well after you replace all its planks, Obama will behave similarly after replacing his cells and teeth. Barmar (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow! a vandal! fun! someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent. I just reverted again. Nitpicking (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
who on earth vandalizes a comic wiki someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Your username makes it look like you're answering your own question lol 21:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, as Trump didn't win the popular vote, one might argue he was made president, but not "elected to the office" as stated per the 22nd. If he keeps this up he could re-run indefinitely. I expect his lawyers to make this exact argument in 2028. We need to call forth the laws of gerontology to stop him! ;) 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Presidents aren't elected by the people, they're elected by the electors (as was Trump). The electors each may have to adhere to one degree of other (depends upon a whole stack of other rules) of faithfulness to the people they represent. But, even if they are entirely faithful, their combined votes may not truly represent the combined votes of all the people whose votes influence the electors.
i.e. he was elected to office, despite the majority will of those who contributed to tue result. For technical issues, though, many of those who cast a vote never even had a slither of an influence in the result (they just propped up either the winning or losing end-totals in ways that can soak up plenty of possible defections, non-participation or reversals of apathy).
And, even if it was shown that massive disenfrachisement occured (e.g. Bush 2's Florida-moment, from getting them to give up on counting/etc), that just potentially invalidates the basis of the Electoral College votes, not that the EC votes were indeed cast.
...and all this because the fledgling US decided that it just couldn't organise direct elections nationwide/across all states so worked out its own way to fudge it. (I mean, direct-election FPTP is also problematic, leaving a huge chunk of people deciding they might as well not bother, but FPTP-by-proxy and other problematic issues that arise alongside it add further reasons to be dissilusioned (or excessively entitled, whenever the result happens to swing the way you're more content with, justified or not). 01:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Why would he need to win a third election after dismantling democracy? 22:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You might still want 'to win an election', despite doing all you can to have no democracy. If you're a Kim or a Putin or were a Marcos/Ortega/etc... Not everywhere is the dictator (or dictating 'council') willing to go full Myanmar on the whole 'voting' thing. Sometimes it's because they're not scared about what will happen, others that they're more scared than they admit (and/or would like to trace the whereabouts of the 0.01% of the population that would dare not fill out a voting slip the 'right' way). 00:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Even though it is possible that someone may edit the explanation after I post this, thus confusing my reference — I would like to express my appreciation for the way in which the last sentence of this explanation was worded. "Well played." Inquirer (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like "he prefers Democratic Presidents at least over Donald Trump" is misguided/missing the point. I don't think the party had any bearing on that, I think like everyone with more than a couple of brain cells he supported "Anybody But Trump". If Trump had been the Democratic candidate, Randall would have backed the Republican candidate - and he has enough sense to know there's no point in supporting any other party. I was flabbergasted that things which usually remain impartial (I'd have expected Randall, many news outlets, etc) actually came out against Trump, that this felt really significant and should have spoken volumes to Trump supporters.

I'm Canadian, when I learned of the term limit I was surprised, I was thinking of our leaders who have gone longer - probably most notable being our current guy's father, who would have kept getting elected had he not decided enough was enough, LOL! - that a 2 term limit robs the people of good leaders when you find them (like Obama). Then you re-elected George W. and I got it: They weren't concerned about the good ones, it's to save the American people from themselves, LOL! NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)