Senator Ben Sasse reported to resign from the Senate in December for Univ. of Florida job,president?

[Joe Republic]

Running for higher office is different - you’re still serving the constituents.

Nope.  You're elected for a fixed term, so you should stick to it.

We should pass a constitutional amendment barring any incumbent member of Congress and state officials from running for president/VP. 

You support Governor Ron DeSantis in 2024.

There's no reason Republican politicians should have play by different rules than everyone else, and if Harry is going to criticize Sasse for leaving office early then the same criticism has to apply to Obama. 

You just told us that you support a constitutional amendment banning leaving office early.  That goes much further than Harry saying they should just pay a fine.  And you say that while supporting a potential presidential candidate who will be in the middle of his second gubernatorial term on election day 2024.

Any other hard new rules you support that you don't think actually need to be followed?  LOL

[Del Tachi]

Running for higher office is different - you’re still serving the constituents.

Nope.  You're elected for a fixed term, so you should stick to it.

We should pass a constitutional amendment barring any incumbent member of Congress and state officials from running for president/VP.  

You support Governor Ron DeSantis in 2024.

There's no reason Republican politicians should have play by different rules than everyone else, and if Harry is going to criticize Sasse for leaving office early then the same criticism has to apply to Obama.  

You just told us that you support a constitutional amendment banning leaving office early.  That goes much further than Harry saying they should just pay a fine.  And you say that while supporting a potential presidential candidate who will be in the middle of his second gubernatorial term on election day 2024.

Any other hard new rules you support that you don't think actually need to be followed?  LOL

Are you trying to be the densest and most hackish poster on the forum?  You've been succeeding at this for quite a while, now

Yes, I would support a constitutional amendment that would make any "Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States or of any State" ineligible to be elected president (i.e., NOT "banning leaving office early" )  This is already a feature of many presidential systems.  Supporting a hypothetical constitutional amendment doesn't require believing it should be pro-actively applied before going into effect, and especially not when "the other side" has no interest in the same.  It should be a LEGAL requirement, not a moral or political one.

[Joe Republic]

Are you trying to be the densest and most hackish poster on the forum?  You've been succeeding at this for quite a while, now

Don't get mad at me because you made a fool of yourself in this thread.

Yes, I would support a constitutional amendment that would make any "Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States or of any State" ineligible to be elected president (i.e., NOT "banning leaving office early" )  This is already a feature of many presidential systems.  Supporting a hypothetical constitutional amendment doesn't require believing it should be pro-actively applied before going into effect, and especially not when "the other side" has no interest in the same.

Okay, but that's not what you said.

"We should pass a constitutional amendment barring any incumbent member of Congress and state officials from running for president/VP."  [emphasis mine]

But whatever, your backpedaling via semantics isn't really worth the time to dispute.

It should be a LEGAL requirement, not a moral or political one.

What a strange point to argue.  Usually when somebody advocates for a change to the Constitution, it comes from either a moral or political standpoint.  Otherwise what's the point?  This is like saying, "I want a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, but until that happens, I'm totally cool with it."

[Del Tachi]

Are you trying to be the densest and most hackish poster on the forum?  You've been succeeding at this for quite a while, now

Don't get mad at me because you made a fool of yourself in this thread.

Yes, I would support a constitutional amendment that would make any "Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States or of any State" ineligible to be elected president (i.e., NOT "banning leaving office early" )  This is already a feature of many presidential systems.  Supporting a hypothetical constitutional amendment doesn't require believing it should be pro-actively applied before going into effect, and especially not when "the other side" has no interest in the same.

Okay, but that's not what you said.

"We should pass a constitutional amendment barring any incumbent member of Congress and state officials from running for president/VP."  [emphasis mine]

But whatever, your backpedaling via semantics isn't really worth the time to dispute.

LOL, that is exactly what I said.  It's not my problem you read into my text what you wanted [emphasis mine.] 

A constitutional amendment making incumbents ineligible to be elected president would mean they'd have to resign or leave office before standing.  I doubt freshman senator Barack Obama would have given up his seat to run for president in 2008, which is exactly the point.  The rule likewise protects an independent executive and prevents would-be autocrats from consolidating power from inside the government.  Mexico has this exact same law.

It should be a LEGAL requirement, not a moral or political one.

What a strange point to argue.  Usually when somebody advocates for a change to the Constitution, it comes from either a moral or political standpoint.  Otherwise what's the point?  This is like saying, "I want a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, but until that happens, I'm totally cool with it."

The constitution is a legal document, not a moral one.  This is more like saying "I want a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, but until that happens I don't support prosecuting people for it" which is an entirely reasonable position.  The point is that this legal change would create a healthier democracy, but applying the same rule selectively or arbitraily serves no similarly good purpose. 

[DaleCooper]

I don't know why anyone would want to work in academia these days. I can't imagine a more miserable, tedious, thankless job. But to be fair he is coming from the absolute nightmare from hell that is the US Senate so I can't blame him for wanting out of there.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't know why anyone would want to work in academia these days. I can't imagine a more miserable, tedious, thankless job. But to be fair he is coming from the absolute nightmare from hell that is the US Senate so I can't blame him for wanting out of there.

His salary will skyrocket at this post, that's for sure. 

[DaleCooper]

I don't know why anyone would want to work in academia these days. I can't imagine a more miserable, tedious, thankless job. But to be fair he is coming from the absolute nightmare from hell that is the US Senate so I can't blame him for wanting out of there.

His salary will skyrocket at this post, that's for sure. 

Sure, but he could do as well or better elsewhere.

[Aurelius]

I don't know why anyone would want to work in academia these days. I can't imagine a more miserable, tedious, thankless job. But to be fair he is coming from the absolute nightmare from hell that is the US Senate so I can't blame him for wanting out of there.

His salary will skyrocket at this post, that's for sure. 

Sure, but he could do as well or better elsewhere.

I'd much rather have him do this than have yet another senator join the Congress-to-lobbyist revolving door.

[DaleCooper]

I don't know why anyone would want to work in academia these days. I can't imagine a more miserable, tedious, thankless job. But to be fair he is coming from the absolute nightmare from hell that is the US Senate so I can't blame him for wanting out of there.

His salary will skyrocket at this post, that's for sure. 

Sure, but he could do as well or better elsewhere.

I'd much rather have him do this than have yet another senator join the Congress-to-lobbyist revolving door.

I agree.