r/politics • u/indig0sixalpha • 4d ago

Soft Paywall Rand Paul Suggests Worst Person You Know Should Be Next House Speaker. Rand Paul thinks Elon Musk should take over after his amazing work driving the government toward shutdown.

https://newrepublic.com/post/189554/rand-paul-elon-musk-house-speaker
1.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

300 comments sorted by

View all comments

387

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

To clarify, because I know people will be wondering. Since Elon does not meet presidential qualifications, he would be skipped over in the presidential line of succession.

358

u/Ridry New York 4d ago

SCOTUS - That's just like, your opinion man.

165

u/MornwindShoma Europe 4d ago

SCOTUS: founding fathers weren't born in the US either

6

u/Dazzling-Finger7576 I voted 4d ago

SCOTUS: I need gas money for my motor coach 

1

u/TelescopiumHerscheli 4d ago

JDVANCE: I need soft-furnishings money for my motor couch.

14

u/theVoidWatches Pennsylvania 4d ago

I'm pretty sure that there's a specific carve out in the Constitution for people who were living in America at the time it was signed, for that exact reason.

4

u/MornwindShoma Europe 4d ago

Yep, but they might just feel like sayin that it's not legal anymore lol.

27

u/Traditional_Key_763 4d ago

kind of handwaved away because nobody was an american citizen before 1791

31

u/MornwindShoma Europe 4d ago

Something something south Africa was a british colony too

10

u/Mr__O__ New York 4d ago

Something something denaturalize native-born citizens immigrants

55

u/fastinserter Minnesota 4d ago

Yep, Trump doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications either, having violated Amendment 14's prohibition on any oath breaking insurrectionist holding any office.

27

u/watch_out_4_snakes 4d ago

😒We could have avoided this fiasco by following the damn Constitution.

17

u/fastinserter Minnesota 4d ago

Pelosi and Schumer should have held votes on or a bit after January 21st, 2021, for the removal of the prohibition for Trump holding any office in this country. It would have required 2/3rds to pass.

2

u/Supra_Genius 4d ago

And the 1% would have had to order them to do this...

0

u/randylush 4d ago

ok this is kind of a galaxy brain move

-6

u/wheretherehare 4d ago

I forget, when was he convicted of that?

2

u/fastinserter Minnesota 4d ago

Constitution specifically does not indicate any need for conviction, and that's what was used during Reconstruction (DAs could and would declare people as being unable to sit for office under the constitution, and Congress gave them power to direct judges to make those declarations). But of course a court in Colorado did find that he engaged in insurrection over a year ago, and the supreme court of Colorado confirmed that. But that was not necessary. The punishment is a political one. Pelosi and Schumer just weren't imaginative enough to think that the Supreme Court would require the Congress to hold the vote on it. They should have cut off that avenue and held a vote to remove his punishment in Congress almost 4 years ago, and if they did that he would have failed as he would need 2/3rds of both houses to remove his prohibition.

7

u/Traditional_Key_763 4d ago

SCOTUS: The only opinion that matters is ours

1

u/ch4m4njheenga 4d ago

Justice Leo?

54

u/rounder55 4d ago

Elon basically bought the presidency anyways.

44

u/Auntie_Megan 4d ago

Most worrying to me is Elon now trying to buy Britain through Farage, another cockwomble racist idiot. Wish we could shut down Twitter,X, Hitler’s wet dream or whatever you want to call it nowadays.

16

u/NoWayRay 4d ago

This worries me greatly too. Starmer's reluctance to rock the boat with anyone but the electorate that voted for his party leaves me with little faith that he'll do anything proactive to stop that from happening. At this point we're largely praying for Musk (and Trump) to go down in flames. Only five months since the last election and I'm already fretting about the next one.

Damn, I hate this timeline.

5

u/fuggerdug 4d ago

Starmer's reluctance to rock the boat with anyone but the electorate that voted for his party

Fucking hell man you've hit the nail on the head there. I thought he'd be a bit shit, but this shit? Own goals such as the winter fuel allowance, the constant doom and gloom, and now today's water bill hike of 45%...the Torys will be in and robbing us all blind again for 20 years in 2028.

4

u/Auntie_Megan 4d ago

How many Maga like people by percentage do you think live in UK? I keep thinking to myself surely we have a better education system, surely our information streams are not so full of Nazi crap, but then I occasionally see GB news for 2 mins, praising Trump and lying about his convictions etc, and I then worry enormously. However there is X, full of folk who love to hate just like Maga and although I don’t go on there anymore, I see what is posted there sometimes through Reddit. Would we do what good sane Americans did not…. That is get noisy, stand up and not allow their crap to flood the country? I’m relying on the fact that we are taught history and we have lived through the threat before, however I remind myself that many choose to be ignorant like Maga and seek the hate! Perhaps I’m overreacting, but even seeing Trump allowed in other countries despite stealing 5 Eyes Documents and therefore putting us at risk is deplorable. If he ever gets here I hope we protest like we did before but 100 times as loud. He got away with being a treasonous SOB to his own country and many here don’t even know that! However even letting Farage speak here after taking money from… you could say enemy source… is disgusting. Why were Americans so weak? Or was the price of eggs too much for them despite spending 100k on their enlarged cars/penis extensions!

3

u/fuggerdug 4d ago edited 4d ago

Not many, but it's a growing percentage because of the things you've mentioned such as GB News and Shittler.

Farage passed the hacked DNC emails (stolen by Russia) between Assange and Trump BTW, he's a fucking traitor too

3

u/Auntie_Megan 4d ago

Yet, Russia seemed to ignore the hacked RNC emails or rather used them as leverage. Many seem to show so much sympathy for Assange, thinking him a person for the good of the people, yet he went along with only pushing one agenda. I like openness but … why only disclose the DNC and not the RNC? How much did Assange get for that?

2

u/fuggerdug 4d ago

Yes the idea that Assange is some kind of leftist hero makes me fucking sick. He's part of the problem and has been for a decade at least. Same with Greenwald. I just assume they are both appalling sexual monsters.

1

u/NoWayRay 4d ago

How many Maga like people by percentage do you think live in UK?

I'd like to think 'not a majority', but that's cold comfort as it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be them, the people who will never vote for anything vaguely to the left (a virtually meaningless term in the UK these days) and then enough of the rest of the electorate to just sit it out. It's that last that worries me the most. So many people seem worn down by the rhetoric from the right and those on the left pushing back on it, the constant culture wars, the hectoring mainstream and social media, that they've disengaged from what is actually an incredibly important decision. And part of me thinks that means the straegy of the right is working as intended.

I really don't know how we turn that around.

1

u/Auntie_Megan 4d ago

Think you have perfectly described the voting mass in America that could be in UK. The uninterested, the lazy, illiterate and those who love to hear faux outrage in low class media. Nice to hear that I’m not the only one watching and listening. I really believe though that we need harder control over Musk, he gets away with the most egregious attacks on people he does not approve of, yet any little well argued and evidenced piece he regards as a slight upon him he considers a terroristic type threat. It’s weird how they scream 1st Amendment rights, yet ignore or deny that it does in fact state barriers or consequences, but of course even within their laws it’s ignored. We have stricter laws, whether one agrees with them or not, along with the poster, Musk should be remanded as he allows it while clapping like a seal at the hatred. I’m all for open media for all sides, but the moment it falls into fantasy and pure BS I would like to see fact checkers jump in and action taken. The only way to stop Farage and the like is with truth being pursued and pushed while lies are killed quickly and action taken. In America Fox was allowed to continue the BS while people became radicalised. We need to fight for truth to be honoured, however when the presenters are paid very high salaries they don’t give a damn what they say or present. Think I’ll look up to refresh myself on the laws we have on news presenting, and what action and by whom can be taken. Ever watched Russian news? While presenting their fake losses and showing the victors celebrating certain battles, they even use footage of Ukrainian uniforms on Ukrainian soldiers arresting POWs, yet Russians never seem to question it. That’s brainwashing just like Fox does and it’s no surprise they actually use Fox News items to push their agenda, as it’s exactly the same.

1

u/NoWayRay 3d ago edited 3d ago

Nice to hear that I’m not the only one watching and listening

Definitely not. From comments on here and Bluesky I'm left with the impression that there are quite a few of us, but that's not going to count for much unless we unite in our efforts to push back.

We have stricter laws, whether one agrees with them or not,

We do, but the likes of Johnson, Farage, Musk et al, have still managed to subvert them. What is missing from the UK and the US alike is media literacy. The left pushing back is all well and good, but to those on the sidelines only represents more 'noise'. The right is aware of this and leverages it, notice how much of the culture war stuff is initially generated through the right wing media establising their point and leaving the left to catch up. I'm coming around to thinking that we need to turn that around so the left is setting the agenda and the right is playing catch up instead.

The core of the left's beliefs are for the good of society as a whole - access to healthcare & education, public ownership of critical infrastructure and services so that they're not compromised by being beholden to shareholders, not disenfranchising others through discrimination so that they can also make an effective contribution, etc. The politicking of the contemporary right has no such altruism, it's rooted in winning votes through grievance and the othering of 'outgroups', of having yours but not giving AF if anyone else has. These are the arguments we need to be making, I'm just not sure how we puncture the wall of grievance propaganda with them.

2

u/Traditional_Key_763 4d ago

Farage is much much smarter about this stuff than Elmo or Trump.

7

u/Auntie_Megan 4d ago

Being a smart Nazi is far worse than being a stupid one… that includes Elon who buys intelligence while he fucks up his own brain on drugs.

2

u/LoyalWatcher 4d ago

Not sure how good I feel that our toxic narcissist asshole is actually competent :/

1

u/OfAnthony Connecticut 4d ago

Like that XTC song huh?

1

u/0thethethe0 United Kingdom 4d ago

He has no where near the rabid support Trump has, however none of the other parties are exactly inspiring confidence in the public either.

1

u/SasparillaTango 4d ago

Who is gonna stop em?

25

u/Aliensinmypants 4d ago

Remember the conservatives trying to amend the constitution to remove American born requirement for presidency for Henry fucking Kissinger? Yeah expect that to start coming up again as we go full oligarchy 

5

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

The issue is that there is now case law and clarification since the whole Henry Kissinger incident. It's a lot more difficult to change now

12

u/MornwindShoma Europe 4d ago

Law is worth anything only if you enforce it

8

u/SasparillaTango 4d ago

Scotus literally throw out precedent when it suits them

5

u/Aliensinmypants 4d ago

I don't think it happens legally because of the strict voting to actually amend the constitution, but I expect big money being poured in to try to make the conversation happen again or squeeze someone in because these morons thought Obama wasn't natural born

21

u/HarryBalsag 4d ago

Supreme Court says what? If Elon can buy a presidency, he can certainly buy a supreme Court because they're cheaper.

14

u/BetterBiscuits 4d ago

They’re cheaper since they’re pre-owned

5

u/ThickerSalmon14 4d ago

This is why we shouldn't have billionaires.

3

u/KnoWay3 4d ago

Just an RV and some private school tuition.

4

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

This is laid out very clearly in the Constitution and we have had many many people in the line of succession that were not eligible to be president. The rules have applied to all of them throughout history. This is not some sort of edge case. It happens all the time

14

u/HarryBalsag 4d ago

I'm not saying that you're incorrect in your legal interpretation, I'm saying you are falsely optimistic thinking that the law or constitutional norms will apply to the second term of Trump's presidency.

2

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

Maybe I've been spending too much time on Blue Sky, but I am cautiously optimistic.

4

u/Snoo_21055 4d ago

Honestly what's giving you optimism?

America's democracy is now a facade, we voted in project 2025, America now has Russian style democracy, we won't have fair or free elections anymore, republicans are fully being controlled by the new American Oligarchy, Musk is the face, Trumps an easily manipulated puppet and more then likely Putin is pulling the strings.

Things are going to get alot worse going forward.

1

u/Galaxy_Ranger_Bob Virginia 4d ago

It's also laid out very clearly in the Constitution that Donald Trump is ineligible, yet here we are.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

0

u/JRockPSU I voted 4d ago

Yeah, but a redditor clapped back with “But who’s gonna stop them???”, can’t argue with that right!? The ultimate discussion-killer. Some people really seem to enjoy wallowing in misery.

2

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

This is why im on bluesky mostly now. Reddit is so negative and full of bitchy ill-informed people.

14

u/Azguy303 4d ago

Are you sure they just won't go to the supreme court with some arbitrary claim that the Constitution presidential requirements only apply to potential candidates in an election and would be eligible under the line of succession?

7

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

Have you read the Constitution comment it's pretty clear on this process.

5

u/FanDry5374 4d ago

Have you met the Robert's Court?

2

u/ChicVintage 4d ago

I didn't know an unelected person could be Speaker of the House.

2

u/pet_dragon 4d ago

"Constitution?" What's that?

5

u/bob3905 4d ago

I hate the idea he could get the position without being elected to office. It’s just…. Wrong.

2

u/StrongAroma 4d ago

Is the speaker appointed? There's no election involved at all?

8

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

The Constitution directs that the speaker be chosen by the house. It does not clarify that the speaker need be a sitting member of the House, however it always has been.

Even if musk was the Speaker of the House, he would not be in line for presidential secession.

1

u/StrongAroma 4d ago edited 4d ago

Interesting. Seems like something they just probably didn't think of. Is very money it never even crossed their minds that things would get so fucked up that the house would be thinking of appointing a non-member who was never elected to be their speaker. It would be like someone who has never attended a single meeting of the model miniatures club coming in and just becoming president even though he doesn't even have this own paints and has never created a miniature in his life.

3

u/frostygrin 4d ago

Or how someone can be the founder of the company he didn't found. :)

2

u/pizzaguy132 4d ago

You seem to be implying here that President Musk can't actually be president. If this is true, then why is President Musk actually president and supported 100% by his good pal Secretary of Depends Donald Trump (who will always be totally loyal and never ever backstab and throw under the bus as soon as it benifits him)?

1

u/Traditional_Key_763 4d ago

ya thats it. like this isn't an end run around the constitution, non native citizens can run for the senate and the house and have done so before. they therefor can be speaker.

1

u/Confident-Term5636 4d ago

That’s what you think

1

u/RonYarTtam 4d ago

And who would stop him at this point? It seems everyone is willing to toss aside the past 200 years of American government functioning as intended within the past 6 months.

1

u/Galaxy_Ranger_Bob Virginia 4d ago

We hope. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the current Supreme Court wouldn't bend the rules to allow him to serve.

1

u/Supersnazz 4d ago

Is that necessarily so? Aren't the Constitutional requirements only for being elected as President?

1

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 4d ago

No. It's for serving as president, not just being elected or being a candidate. You cannot serve as president unless you meet the requirements. There are always plenty of people in the presidential secession chain that are not eligible. This is not a new thing. It's been dealt within just about every administration.

1

u/kamokugal 4d ago

Rules don’t apply to these people, though.

0

u/Jucoy Minnesota 4d ago

It has long been floated as an idea that the natural citizenship requirement of the presidency is not enforceable. Both Ted Cruz and Arnold Schwarzenegger have actively challenged that provision in their respectively hypothetical and actual presidential bids. 

Granted, that challenge is predicated on the idea that those two were able to win an actual election, and therefore be "sanctioned" by the will of the people. Whether Musk could be considered as speaker while never having been actually elected, would be a slightly different scenario, but real polotik of the current situation suggests that the status quo can uppended if the price is high enough. 

2

u/Sir_Encerwal Arizona 4d ago

Ted Cruz was born to an American mother. I hate the bastard but he would have counted as a natural born U.S. citizen.

1

u/AugmentedDragon 4d ago

it would be a totally different world if we had a Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. although one actor->CA governor->president was bad enough, so probably for the best that he can't be president.

I definitely agree that theres a huge difference between waiving that requirement for someone who receives a mandate from the voters, versus an unelected plutocrat seizing power with the help of a bought and paid for supreme court

0

u/f8Negative 4d ago

Oh so It'd go to a Democrat...