Show world vs Real world: Probable Procedures and Processes

[j5cochran]

On 10/10/2016 at 10:20 AM, Raja said:

The line of succession follows the order that a department was added to the cabinet. so one of the politically hottest departments in the show situation of an successful terrorist attack, the Homeland Security Secretary is last at number 18. After the elected officers, Vice President, Speaker of the House and President of the Senate you have the  departments created when the union came together 

4. Secretary of State, foreign affairs in most nation's systems.

5. Secretary of Treasury

6. Secretary of Defense, which started out as Secretary of War

7. Attorney General

8- 17 and then all those cabinet positions that libertarians don't even think should be a federal governm ent responsibility

If you will allow me to be a trifle pedantic (I'm really good at pedantic!), third in the line of succession is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.  The President of the Senate is the Vice President -- Joe Biden is the current President of the Senate.  The President Pro Tem is generally the most senior senator of the majority party -- the current President Pro Tem is Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.

[Raja]

3 hours ago, TV Anonymous said:

Presidential succession question, if in this case Kirkman resigns, who will ascend to the Presidency? The assumption is that he still does not have a Vice-President, no Cabinet Secretary and the U.S. Congress consists only of two people, none of them in leadership position. Will it be one of the two Congresspersons or the Deputy Secretary of State?

I would guess the senior General would hold the nuclear football until the states send up Senators and they can vote in a pro tempore President until the next elections

edit to add:

On the show most likely some guy like that senior Senator brought out of retirement who was next in line for his party but didn't make the cut for President. Like Vice President Mondale, Senators Dole, McCain...

Edited December 11, 2016 by Raja

[Danielg342]

There is a Speaker, Hookstraten. I'm thinking she'd be next in the line of succession until MacLeish becomes VP.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

There is a Speaker, Hookstraten. I'm thinking she'd be next in the line of succession until MacLeish becomes VP.

Since the OP came in a thread the episode before the new House was seated the question becomes is she Speaker without a House to elect her Speaker or an acting Speaker much like The General and Admiral took over from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when he fell in the terrorist attack or more properly like a civil servant or deputy takes over the cabinet positions while waiting for the Senate to confirm the new nominees?

[TV Anonymous]

Yes, my question is related to episode 6, when the President was confronted by the Governors. If the Governors do not like him, and he resigns under that pressure, who will be the President? Hookstraten and MacLeish are both not in leadership at that point and there is no House yet except for those two. Will they both required to have a "Speaker" between the both of them, and he / she becomes the President or will it automatically goes down to the Deputy Secretary of State?

PS: It is quite strange that there is a Designated Survivor for the House but not for the Senate. 

[OtterMommy]

14 hours ago, TV Anonymous said:

PS: It is quite strange that there is a Designated Survivor for the House but not for the Senate. 

It's also unrealistic.  There is always a DS for President, House, Senate, and (I think) Supreme Court.

[marinw]

There have been notices by the Mods about not talking too much about recent Real World US Politics, which is difficult to do when discussing a show about US Politics. So I will try to use my words carefully. Designated poses the *cough* timely question of what makes a person qualified to be the POTUS. Experience? Education? Charisma? Temperment? Wisdom? Negotiating skills? Intelligence? Compassion? Courage? Instinct? Some combination of those and other things?.

Tom is smart, has a moral compass, is clearly compassionate, and has some (if not enough or the right kind) of government experience. He is always overwhelmed but mostly calm. He is biggest flaws so far is that he's a bit of a pushover, unsure of himself and is seen as weak. And his negotiating chops need some more work. Those are flaws he is learning to correct. Seeing as Kiefer is the star of the show, I'm going to assume he survives the shooting and can further work on being the good POTUS he wants to be. 

I admit that I am hugely biased towards all thing Kiefer, but he is doing some really nice acting here. He is a hugely charasmatic  presence, yet in this role he managing to stay a little more low-key.Hope he gets recognized at Emmy time.

Edited January 3, 2017 by marinw
Forum keep eating my corrections.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, marinw said:

...Designated poses the *cough* timely question of what makes a person qualified to be the POTUS. Experience? Education? Charisma? Temperment? Wisdom? Negotiating skills? Intelligence? Compassion? Courage? Instinct? Some combination of those and other things?.

Tom is smart, has a moral compass, is clearly compassionate, and has some (if not enough or the right kind) of government experience. He is always overwhelmed but mostly calm. He is biggest flaws so far is that he's a bit of a pushover, unsure of himself and is seen as weak. And his negotiating chops need some more work. Those are flaws he is learning to correct. Seeing as Kiefer is the star of the show, I'm going to assume he survives the shooting and can further work on being the good POTUS he wants to be....

Lately I've been dwelling on the fact that my level-headed daughter needs to have a psychological evaluation to be an emergency telephone operator, but the POTUS doesn't need a psych eval to launch nuclear weapons. I would love to see this issue brought up on the show. Maybe next season?

Edited January 3, 2017 by shapeshifter

[marinw]

1 minute ago, shapeshifter said:

...but the POTUS doesn't need a psych eval to launch nuclear weapons. I would love to see this issue brought up on the show. Maybe next season?

Or this season please! Perhaps I am asking too much of a somewhat silly but entertaining show. The frustrating thing is that Designated is posing the super-important question of what makes a person fit to be POTUS at this particular time, yet this show is not a huge critical or ratings success for a variety of reasons.

[OtterMommy]

11 minutes ago, marinw said:

Or this season please! Perhaps I am asking too much of a somewhat silly but entertaining show. The frustrating thing is that Designated is posing the super-important question of what makes a person fit to be POTUS at this particular time, yet this show is not a huge critical or ratings success for a variety of reasons.

To be fair to the show, most (if not all) of what we've seen with this show was filmed before November 8th.  It will be interesting to see how things change with the second half of the season, all of which will be filmed knowing what the current political situation is.

[marinw]

3 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

To be fair to the show, most (if not all) of what we've seen with this show was filmed before November 8th.  It will be interesting to see how things change with the second half of the season, all of which will be filmed knowing what the current political situation is.

A good point @OtterMommy. But  now those episodes look weirdly prescient.

Maybe that's why we have to wait until March 8. Perhaps the new Showrunner wants to reshoot some things. Or the sniper can reshoot a different victim...

[Raja]

14 hours ago, marinw said:

Or this season please! Perhaps I am asking too much of a somewhat silly but entertaining show. The frustrating thing is that Designated is posing the super-important question of what makes a person fit to be POTUS at this particular time, yet this show is not a huge critical or ratings success for a variety of reasons.

The "fitness" basically coming down to he did not stand for national election, or any election himself. And was just a cabinet secretary on the way to being forced to resign when the conspiracy struck leaving him as the President. We have only come close with President Ford being a locally elected congressman when Spiro Agnew resigned and then President Nixon soon after that resigning.

[Danielg342]

I'm not sure if Kirkman ever actually was elected...I don't recall the show ever mentioning that he was a Congressman.

Which makes me think a plotline where Kirkman is usurped and must fight an election to regain his post would be a great idea.

[OtterMommy]

3 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I'm not sure if Kirkman ever actually was elected...I don't recall the show ever mentioning that he was a Congressman.

Which makes me think a plotline where Kirkman is usurped and must fight an election to regain his post would be a great idea.

He wasn't.  In fact the show has made a point that he was not ever a politician, but an academic.

[Dowel Jones]

Now that today is done, I'm just going to throw this out there.  Designated Survivor - Ben Carson.

[marinw]

4 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

Now that today is done, I'm just going to throw this out there.  Designated Survivor - Ben Carson.

I thought of that too! Dr. Carson will be POTUS after all.

[shapeshifter]

Now I'm thinking of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica with the Education Secretary becoming president, and realizing who that would be today. So not Laura Roslynn/Mary Mcdonnell. gah!

[OtterMommy]

19 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

Now that today is done, I'm just going to throw this out there.  Designated Survivor - Ben Carson.

Most boring show (??) ever.

[jhlipton]

On 1/21/2017 at 2:49 AM, Dowel Jones said:

Now that today is done, I'm just going to throw this out there.  Designated Survivor - Ben Carson.

On 1/21/2017 at 10:44 PM, OtterMommy said:

Most boring show (??) ever.

"The Senate chambers were made for storing wheat.  Historians may disagree, but historians have been wrong before!"

[marinw]

So of cource I am now thinking of the time Kirkman banned all immigration when he capitulated to the nacent Congress. So I suppose that was totally not Constitutional? Current Reality suggests not.

Edited February 6, 2017 by marinw

[Moose135]

I don't know if banning all immigration is OK, but targeting specific groups/regions without adequate evidence of a security risk is an issue.

[KaveDweller]

I think if literally the entire government was killed by terrorists, the public would be more open to a president banning immigration.

[jhlipton]

Banning all immigration isn't a problem, because it doesn't treat any group (nation, religion, gender, etc) different from any other.   

[Raja]

So not one FBI Law Enforcement Agent questions an illegal kill order

[jhlipton]

11 hours ago, Raja said:

So not one FBI Law Enforcement Agent questions an illegal kill order

PLOT!!!!!

[Tabasco Cat]

On 3/10/2017 at 9:04 AM, Raja said:

So not one FBI Law Enforcement Agent questions an illegal kill order

Those days are over. People in all walks of life these days do what the boss says because they'll get fired otherwise.

[OtterMommy]

From the 1.14 thread: 

Quote

 

 16 HOURS AGO, THUGANOMICS85 SAID:

 Looks like he's sticking around, since he's being made Secretary of State, which I guess a former President is able to do.

 

Quote

It hasn't been done in awhile, but Warren Harding nominated one of his predecessors,  William H. Taft, as Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, after his term as President.

I'm really not sure if it is legit to nominate a former President as Secretary of State, as the Secretary of State is in the line of succession (unlike a SCOTUS justice).  This could be one of those "it hasn't happened so we hadn't thought about it" sort of cases, but if the former President already served 2 full terms and then became Secretary of State and then something happened that took out the President, VP, Senate President, and Speaker of the House, would the former 2-term Pres/Secretary of State be Constitutionally allowed to be President?

ETA: I just noticed that you can be a naturalized citizen and still hold a Cabinet seat, even though you would be ineligible for the Presidency if it came to that (this is the case with Elaine Chao).  So, I'm guess that a former President CAN be appointed to a Cabinet position and then, if the worst happens, he's skipped over in the line of succession.

[scarynikki12]

No.  What would happen is that he would be skipped over for the next person in line (Treasury).  In real life Madeline Albright served as Secretary of State and, had there been a succession crisis/situation, she'd have been passed over automatically as she was born in Czechoslovakia.  Same would be true if a former 2-term President agreed to serve in the Cabinet. 

The modern tradition is that former presidents automatically retire from public service after they leave office, usually to write books or personal passion projects, but there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from seeking a different office.  In addition to Taft, we have John Quincy Adams (US Representative), and Andrew Johnson (Senator).  It doesn't happen often (and not in almost a century in real life) but there's some precedent for it.

[paigow]

Barack Obama could be the next Mayor of Chicago......or Honolulu

[Danielg342]

Cornelius Moss only served one term. So he could serve as President again if need be.

[Raja]

6 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Cornelius Moss only served one term. So he could serve as President again if need be.

I didn't catch that so he is a mix of Presidents H.W, Bush and Carter?

[paigow]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

I didn't catch that so he is a mix of Presidents H.W, Bush and Carter?

And he is a widower...so see what happens with State Dept interns....

[Danielg342]

6 hours ago, Raja said:

I didn't catch that so he is a mix of Presidents H.W, Bush and Carter?

Not quite. Moss didn't run for a second term- he didn't lose like George Sr. or Jimmy Carter.

[misstwpherecool]

Instead of political subtext quite blatant at times and 'just by coincidence' really  close to reality (ok now)  the show should focus on procedures and processes. At times it quite literally should be like the cartoon ' I'm a bill on capital hill ' What does it take? To pass a bill, to make a deal etc.

But using hot button issues which they note and use in the show they use in the show. And using  them will alienate viewers just as they can alienate voters. Hello, lesson to be learned from real life especially since both politicians and producers need people to support their product.

' a bill on capital hill........

[shapeshifter]

12 HOURS AGO, NETFOOT SAID:

It obviously isn't easy to decapitate a superpower state so completely as has been depicted in this series. It's taken a lot of work by a lot of people using considerable influence in total secrecy. They even had to redesign part of the Capitol so MacLeish would survive.

And why have they done it?

Decapitation is usually the prelude to a coup. You destroy the government, and while the country is in shock and also leaderless, you step in to fill the void, seize control of the military, declare yourself King... or what ever the plan calls for. Except... in this case, the decapitation appears to be a prelude to nothing! The government having successfully been destroyed, the conspirators sit back and allow a new one to be formed. After they go to so much trouble to save MacLeish from the blast, they leave the Designated Survivor alive to backwater MacLeish into a position of little or no consequence. Having killed hundreds (thousands?) to further their ends, they let one loose-lipped co-conspirator wander about threatening to blab until MacLeish himself has to go out in the dark to deal with him. And when it turns to crap, they quickly kill MacLeish whose safety they earlier went to so much trouble to preserve? And now, they are walking around Smalltown, Montana (?) brandishing their Madman Manifestos and roasting bayonet-skewered marshmallows over open flames? (They can afford a helicopter, but they can't afford half a dozen torchlights?)

Why did they bother to kill off the original administration in the first place, if they are doing nothing to take advantage of the power-vacuum? 

And why is a country that has been the subject of such a serious attack -- perhaps the worst such attack in the history of the world? So keenly focused on trivia? Gun control? Are you kidding me? At a time like this, WGAF? There would be some serious economic fallout to be dealt with, because you know the markets would have crashed, right? The entire FBI would be working on nothing else, not just one Special Agent and her emotionally damaged buddy. 

I keep watching the show for something realistic to happen, or at least for KS (or anyone) to put on an enjoyable performance. And yes, I get it: Kirkman was out of his depth, and gets pushed around by the familiar hands. But TPTB don'tget it: after 15 episodes, he's not stillsupposed to be out of his depth. 

To quote Pam Poovy: His ballsare made of pussy!

There are five episodes remaining in this series, and as far as I know, they are nowhere near renewal. Probably because despite the presence of actors like Sutherland, Yoba, Q (stupid affectation, BTW), McElhone, Penn, Diamond, etc., this show is crap!And I don't see there being much chance of a turn-around in five episodes. Rather, the resurfacing of Catalan tells me they've lost the plot. 

I'm probably going to stick with it until the end of the season, simply because there is SFA else to watch on a Wednesday. But I very much doubt this insipid pile of daytime-soap level of scriptwriting will pull me in for a second season. Presupposing they even geta second season, which, if they do will be in large part due to the quality of the actors moreso than the quality of the actingor the scripts.

That about covers it. Did TPTB not even have an outline for the season? And I do mean an outline—not a list of disjointed possible episode plots. There's only so much good actors can do with a scattered story. Oh well, I guess the show actually does mirror what D.C. has come to.

[shapeshifter]

2 HOURS AGO, PAIGOW SAID:

Except that front line teaching is not the same as Cabinet...that is a false relationship to extrapolate. Ironically, more shows seem to be built around male high school teachers than females...from Kotterto Walter White.

And there's the often-shown on TV movie, To Sir With Love. So I guess failure of the Bechdel Test on TV competes with depictions of female stereotypes.
And I kind of feel sorry for writers of network political dramas right now. I mean, is there even a stereotype to avoid or a typical politician to depict anymore? What's "normal" now? —Rhetorical question only.
I was enjoying Keifer's soft-spoken, soft-hearted POTUS in contrast to the ranting I hear on the news, but then giving her the Education Secretary job was like a dash of cold water in my face. Maybe the writers were trying to say that the current goings on would be just fine if we could mute the TV news and have Keifer read the captions.

[Danielg342]

So I had a thought after watching "Bombshell".

I'm thinking that President Kirkman lying to the American people about the role of Al-Sakr in the Capitol Bombing would be an egregious offence, perhaps something permanently damaging to his Presidency. In real life, I'm thinking that Congress would want a full investigation on whether or not Abe Leonard's story is true, leading to intense questioning of the administration and the President, perhaps even leading to the impeachment of Kirkman.

I mean, Kirkman's legacy is defined by how he would handle the biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history and the fact that he mucked it up would be fatal for him, I think. No way the American people trust him ever again.

Then I got to thinking that Kirkman's done several other questionable things this year- such as arresting the Michigan Governor, stopping all immigration, not vetting Peter McLeish properly, supporting Kimble Hookstraten after Congress found her committing an ethic violation, and committing only a handful of FBI agents to investigate the Capitol Bombing even when he knew the Conspiracy was much bigger.

In addition to many pundits saying he's "in way over his head and doesn't know what he's doing."

So, given this, I must ask:

If everything that happened on the show happened in real life, and we're removed from how the show framed those events, would Kirkman's job be safe? Would he actually face impeachment, or at the very least, be soundly voted out of office?

Remember, Kirkman's an independent, which means neither party would particularly care about throwing him under the bus. In fact, they might want to so they can better get "their guy" in charge.

Thoughts?

[Roseanna]

On ‎11‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 9:35 PM, Danielg342 said:

So I had a thought after watching "Bombshell".

I'm thinking that President Kirkman lying to the American people about the role of Al-Sakr in the Capitol Bombing would be an egregious offence, perhaps something permanently damaging to his Presidency. In real life, I'm thinking that Congress would want a full investigation on whether or not Abe Leonard's story is true, leading to intense questioning of the administration and the President, perhaps even leading to the impeachment of Kirkman.

I mean, Kirkman's legacy is defined by how he would handle the biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history and the fact that he mucked it up would be fatal for him, I think. No way the American people trust him ever again.

Then I got to thinking that Kirkman's done several other questionable things this year- such as arresting the Michigan Governor, stopping all immigration, not vetting Peter McLeish properly, supporting Kimble Hookstraten after Congress found her committing an ethic violation, and committing only a handful of FBI agents to investigate the Capitol Bombing even when he knew the Conspiracy was much bigger.

In addition to many pundits saying he's "in way over his head and doesn't know what he's doing."

So, given this, I must ask:

If everything that happened on the show happened in real life, and we're removed from how the show framed those events, would Kirkman's job be safe? Would he actually face impeachment, or at the very least, be soundly voted out of office?

Remember, Kirkman's an independent, which means neither party would particularly care about throwing him under the bus. In fact, they might want to so they can better get "their guy" in charge.

Thoughts?

I agree about your analysis of Kirkman's as a POTUS: he is clearly incompetent for the job,

But doesn't impeachment demand much more: a crime, lying under the oath, preventing the investigation? As I see it, he is guilty only making bad decisions out of sheer stupidity, naivite and inexperience: trusting MacLeish simply because he liked that he supported him fully unlike Kimble and trusting others too little by keeping Alex, Emily and Aaron out from the investigation, instead of recruiting them to find out the mole inside the White House.

Of course, if he was really a man of strong ethics he is supposed to be, he would realize his incompetence and resignate himself once the new Vice President competent enough to become the POTUS was elected.    

[Danielg342]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

But doesn't impeachment demand much more: a crime, lying under the oath, preventing the investigation?

Technically, yes. However, impeachment is a political act, and if Kirkman's approval ratings were as terrible as they should be, I would bet my bottom dollar that the two parties would twist words and bend definitions to justify impeachment, and I could see the public perhaps reluctantly going along with it to get rid of a terrible President.

Of course, it would all depend on how long Kirkman has left on his term, and if he doesn't bow to calls that he resign (as he would probably face, you're right). Only then would impeachment proceedings begin.

[Roseanna]

On ‎23‎.‎9‎.‎2016 at 10:38 PM, orza said:

Well, it is an emergency. The country can't be without a president and swearing him in makes it official and gives him the power to make decisions and take action.

It's wasn't the same thing. The Vice President becomes the President in the same moment the President dies. Swearing in is a custom, but it doesn't make him President. (I learned that from Manchester's book.)

Edited May 26, 2017 by Roseanna
left out the passage that had already been dealt

[Roseanna]

On ‎11‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 9:35 PM, Danielg342 said:

I mean, Kirkman's legacy is defined by how he would handle the biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history and the fact that he mucked it up would be fatal for him, I think. 

Yes, but actually Kirkman surviving politically is dramatically not the same as handling the crisis well. 

For the drama, a protagonists must make tough desicions, not between good and bad, but between bad and bad or god and good.  F.ex. Kirkman must decide whether he will save his position or his country, his family or his country, his conscience or his his country.

 As Kirkman isn't a ambitious politican, it wouldn't be difficult to him to sacrifice his position as the POTUS. But the other two alternatives would make good plots.