• @disguy_ovahea
    link
    12 months ago

    Why are people continuing to say this? The VP has no say over POTUS. They are the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and count the electoral ballots in an election. That’s it.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        -4
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It was a liability when the President was 81. I’m not so sure we should be focusing on vetting the VP for POTUS otherwise.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          122 months ago

          IMO we should always be vetting the VP for POTUS. Seems silly not to. Old age isn’t the only risk.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            -12 months ago

            As a backup, sure, but not a likely candidate. They are typically appointed to balance out the ticket. The more left Harris brings her platform, the more likely her nomination will be to her right.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              52 months ago

              If you think the VP’s positions on things should be irrelevant to the left because Harris isn’t going to die, why would their positions be any comfort to the right as a balance to the ticket? Either they’re irrelevant and no one should care, or they aren’t and anyone caring is doing so for good reason.

              And this is all indulging in the fantasy that vice presidents aren’t likely future presidential candidates.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          72 months ago

          If the next president is a black woman, her life will constantly be in danger from the Trump cultists or other far right extremists. Or she could have an aneurysm randomly one day. People die all the time from a wide variety of causes that aren’t old age.

          The choice of VP is always important.