The Peaceful Political Roundtable

grimtraveller said:
Are vice-presidents important to you guys ? Over here in the UK, only once in my lifetime has the deputy taken over when the PM has quit or been ousted and that was in 1976 when "Ah-aaaaahhhhh Mr Wilson...." {George's 2nd best song on Revolver} resigned. Most of the time the population here hasn't a clue who the deputy is. I remember John Major's dep in '92, I vaguely remember Liz Truss' dep in '22 {because she was a woman I'd never heard of} but when Boris Johnson was close to death during Covid 2020, his dep was Dominic Raab. I'd known of "Dick & Dom" for some years, but I didn't know he was the deputy. He only stepped in until Boris was back.
With LBJ and Gerry Ford, it seems to have been, at least in the past, much more historically relevant. But is it really important to you ? Is the running mate a deal breaker for you ?
Click to expand...

Both presidential candidates are old, at or exceeding life expectancy. The president dies, VP becomes commander in chief.

FDR died in office. VP Truman became President. The first use of a nuclear weapon was approved/ordered by Truman. Would FDR have done the same and approved of the decision himself, we will never know.

Are vice presidents important? Maybe, maybe not.
 
grimtraveller said:
Are vice-presidents important to you guys ? Over here in the UK, only once in my lifetime has the deputy taken over when the PM has quit or been ousted and that was in 1976 when "Ah-aaaaahhhhh Mr Wilson...." {George's 2nd best song on Revolver} resigned. Most of the time the population here hasn't a clue who the deputy is. I remember John Major's dep in '92, I vaguely remember Liz Truss' dep in '22 {because she was a woman I'd never heard of} but when Boris Johnson was close to death during Covid 2020, his dep was Dominic Raab. I'd known of "Dick & Dom" for some years, but I didn't know he was the deputy. He only stepped in until Boris was back.
With LBJ and Gerry Ford, it seems to have been, at least in the past, much more historically relevant. But is it really important to you ? Is the running mate a deal breaker for you ?
Click to expand...
I think it's important to understand the VP, who that person is, how they act.
 
grimtraveller said:
Michael, you impugned half the population of your country because you don't agree with their view of your president. And that half of the population are represented here. When you talk about competency to do the job and put it in the terms you did, you, by extension, extend that to anyone who votes for said president.
And in fairness, I called both you and Buddah for more or less the same attitude.
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe so, same attitude. I posted 1 vid illustrating Biden cannot recall fairly recent events, timeframe for the pandemic, context of when he served as VP. Objective sense wondered aloud how anyone could see what is clearly a cognitive problem and not come to the conclusion he is not fit to serve....not because I say so, but because Biden demonstrates it.

But I'll concede the point for the sake of civility and harmony...roundtable discussion.
 
grimtraveller said:
Are vice-presidents important to you guys ? But is it really important to you ? Is the running mate a deal breaker for you ?
Click to expand...
Deal breaker no unless the choice is really terrible. You gotta remember that the Veep is a heartbeat away from finishing the term of the person elected whether that is 3 years and 11 months or 11 days. We don't call for elections. They are scheduled for every 4 years and the term is set in stone no matter who finishes it.
 
Last edited:
Mick Doobie said:
Both presidential candidates are old, at or exceeding life expectancy
Click to expand...
In my voting life {starting 1983} this country has never had to face two geriatric candidates vying for election glory. Funnily enough, in '83, the Labour Party leader was Michael Foot who was a month away from being 70. He'd been an energizing figure but by the time he was trying to be PM, he was frail and Labour lost in a landslide that enabled Margaret Thatcher to become unassailable for the next 6 years. We don't do 'old' in the UK.
Mick Doobie said:
The president dies, VP becomes commander in chief
Click to expand...
Do you genuinely feel that the president or their challenger would not make a sensible choice as to their deputy ? Or, for that matter, that that VP choice wouldn't be aware of what they will be stepping into ?
Mick Doobie said:
FDR died in office. VP Truman became President. The first use of a nuclear weapon was approved/ordered by Truman. Would FDR have done the same and approved of the decision himself, we will never know.

Are vice presidents important? Maybe, maybe not
Click to expand...
Is it important to you, Mick ? I'm not sure it would be to me.
 
grimtraveller said:
Over here in the UK, only once in my lifetime has the deputy taken over when the PM has quit or been ousted and that was in 1976 when "Ah-aaaaahhhhh Mr Wilson...." resigned
Click to expand...
Actually, James Callaghan wasn't the deputy. Some high-ranking labour politicians ran against each other and he won.
 
Grim said:
Do you genuinely feel that the president or their challenger would not make a sensible choice as to their deputy ? Or, for that matter, that that VP choice wouldn't be aware of what they will be stepping into ?
Click to expand...

I think more often than not it has less to do with a sensible choice as a deputy than filling the ticket to attract voters. That simple.

Grim said:
Is it important to you, Mick ? I'm not sure it would be to me.
Click to expand...

Typically, no, not really. It can be symbolic or perceived as an indicator of judgement, the pres candidate. Perhaps domestic priorities as pres. However, when you have two geriatric candidates one must consider the possibility of either VP moving from the mere symbolic to finger on the button.

I'll keep it respectful and not point any fingers, we've had some real doozies as VP.
 
Mick Doobie said:
However, when you have two geriatric candidates one must consider the possibility of either VP moving from the mere symbolic to finger on the button
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see that. This isn't as silly a question as it may at first sight seem, but would you feel better about the election if both candidates were 15-20 years younger ? Do you feel the USA is facing the proverbial choice of two evils {for want of a better term. I don't think of either as evil} ?
 
Mick Doobie said:
I'll keep it respectful and not point any fingers, we've had some real doozies as VP
Click to expand...
Would you believe, that's how many in the UK perceived the senior George Bush back in the 80s. I think a few looked at Mike Pence that way too, although that was more guilt by association than real knowledge. We don't really get to know much about your VPs here. Joe Biden was barely a name during the Obama presidency. We heard more about people like Sarah Palin.
 
grimtraveller said:
Yeah, I can see that. This isn't as silly a question as it may at first sight seem, but would you feel better about the election if both candidates were 15-20 years younger ? Do you feel the USA is facing the proverbial choice of two evils {for want of a better term. I don't think of either as evil} ?
Click to expand...

Choice between two evils, so to speak? Sure, I guess it is, so to speak. The way I've seen it, Republicans have in the fairly recent past offered up good men who the left has absolutely trashed, with full assist from the mainstream press. The left, the mainstream press, same same, really. Really nasty stuff. The Republican candidates were above that, "that's not who we are", did little to defend themselves or engage in the rough & tumble they were receiving. Not only for themselves but for those who were counting on them. Caused frustration among supporters. Fight! No, instead they crossed the aisle, in some ways became what supporters were counting on them to fight. That's who they were. Along came someone who would get down in the dirt with the nastiness of the left. They the left were shocked, horrified. "That's not who we are!" Well, I beg to differ, that is exactly who we are, or what you have caused us to become. So it blew up to what we are seeing now, to include attempts by the left to deny the will of the people by jailing a political opponent. Election interference, you might say. You can definitely say, they're not even attempting to hide the intent. Is that who we are? Sadly, I reckon it is. The left would like nothing more than return to "normalcy", the right to offer up good men, above the fray and absolutely comfortable with losing. One might say cowards. People are f-ing tired of that game, coming out on the losing end because "that's not who we are".

That may be perhaps an oversimplification. Just giving a glimpse of perspective from this side of the pond.
 
I'm not attempting to mudsling, derail the thread, just giving my perspective on a question asked from someone a little less in the thick of it. Feel free to ignore in favor of your preferred discussion.
 
grimtraveller said:
Do you feel the USA is facing the proverbial choice of two evils {for want of a better term. I don't think of either as evil} ?
Click to expand...
For the Biden voters overwhelmingly yes. Most agree he is not a great candidate but they despise Trump. On the contrary most of the Trump voters think he is a good candidate and would be a good president (again).

I realize I am speaking for others but it feels accurate to me from my observation.
 
Sky Blue Lou said:
For the Biden voters overwhelmingly yes. Most agree he is not a great candidate but they despise Trump. On the contrary most of the Trump voters think he is a good candidate and would be a good president (again).

I realize I am speaking for others but it feels accurate to me from my observation.
Click to expand...
Agree it seems accurate. I think it’s important to point out that “despising Trump” is based on believing he’s a grifter and likely a criminal, not just because he tweets mean stuff. Some people try to reduce it to that to make it seem like he’s not liked for dumb reasons. I don’t think that’s the case. Dems, however, are shooting themselves in the foot going after him on small stuff because it does give the impression that they’re weaponizing the justice system and takes away from the seriousness of the real charges. The only court case should be the election interference charges in GA.

If Trump is guilty of orchestrating a lie about a stolen election and people still support him in spite of that, that is really showing an ugly side of this country.

Edit to add - agree Harris is not a great pick. Mad that DNC hasn’t replaced both of them.
 
Last edited:
leddy said:
I think it’s important to point out that “despising Trump” is based on believing he’s a grifter and likely a criminal, not just because he tweets mean stuff.
Click to expand...
Oh yes there are grounds for the dislike.
leddy said:
Edit to add - agree Harris is not a great pick. Mad that DNC hasn’t replaced both of them.
Click to expand...
Agreed there. I think Trump never would have gotten elected in the first place if the dem ticket had been Gabbard/Yang. They would have gotten two terms and then swapped the order for this election and won again! I would have voted for them all 3 times.
 
Mick Doobie said:
I'm not attempting to mudsling, derail the thread, just giving my perspective on a question asked from someone a little less in the thick of it. Feel free to ignore in favor of your preferred discussion.
Click to expand...
I get you. What you said was useful for me. I like to get people's honest, raw perspectives. I find them far more useful than pretending that all is well. I don't even mind raw opinions about the actions of the people we talk about. I just don't like it when participants in the conversation cross the line with each other and start name-calling.
I don't know if it's just me, but I don't mind if the right, left, centre or neutrals get angry and passionate. We're adults here. Sometimes that fuels great debate. I think it's more than possible to be passionate about your side of things, even sometimes generating, as they say, more heat than light, without it getting nasty. And from a readers point of view, it's actually a lot more entertaining.
 
grimtraveller said:
I get you. What you said was useful for me. I like to get people's honest, raw perspectives. I find them far more useful than pretending that all is well. I don't even mind raw opinions about the actions of the people we talk about. I just don't like it when participants in the conversation cross the line with each other and start name-calling.
I don't know if it's just me, but I don't mind if the right, left, centre or neutrals get angry and passionate. We're adults here. Sometimes that fuels great debate. I think it's more than possible to be passionate about your side of things, even sometimes generating, as they say, more heat than light, without it getting nasty. And from a readers point of view, it's actually a lot more entertaining.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You can call Biden or Trump or any other public figure or policy all the vile things you want. I draw the line exactly where grim says it is. Leave yer fellow debater's character out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top