Vice President

[_______]

There has been some discussion here about how the parties pick their presidential nominee. Much of it was focused on how insiders (loyal party activists) had too much control of the process.

What about Vice President? As we sit here furiously typing away, meetings are going on in Manhattan and DC where small groups of lawyers are vetting candidates that will ultimately be anointed by exactly one voter.

Given the handwringing over the alleged unfairness of how semi-private entities pick their candidates, should we be concerned that those candidates get to pick an emergency successor with no voter input?

Just asking the "process is undemocratic" crowd.

[Clocker]

Other than in the unlikely event that a president dies in office, how is the VP any different than any other cabinet post or high level adviser? Who the hail vetted, let alone elected, Rahm Emanuel or Valerie Jarrett?

[ArlJim78]

I'd like to know your position.
Should we be concerned?

[_______]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'd like to know your position.
Should we be concerned?

I don't think so.

But I wasn't beating the "unfair" drum two weeks ago when Cruz was picking up delegates thanks to the utter incompetence of Trump's organization.

[_______]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Other than in the unlikely event that a president dies in office, how is the VP any different than any other cabinet post or high level adviser? Who the hail vetted, let alone elected, Rahm Emanuel or Valerie Jarrett?

It's an elected office. It's a hybrid executive/legislative position thanks to it's constitutional position as President of the Senate. It's actually mentioned in the constitution unlike other cabinet positions.

Outside of that, it's occupant is often assumed to be heir apparent even when the President completes his term.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by _______

It's actually mentioned in the constitution unlike other cabinet positions.

There is nothing in the Constitution as to how presidential candidates are chosen. Why should the VP position be any different?

[_______]

Originally Posted by Clocker

There is nothing in the Constitution as to how presidential candidates are chosen. Why should the VP position be any different?

There is quite a bit about how the president is elected (undemocraticaly apparently since it requires the use of indirect electors in the electoral college).

I don't think I'm actually arguing with you since I never heard anything from you about how unfair the system that is about to nominate Trump was.

Obviously the nomination process developed with political parties in the 19th century and isn't mentioned in the constitution.

I'm just trolling the Trumpeters and their very narrow definition of democracy which seems to evaporate as soon as things turn toward their favored emperor.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by _______

There is quite a bit about how the president is elected (undemocraticaly apparently since it requires the use of indirect electors in the electoral college).

I don't think I'm actually arguing with you since I never heard anything from you about how unfair the system that is about to nominate Trump was.

Obviously the nomination process developed with political parties in the 19th century and isn't mentioned in the constitution.

I'm just trolling the Trumpeters and their very narrow definition of democracy which seems to evaporate as soon as things turn toward their favored emperor.

Yes, we 'Trumpsters' know absolutely nothing about everything.

Yet Democrats believed in, supported and accepted Bill Clinton despite Bubba getting impeached for committing perjury.

I remember the same Democrat trolls defending Clinton's numerous rapes and sexual assaults, and his immoral sex-abuse of a White House intern. Clinton's illegal and deviant conduct was OK to Democrats and liberals because 'Clinton was good at his job'.

Yeah, Don.... let's not have a day go by without reminding everyone on just how stupid people are for being Trump supporters.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by _______

I don't think I'm actually arguing with you since I never heard anything from you about how unfair the system that is about to nominate Trump was.

"Fair" is an opinion, like libs talking about paying a fair share of taxes. The party system is a mess, so I don't know how to make it a fair mess.

The rules are the rules and were known in advance. If you want to play the game, you have to know how to game the rules. Given his support, Trump should have done a lot better by now in delegates. I don't remember anyone else in recent elections whining about the rules. Trump seems to think that he deserves the nomination by virtue of being Trump.

[_______]

Originally Posted by reckless

Yes, we 'Trumpsters' know absolutely nothing about everything.

Yet Democrats believed in, supported and accepted Bill Clinton despite Bubba getting impeached for committing perjury.

I remember the same Democrat trolls defending Clinton's numerous rapes and sexual assaults, and his immoral sex-abuse of a White House intern. Clinton's illegal and deviant conduct was OK to Democrats and liberals because 'Clinton was good at his job'.

Yeah, Don.... let's not have a day go by without reminding everyone on just how stupid people are for being Trump supporters.

I'm not going to defend the Clinton's. But I'm also not going to get derailed by distractions that ignore the discussion.

I haven't called anyone stupid. I've implied they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

You were one of the primary people screaming about how undemocratic the nomination process was (before New York when the conversation suddenly ended). Do you want to defend the way a single person (or very small group) gets to choose a constitutional officer or were your complaints before New York entirely conditional on the results being not what you wanted?

[_______]

Originally Posted by Clocker

"Fair" is an opinion, like libs talking about paying a fair share of taxes. The party system is a mess, so I don't know how to make it a fair mess.

The rules are the rules and were known in advance. If you want to play the game, you have to know how to game the rules. Given his support, Trump should have done a lot better by now in delegates. I don't remember anyone else in recent elections whining about the rules. Trump seems to think that he deserves the nomination by virtue of being Trump.

I don't think we disagree at all on the subject. I just think it's funny that two weeks ago this place was littered with posts about how unfair the system was and today you can't find anyone who disagrees that Hillary or Donald should get to pick the person next in line with absolutely no voter input.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by _______

There is quite a bit about how the president is elected (undemocraticaly apparently since it requires the use of indirect electors in the electoral college).

The founders did not trust the democratic process. That is why they instituted the electoral system, and why Senators were not originally elected by popular vote. Ah, the good old days.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by _______

I'm just trolling the Trumpeters and their very narrow definition of democracy which seems to evaporate as soon as things turn toward their favored emperor.

The losers complain and the winners say deal the cards.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by _______

I'm not going to defend the Clinton's. But I'm also not going to get derailed by distractions that ignore the discussion.

I haven't called anyone stupid. I've implied they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

You were one of the primary people screaming about how undemocratic the nomination process was (before New York when the conversation suddenly ended). Do you want to defend the way a single person (or very small group) gets to choose a constitutional officer or were your complaints before New York entirely conditional on the results being not what you wanted?

I really can't recall specifically what you mean about what I did pertaining to complaints before New York. I do know that I 'defended' Trump's candidacy, reasons for his successes, etc., right up to the last post I sent yesterday, way more convincing, more cogent, more correct and more consistent than what many of the anti-Trump people said when they were attacking him daily.

I never used the term unfair, but I did say if the GOP played procedural games (like rule changes made at the convention to stop Trump) then all hell will break loose. Other than that, if you can be more specific, then I will reply to that more specifically.

Calling Trump a clown, making fun of his hair, or simply saying he is in it just to do another TV show or write a book, doesn't give anyone any credibility in the political discussion department. And there were many of those kind of attacks coming from the other side on here.

BUT, now that Trump is on his way now to the GOP nomination, the attacks have been targeted at his followers and supporters: first calling us racists, zenophobes, nativists... and now calling us stupid, narcissists and whiners.

[fast4522]

Vice President: from thread beginning.

At this point I see him possibly tapping Chris Christie for VP. I could be wrong but I think they actually like each other, and have done the dinner thing several times and the wives get along. I do not see the upside but think Donald J.Trump is more shrewd than he is credited for. All the other crap talked about here is just that, crap. I have no doubt that he loves his country and his family, and is in no way shape or form a commie.