• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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.

      • seathru@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 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.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 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.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 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.