Consider for a moment...
If, God forbid, anything were to happen to the President, who, based on last night's performance, would you rather see step in to the White House? Vance or Walz?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
trollslayer · 46-50, M
I have never voted based upon who would be better to step in as VP, but I did not vote for McCain specifically because I felt Sarah Palin was incapable.
I find both Walz and Vance capable, so this will not be part of my criteria.
However - I don't view Trump as capable in the first place, so if he wins, I have no problem with him croaking and Vance taking over.
I still want to believe Vance is better than the person he portrays these days.
I find both Walz and Vance capable, so this will not be part of my criteria.
However - I don't view Trump as capable in the first place, so if he wins, I have no problem with him croaking and Vance taking over.
I still want to believe Vance is better than the person he portrays these days.
daydeeo · 61-69, M
@trollslayer You contradict yourself in your first paragraph.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@daydeeo not really. It was the opposite in this case. It was not about who I thought would be better; it was that one instance where I felt one was unqualified. I wasn’t choosing the “better” one, because this was a one-horse race. Only twice in my few decades of voting in presidential elections did I feel a candidate was unqualified. Palin in 2008 and Trump this year. Every other time (including Trump in 2016 and 2020) I felt the candidate was at least qualified, no matter how much I disliked him/her. Palin I simply felt lacked the mental capacity to understand problems and make decisions (general lack of knowledge about simple geography was very alarming). And Trump I feel is unqualified this year based upon his 2020 election denial and related treasonous crimes.
daydeeo · 61-69, M
@trollslayer "I have never voted based upon who would be better to step in as VP, but I did not vote for McCain specifically because I felt Sarah Palin was incapable."
That is your first paragraph. How is that not self-contradicting?
That is your first paragraph. How is that not self-contradicting?
Repete · 70-79, M
@trollslayer I think I agree with you, Vance I only have one problem with because of his last answer in the debate, he seems not to be man enough to step in against rump it it was needed . That was a damn no answer to a simple question.
I think the debate was civil for a definite change and in my opinion pretty even. No question in my mind Vance would be better than rump but we are voting for rump or Harris and in my opinion Elmer Fudd would be better than rump.
I think the debate was civil for a definite change and in my opinion pretty even. No question in my mind Vance would be better than rump but we are voting for rump or Harris and in my opinion Elmer Fudd would be better than rump.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@daydeeo i said “better to step in”, not a better vp. That means I have two to compare, and i. palin’s case she simply was not capable of stepping in, so I had nothing to compare. To me all that matters in a vp candidate is if he/she is capable of stepping in if needed, not who would be “better” at stepping in. I don’t really care about who is better in that case, I only care if the candidate is capable. My comment was that in all my years of voting I found all VP candidates capable except once. It wasn’t that I felt she was worse at stepping in, I felt she wasn’t even an option. An analogy would be having the choice between two roads to take to a destination and both will get me there safely. I never make a choice which road to take based on safety, because both choices meet my needs. Then one day the bridge is on one road. I am then not making a choice because I have one option.