this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
374 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3241 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@midwest.social 53 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Replacing Vance now would also undermine any argument they might make about switching the names on ballots for the Democrats. Those aren't valid, anyway--Biden wasn't the official nominee until the convention says so; nothing was locked in--but they would now lose the possibility of using it rhetorically.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)

they would now lose the possibility of using it rhetorically.

I think you're over-estimating their commitment to logic, consistency or reality.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They don't, but it also has to sink in with the general public. When both sides are being switched out, there's a very obvious argument against the claim.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

That makes sense but MAGA has always leaned hard on the "but when I do it, it's OK" rhetoric.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 20 points 3 months ago

never interrupt the enemy when he's making a mistake

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Biden wasn’t the official nominee until the convention

Even then, nothing prohibits him (or Vance, realistically) from resigning.

This is mostly just funny to watch.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is a legal point where states won't accept changes to the ballots. Also a practical one where there isn't time to print new ones. Neither point has passed, of course, but Trump was trying to imply it was.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

If Biden died on November 4th, he'd remain on the ballot the next day and - if he won the majority of the EC - Harris would be the presumptive President Elect on November 6th. If Vance resigned as VP, we'd see the same results under a Trump win. We have a clear order of succession and mechanisms for appointing replacements to downticket slots like VP per the 25th amendment.

The absolute worst case scenario is that Trump would force Vance to resign and then be stuck with a House/Senate picking his VP for him. But since he's not even the President-Elect at the moment I don't think that's actually an issue.