Here we go again. If Trump has to replace Pence as VP, who does he pick?

[ag]

Probably his son in law Kushner

Not a serious answer.

Yet, one of the more likely ones in practice.

[ag]

 Not even Trump would do something that stupid.

You may be surprised.

You elected him: you own him now.

[ag]

In such an event, with Pence resigning from office let us say, for health reasons, I can see Trump picking House Speaker Paul Ryan to become the new Vice President, in spite of their differences in the past.

Ryan has tremendous support amongst Congressional Republicans, in both the House and Senate, and is seen as capable and knowledgeable.

Why would he pick somebody who could be seen as his credible replacement (and, let us face it, the only reason Ryan would agree to take the job is if he thinks that impeachment is likely)? He would pick somebody, who would make most shudder of the thought they could be president. At best, he would take somebody very weak, with no following - and of clearly inferior capabilities. That - or a family member. I can hardly see any other options.

[ag]

In such an event, with Pence resigning from office let us say, for health reasons, I can see Trump picking House Speaker Paul Ryan to become the new Vice President, in spite of their differences in the past.

Ryan has tremendous support amongst Congressional Republicans, in both the House and Senate, and is seen as capable and knowledgeable.

Why would he pick somebody who could be seen as his credible replacement (and, let us face it, the only reason Ryan would agree to take the job is if he thinks that impeachment is likely)? He would pick somebody, who would make most shudder of the thought they could be president. At best, he would take somebody very weak, with no following - and of clearly inferior capabilities. That - or a family member. I can hardly see any other options.

You have just made the perfect argument as to why Ryan would be the ideal replacement VP.

Happy to hear you not only despise the president your party has elected, but also think that your Speaker of the House (who is, in any case, the next in line of succession in case of VP office being vacant) is of "clearly inferior capabilities".  Perhaps, you will next support appointing a certified drooling idiot to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[ag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have just made the perfect argument as to why Ryan would be the ideal replacement VP.

Happy to hear you ... think that your Speaker of the House (who is, in any case, the next in line of succession in case of VP office being vacant) is of "clearly inferior capabilities".  
[/quote]

Please show me in this thread where I have stated that Paul Ryan is of "clearly inferior capabilities".

[/quote]

First, the easiest. I have stated that the VP nominee would have to be somebody of "clearly inferior capabilities". You told me - in response - that I have made the perfect argument, why Ryan would be the ideal replacement. Conclusion: you believe that Ryan is somebody of clearly inferior capabilities.

Should I continue?

[ag]

Well, let me continue anyway. You have, historically, made numerous comments and posts on this forum disparaging Trump. I have quoted them back to you already once, and I am happy to do that again (assuming you did not go back and cleaned up the record of your posts). Nothing has happened to justify you changing that well-considered opinion. Even during the campaign, when you went on record supporting him, you were always very clear that your support is not based on liking or respecting the gentleman himself. True, the guy will now be president, representing your party: but  he is the same person you have repeatedly disparaged in the past. You might be paying respects to the office, but what has changed to justify a change in your attitude towards the person that will happen to occupy it?

[ag]

You have proven nothing.

All you have done is put your interpretation to my statements.

Show me where I ever stated in this thread that Paul Ryan is of "clearly inferior capabilities".  You can't.

You yourself are the one who has stated about Trump and Ryan "Why would he pick somebody who could be seen as his credible replacement "

By you making this statement, you yourself are agreeing with me that Ryan is credible.

Show me where I ever stated in this thread that I "despise President Trump".  You can't.

These are your words, not mine.

And by the way, when Trump is sworn into office on January 20, he will be the President of the United States, all the United States, and not the President representing my party.

As for my statements, what is relevant are my statements in this thread, not something I may have said months ago.  

I said that Ryan is credible: sure, he is. I also said that this is the reason why he cannot be nominated: being of "clearly inferior capability" is a necessary condition for such an appointment (unless it comes from the family). You told me, I gave the great reason why Ryan should be appointed. Well, the main qualification for the appointment I gave was being incapable of doing the job. In every normal understanding of your response I can think of this means we disagree on this very fact: I think Ryan could make a credible president, and that is why he cannot be appointed, while you believe that he is, indeed, of inferior capability and, thus, may be nominated.

Perhaps, you meant something else and just had a problem expressing yourself (ever since you have become a Trumpista you are getting to be increasingly incoherent: clear sign of a continuous rape of your own thought process you are forced to be doing), but this is what you said.

I am amused to observe the emphatic repudiation of everything you have said in the past. I hope, the Minitrue of the new administration will take that into consideration. Are you that scared?

You have always despised Donald Trump. I guess, adding the word "President" changes that for you. It changes nothing about the man, though. Oh, yeah, Trump will be the president of the USA. Fortunately, I am not an American.

[ag]

His shortlist was Pence, Christie and Gingrich. It would be larger now he is President and not seen as a likely election loser. Haley works. Christie no after Bridge gate,  Gingrich maybe but I doubt he could be confirmed. Sessions was a possibility then and could be now. Maybe Bob Corker. One possibility to consider was that in late October Pence's plane skidded on the runway, but no one was injured. What if the plane was destroyed and Pence died? Who would be the late VP selection?

Thank you for making a serious contribution to this discussion.

Ok, I appreciate that. Now any thoughts on my contribution?

That would be a serious contribution to this discussion. And in his current state he is incapable of such a feat: he still needs to develop the proper capacity for the doublethink.

[ag]

You have proven nothing.

All you have done is put your interpretation to my statements.

Show me where I ever stated in this thread that Paul Ryan is of "clearly inferior capabilities".  You can't.

You yourself are the one who has stated about Trump and Ryan "Why would he pick somebody who could be seen as his credible replacement "

By you making this statement, you yourself are agreeing with me that Ryan is credible.

Show me where I ever stated in this thread that I "despise President Trump".  You can't.

These are your words, not mine.

And by the way, when Trump is sworn into office on January 20, he will be the President of the United States, all the United States, and not the President representing my party.

As for my statements, what is relevant are my statements in this thread, not something I may have said months ago.  

I said that Ryan is credible: sure, he is. I also said that this is the reason why he cannot be nominated: being of "clearly inferior capability" is a necessary condition for such an appointment (unless it comes from the family). You told me, I gave the great reason why Ryan should be appointed. Well, the main qualification for the appointment I gave was being incapable of doing the job. In every normal understanding of your response I can think of this means we disagree on this very fact: I think Ryan could make a credible president, and that is why he cannot be appointed, while you believe that he is, indeed, of inferior capability and, thus, may be nominated.

Perhaps, you meant something else and just had a problem expressing yourself (ever since you have become a Trumpista you are getting to be increasingly incoherent: clear sign of a continuous rape of your own thought process you are forced to be doing), but this is what you said.

I am amused to observe the emphatic repudiation of everything you have said in the past. I hope, the Minitrue of the new administration will take that into consideration. Are you that scared?

You have always despised Donald Trump. I guess, adding the word "President" changes that for you. It changes nothing about the man, though. Oh, yeah, Trump will be the president of the USA. Fortunately, I am not an American.

For me, Paul Ryan is clearly one of the most credible, articulate, and intelligent people in public life today.

I see you are still running away from my challenge, because you know your accusations are baseless.  I have challenged you twice now, and twice you have evaded the issue at hand, and thrown personal insults at me.  But whatever.

I have directly quoted you the lines in which you, effectively (for any reasonable interpretation of your words), called Ryan unqualified. How is that "running away from the challenge"?

Now, I have no doubt you respect Paul Ryan and had no intention of calling him an incompetent. Nor have I had any doubts about that from the beginning. My point from the very beginning has been that you have become incoherent in your expression. For a poster that used to make a lot of sense, remarkably incoherent. Given the degree of mental violence you have to be doing to yourself to accept Donald Trump, I am not surprised. But, I must admit, I am saddened that somebody would do this to himself.

And stop this bull about "challenge" or whatever. You know full well, that what I am saying is true. I am not accusing you of anything: I am just feeling your pain

[ag]

First of all, I will avoid attacking you with personal insults, even though you have attacked me with personal insults on several occasions. 

I am not attacking you, nor am I insulting you. I am just expressing sadness, that an intelligent human being for purely partisan (not even ideological!) reasons is willing to do something like this to himself.  You know that Trump stands for everything you hate and despise, you know that Hillary Clinton was far closer to your own worldview both ideologically and morally, and, yet, for reasons of pure partisanship (that is, for reasons not dissimilar to those trivialities that drive sports fans) you are consciously raping your own mind and soul. No, you are not crazy: just lacking of self-respect.

And, for gods' sake, are you really expecting me to believe that you started this topic with an intention of a serious discussion?

[ag]

Well, almost 63,000,000 people ended up supporting Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton is not exactly a well spring of virtue and moral rectitude.

And quite honestly, I am not in the least concerned with what  your personal opinion of me may be.

Well, I will remind you these posts when you endorse Trump´s impeachment

[ag]

Well, almost 63,000,000 people ended up supporting Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton is not exactly a well spring of virtue and moral rectitude.

And quite honestly, I am not in the least concerned with what  your personal opinion of me may be.

Well, I will remind you these posts when you endorse Trump´s impeachment

Ah, if Trump ends up getting impeached, then the nation will be in the very capable hands of Mike Pence, and I would be perfectly fine with that.

And if Trump is found guilty of an impeachable offence, or of impeachable offences, then of course he should be impeached, which, under those circumstances, I would support his impeachment.

If Trump commits no impeachable offence or offences, then the American public should unite in their support for their President and get behind him while he does his job.

I would agree that if Trump commits no impeachable offence he should not be impeached - though this business about "getting behind the president" sounds funny, especially at peacetime (though, perhaps, you think you are already at war?) But you know as well as I do that, given Trump's personality, the only chance he commits no impeachable offence is if he goes into a coma within the next couple months.

[ag]

Anyway, here is an interesting substantive variation on your question. VP has to be confirmed by a majority vote in both houses. If in 2018 Dems take over the House or merely draw in the Senate (I know, either is not very likely, but not outside the realm of possible) a vacancy in the vice-presidency would have to be acceptable to the opposition. Especially funny, of course, would be the Senate tie - without the VP there is nobody to break it

So, who could be the Dem-acceptable VP?

[ag]

Anyway, here is an interesting substantive variation on your question. VP has to be confirmed by a majority vote in both houses. If in 2018 Dems take over the House or merely draw in the Senate (I know, either is not very likely, but not outside the realm of possible) a vacancy in the vice-presidency would have to be acceptable to the opposition. Especially funny, of course, would be the Senate tie - without the VP there is nobody to break it

So, who could be the Dem-acceptable VP?

Ah, good point for speculative purposes.

Who indeed?

Don't forget, in 1973, Republican House Minority Leader Gerald Ford was confirmed overwhelmingly by both the House and the Senate, including overwhelmingly by the Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

Clearly, the new Vice President would have to be a Republican, as this is a Republican administration and the President is a Republican.

So since this is your scenario, please provide this forum with your suggestions as to which Republicans would be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats.

Given the sort of relationship one would expect between the Dems and Trump, it would have to be somebody who is a) old (and, hence, will not run) and b) openly on record as hating Trump. Still, it would have to be somebody reasonably credible to take over for a few months after the Trump impeachment. Preferably a senator, ideally from a somewhat competitive state (to prevent the ballance switch). I guess, perhaps, McCain could fit the bill, especially if he is going to say something very nasty about Trump during the confirmation hearings; though, of course, the need for the Republican replacement would be a problem. Still, I think McCain is pretty much ideal

Another possibility would be an old Supreme Court justice. As long as the fillibuster is still intact, I could see Kennedy working out. Especially, if Trump impeachment is in progress.

Either way, I do not see anybody under 80 years of age making the cut.

Of course, Trump will not nominate McCain.  And his first nominee, whoever it is, will go down. But McCain will be useful for the Dems as an example of an acceptable Republican they would float on TV. Remember, back in 1973 there still were the Southern Dems out there. You do not have them around anymore.

[ag]

I agree, in your scenario, McCain would be ideal, but for one thing, he is 81 this year.

I am not sure if the House and Senate would want to entrust the Vice Presidency to someone who, by then, would be 83 or 84 years old.

Being over 80 years old is what makes him ideal. It has to be somebody who is guaranteed not to run for presidency. So, it is either somebody very old, or somebody with some horrid skeletons in their closet. Baring that... I mean, perhaps, they could consider a cardinal or something.

[ag]

I agree, in your scenario, McCain would be ideal, but for one thing, he is 81 this year.

I am not sure if the House and Senate would want to entrust the Vice Presidency to someone who, by then, would be 83 or 84 years old.

Being over 80 years old is what makes him ideal. It has to be somebody who is guaranteed not to run for presidency. So, it is either somebody very old, or somebody with some horrid skeletons in their closet. Baring that... I mean, perhaps, they could consider a cardinal or something.

Orrin Hatch would be a great pick.  Should get speedy confirmation.  Works well with both sides of the aisle. 

He would be, except that, of course, he is certain to be replaced by a Republican-caucusing senator. Though, if the front-runner for the Republican replacement happens to be on record as being a personal enemy of Donald Trump, this may be an option.

[ag]

Would any of the following Senators be acceptable?

Richard Shelby

Chuck Grassley

Thad Cochran

Pat Roberts

Jim Inhofe

If Republicans get to be very unpopular in Iowa, Grassley could be an option