NationStates

Bear Stearns wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
You need qualifications to be vice president?

Well given that there's a 50/50 chance Biden kicks the bucket if he's elected, it would seem to matter.

I think it's more likely that he goes full senile.

If he hasn't already, that is.

Tulsi Gabbard should be VP obviously.

Nakena wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
No. Defense though is usually filled by a serious person. Key word being usually.

Shows and reveals the true priorities and where the srs business is in.

Yes this is true. In the other departments we are in general, not a serious country.

Nakena wrote:Tulsi Gabbard should be VP obviously.

That might require courage. That is expressedly banned.

Salus Maior wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
Well given that there's a 50/50 chance Biden kicks the bucket if he's elected, it would seem to matter.

I think it's more likely that he goes full senile.

If he hasn't already, that is.

Nobody minded Reagan being senile.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
I think it's more likely that he goes full senile.

If he hasn't already, that is.

Nobody minded Reagan being senile.

Wasn’t he already in his second term by then though?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
I think it's more likely that he goes full senile.

If he hasn't already, that is.

Nobody minded Reagan being senile.

What a rousing defense of the candidate in question! One is filled with confidence at such a whataboutism.

Camelone wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Nobody minded Reagan being senile.

Wasn’t he already in his second term by then though?

I think he was on the second. I remember snide comments about Nancy being the first female president....

The East Marches II wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Nobody minded Reagan being senile.

What a rousing defense of the candidate in question! One is filled with confidence at such a whataboutism.

Snark isn't always whataboutism. Instead of claiming why don't they get proof his is?

The Black Forrest wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
What a rousing defense of the candidate in question! One is filled with confidence at such a whataboutism.

Snark isn't always whataboutism. Instead of claiming why don't they get proof his is?

Then perhaps you ought to have said that first instead of resorting to a rather lame whataboutism?

The East Marches II wrote:

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:Are members of the American cabinet usually qualified in any way?

No. Defense though is usually filled by a serious person. Key word being usually.

I mean, Mattis was probably the most qualified secretary of defense in... quite a while.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
I think it's more likely that he goes full senile.

If he hasn't already, that is.

Nobody minded Reagan being senile.

What? Yeah they did. It was basically a running joke throughout his entire presidency.

The East Marches II wrote:

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:Are members of the American cabinet usually qualified in any way?

No. Defense though is usually filled by a serious person. Key word being usually.

Defense lately just seems to be filled by CIA spooks.

Bear Stearns wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:She's black and has a vagina. Those are the de facto main criteria.

sheeeeeeeiiiit

Errr, isn't this whole conversation a bit prejudiced?

Diopolis wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
No. Defense though is usually filled by a serious person. Key word being usually.

I mean, Mattis was probably the most qualified secretary of defense in... quite a while.

RUMSFELD

Bear Stearns wrote:

Diopolis wrote:I mean, Mattis was probably the most qualified secretary of defense in... quite a while.

RUMSFELD

A piece of me misses his smile

Nakena wrote:Tulsi Gabbard should be VP obviously.

You mean the radical isolationist who wants to act as an enabler to communists and fascists? Definitely not.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Nakena wrote:Tulsi Gabbard should be VP obviously.

You mean the radical isolationist who wants to act as an enabler to communists and fascists? Definitely not.

Defend your ideas for once.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Nakena wrote:Tulsi Gabbard should be VP obviously.

You mean the radical isolationist who wants to act as an enabler to communists and fascists? Definitely not.

Once she'd be President, even much darker things will be enabled than you can ever imagine.

The East Marches II wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:
You mean the radical isolationist who wants to act as an enabler to communists and fascists? Definitely not.

Defend your ideas for once.

I believe that the US ought to stand up for human rights and freedom in the world, just like we did during World War II and the Cold War.

Nakena wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:
You mean the radical isolationist who wants to act as an enabler to communists and fascists? Definitely not.

Once she'd be President, even much darker things will be enabled than you can ever imagine.

We have seen enough villainy from the Trump administration, thank you.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Once she'd be President, even much darker things will be enabled than you can ever imagine.

We have seen enough villainy from the Trump administration, thank you.

Trump doesnt even knows how to President. He had his uses, but not anymore.

Thanks due the current corona crisis, the powers of the Empire will be increased beyond any previously limits, and Tulsi will inherit those as his sucessor.

Prisynia wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
sheeeeeeeiiiit

Errr, isn't this whole conversation a bit prejudiced?

No, just politically incorrect.

Bienenhalde wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Defend your ideas for once.

I believe that the US ought to stand up for human rights and freedom in the world, just like we did during World War II and the Cold War.

How exactly does violating a country's sovereignty promote freedom?

Italios wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:I believe that the US ought to stand up for human rights and freedom in the world, just like we did during World War II and the Cold War.

How exactly does violating a country's sovereignty promote freedom?

Countries use "national sovreignty" to justify human rights violations all the time. It doesn't mean they are right.