Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

If the VP was being replaced, it would be far more similar to the Baucus thing then Bengazi or the IRS thing

You mean, VP not being replaced at all? Because it seems to me that you don't really need a Vice-President position to be filled for the US government to continue operating. All the VP really does constitutionally is 1) act as a tiebreaker in the Senate, and 2) replace the President in the event of his death...but we already have the Speaker of the House who serve pretty much the same role, as well as the President Pro Tempre, and the entire Presidential Cabinet.

According to the Twenty-fifth Amendment, you need both houses of Congress to agree to a VP nomination. That includes the Senate. So if the Republicans get a majority of the Senate on their side to support their candidate, then they probably have enough votes to pass stuff in the Senate (barring a filibuster) and thus do not need the VP to serve as the tiebreaker. And right now, the Republicans are in control of the House, so the Speaker of the House is Republican...so...the Republicans has the incentive to keep the VP post vacant.

Basically, there is really is no reason for the Republicans to nominate a Vice-Presidential candidate...

Edit: Okay, I can see one other possible resolution. The Republicans can use the VP nomination as a way to wring out some concessions from the President, which the President might be willing to accept since the President wants to secure a tiebreaker vote in the Senate. This seems very unlikely though, as there are 52 Democrats (and 2 Independents that lean Democrats) in the Senate. This means that ties would be unlikely, and the President probably would be happy with the Speaker of the House being his successor.

[Callista]

They might compromise on a Moderate, the way they do on Supreme Court appointments.

[Rakonas]

But back to the game--I think it's fine to make assassinations somewhat unrealistic. It always has been a relatively unrealistic game. I'm pretty sure that if something like the LCS happened in real life (not just the SLA, but a group that actually did what our Liberals do in-game), we'd hate them and fear them regardless of what our political opinions were. I mean... y'know, mass-murdering terrorists. Not exactly somebody to look up to.

I don't think it would necessarily provoke instant hate IRL if a group like the LCS happened, at least not if they weren't psychotic. Bank robberies when the public hates banks, attacking sweatshops and freeing sweatshop workers, damaging polluting factories when the public is anti-pollution, etc. Obviously mass-murder of 'conservatives' would be instantly hated, because IRL people's political views aren't clearly visible by colour-coded names and people don't react with glee. Maybe assassination of an Arch-Conservative president should be acceptable in Nightmare Mode? ie: C+ president, 90% of the population is L or L+.