This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we're having this crisis now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 2 years ago (28 children)

No, this could have been even worse, because Vance would have been elected in a wave of sympathy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (26 children)

    I don't think so. He has the charisma of a flat tire and it was early enough that any sympathy wave would have lost its momentum by November.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (24 children)

    Charisma is not relevant. Do you think Lyndon Johnson had charisma? Do you think that's why he was elected in 1964? Because people liked him?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (23 children)

    Well, he had a pretty big dick, so maybe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (22 children)

    I admit I was not alive at the time, but I'm pretty sure, what with it being the 1960s, that was not the sort of thing the general public was aware of, so I doubt it.

    Also, like it or not, Vance was already elected to the Senate and had a bestselling book. Even though you (and I) do not understand it, some people think he has a magnetic personality. Just like they think about Trump, which I also do not understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    I think they were.

    https://short-history.com/lyndon-johnson-penis-nicknamed-jumbo-6eba2f1894fa

    Choice quote:

    When a journalist asked Johnson to justify the continuation of the Vietnam War (1955-1975), Johnson asked all the women to leave the room, then pulled out his penis, and yelled: “That’s why!”

    He also called it Jumbo.

    Fun fact: 60s probably had better sex ed than the USA does today too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (20 children)

    Journalists were not the general public. 99% of the country had never personally interacted with him and those things were not reported in the news. They're after-the-fact anecdotes in books.

    I'm also old enough to remember when the press had the collective attitude of "let America think that the president is a good person" regardless of who was in office.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    Oho they were not in the news, but DEFINITELY in the tabloids.

    Much like Kennedy's sexual escapades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (18 children)

    So you're saying the scandals around Kennedy's sexual escapades and Johnson's being a fan of showing men his penis were not enough to not get Johnson elected in 1964 because of the wave of sympathy when Kennedy was assassinated?

    Because I think that was my point to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (17 children)

    I was saying they were both charismatic lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    I'm not sure why you think a man showing other men his penis is a sign of charisma unless those men would all be into it. And that was certainly not Johnson's intent.

    I'm sorry, but "charismatic" is just not a word people used to describe Johnson.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Oh, I don't consider it charismatic.

    But it's definitely a power move that can fall under a type of charisma. It can definitely impress some in the right circumstances from my experience.

    I think because of the time period it was some sort of weird machoism thing. What Trump would want to pull off he didn't have a micropeen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    This was about Vance being elected in sympathy after Trump was assassinated. What Trump would want to pull off isn't relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    I thought it was about sympathy vs charisma

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Literally me saying charisma isn't relevant six hours ago before you even responded:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    But I was saying it was relevant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Your argument that it wasn't relevant is because Lydon Johnson liked showing journalists his large penis and that was in the tabloids which meant he had charisma.

    In other words, it was a completely irrational argument which didn't say anything about the relevancy of his supposed charisma in the 1964 election.

    So yes, you were saying it was relevant. By way of a long-winded "nuh-uh!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I'm confused now. Yes, I've been saying Charisma was relevant, not so much sympathy, in his reelection.

    And that Charisma in part was named Jumbo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

    Yes, I know you keep saying it.

    Believe it or not, saying it doesn't make it true.

    Johnson literally ran on continuing Kennedy's legacy... but he was also not especially popular before Kennedy was assassinated and Kennedy only even took him on as Vice President while at the 1960 DNC as a compromise. Johnson opposed Kennedy being the Democratic contender and actually planned to finagle his way into the top spot in the election without any popular primary vote through some trickery that failed, but Kennedy realized the value of courting Southern Democrats, so he picked Johnson as VP. You can talk about his penis and its size all you want. Then Johnson got endless negative press for trying to control the Senate as VP and also trying to undermine Kennedy's agenda. People didn't like Johnson.

    Those things do not change.

    But apparently none of that is relevant since he showed journalists his penis which means he had charisma and that's why people voted for him, not because Kennedy was murdered.

    And this is not what happens with charismatic people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    And this is not what happens with charismatic people.

    So Obama wasn't charismatic either then?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

    They have similar scores.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Hmmm, you're right.

    Seems like Johnson was more charismatic then Obama on second look I suppose

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    So you are now claiming that his approval rating going into office the day after Kennedy was murdered was about his charisma? Really?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I'm sorry, but suggesting Kennedy's death had zero to do with Johnson's popularity is just ignoring reality.

    Weird how he was super, duper popular before Kennedy was murdered and yet didn't think he could win a primary in a conventional way.

    I guess he was super popular, super charismatic, and dumb as a rock. As were all of his advisors who weren't able to convince him to run against Kennedy what with him being super popular and super charismatic. Weird. Weird and dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You could be a Scottie Pippen but most people still say "who?" compared to Michael Jordan.

    But yeah, the data I posted showed it basically only gained 8 points going from Vice President to President because he already had a decent approval before the assassination.

    There's other historical examples to compare by, though none in the modern era, but Andrew Johnson didn't get re-election and was even impeached.

    Chester Arthur also didn't win reelection. Although James Garfield didn't exactly serve long 😅 but he was also really popular when he was elected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Crooks happened July 13. Vance was announced running mate July 15. No candidate = no running mate announced.

    Also, when the presidential candidate is removed from a race, it does not automatically fall to the their running mate. there is no 25th amendment for election campaigns 🤦

  • source
  • parent