Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Sanders Leaves Door Open To Being Clinton's VP [View all]Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)40. The VP is a dead end position.
It's a position where you can keep someone quiet. If Clinton manages to pull this off, the only reason to accept a VP position is if you're pretty sure the she will not be in the position (one way or another) for too long. Indictment? Health?
The VP is obligated (like SoS) to do the bidding of the President. A Senator on the other hand can actually fight Presidential bullshit Publicly.
Bernie isn't this stupid.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So True ...and the rest of the Clinton Foundation Global Initiatives Dirty Dealings...
KoKo
May 2016
#3
She has the "Dark Clouds" of Investigation hanging over her with Clinton Foundation...
KoKo
May 2016
#103
Me and a majority of progressives disagree with this notion and I don't agree with Obama
uponit7771
May 2016
#48
You're not addressing the child thread but throw insults by the way of condesencion. That's
uponit7771
May 2016
#61
"your poor conduct" doesn't address the child thread at all, again, not arguing with reality
uponit7771
May 2016
#66
this is false he is more progressive. You don't get to define where he is or isn't...
uponit7771
May 2016
#83
CFMA, incarceration, immigration, working with practical specifics, health care, fair trade
uponit7771
May 2016
#85
You were the one who made the assertion, therefore it is your job to validate it.
Warren DeMontague
May 2016
#86
I came up with multiple issues, the purity testing privileged think they can prioritize the aspects
uponit7771
May 2016
#89
Whatever, I dont really feel like following you down the nonsense rabbit hole today
Warren DeMontague
May 2016
#90
Sanders would vote against Brady Bill again Clinton wouldn't. Sanders would vote for corporate
uponit7771
May 2016
#98
I was not trying to win. I was just trying to give you the opportunity to correct what you wrote.
floppyboo
May 2016
#65
uponit7771—It sounds like you approve of criminal Wall Street and bankers. (Thanks for telling us.)
CobaltBlue
May 2016
#70
No, he does not assume it is his choice, the question posed was how he would react to the OFFER (nt)
thesquanderer
May 2016
#12
The only reason he would do it would be if he felt he would be more beneficial there somehow.
GreenPartyVoter
May 2016
#18
To be fair, by any objective measure he DOES bring a good deal to the table
Maru Kitteh
May 2016
#35
Wait.... he thinks that she's a warmongering corporatist oligarch in Wall Street's pocket,
Nye Bevan
May 2016
#47
Bargaining! "If I can't have the presidency, can I have the vice-presidency instead?"
NurseJackie
May 2016
#68