162
Vance tries to distance himself from Iran war after GOP's deep losses in midterm elections (apnews.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

JD Vance publicly broke from President Donald Trump ‘s defense of the Iran war Wednesday after the Republican Party’s deep losses in the midterm elections, attempting to distance himself from voters’ clear rebuke of the president as the vice president faces questions about his own political ambitions.

Vance, who has said he would decide after the election whether to run for president in 2028, issued a lengthy social media post blaming the unpopular conflict with Iran for the GOP’s drubbing. Vance said, “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.”

But arguing that the war was worth it is what Trump repeatedly did on the campaign trail, continued to do in interviews as election results came in and did again Wednesday morning. As he led reporters on an impromptu visit to the ballroom he’s constructing at the White House, Trump said, “The Iran thing, we had to do and we continue to do it.”

Trump said he spoke to Vance on Wednesday morning and, when asked about the vice president’s post, he called it “good” and said, “I know how he feels about it,” and “I think it was fine.”

More in the article.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

I don't recall exactly, but the steps go like this:

  1. A Cabinet member puts the request into the senate.
  2. The president is immediately replaced by VP.
  3. The president says, "Nu-uh."
  4. The VP is immediately replaced by congress.
  5. Something about 8 cabinet members signing onto the original copalint.
  6. 2/3's of the House and Senate vote to remove the president.

Since it's all loosey-goosey, both the House and Senate can come up with whatever delaying tactics they want.

And I believe the voting threshhold is higher for the 25 than straight impeachment, which only requires a majority in the House.

But, yes, if it's just about getting rid of the president without criticizing his policies or calling him a crook, I could see it being more palatable as an option if they were forced to make the choice, which they cannot be without defectors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    I can see the republicans going for the 25th if they dress it up in very flowery language about how "the president has done a fantastic job but he's become very unwell and for his own health he needs to step down and it's a shame that he isn't able to make that decision for himself any more" or some crap like that, then they might get enough defectors on board for it to pass. They get to keep praising him, claim it's for his own good and that they're doing it because they care about him, rather than the betrayal of voting to impeach and convict.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent