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.
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.
I was saying they were both charismatic lol
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.
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.
This was about Vance being elected in sympathy after Trump was assassinated. What Trump would want to pull off isn’t relevant.
I thought it was about sympathy vs charisma
Literally me saying charisma isn’t relevant six hours ago before you even responded:
But I was saying it was relevant
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!”