oldsoul
Gold Member
The first part is very well said. I believe that is important insomuch as it is difficult to predict how the office, and it's inherent stresses, will affect the health of any given person. So, to me at least, having a POTUS who is in reasonably good health, and one can reasonably expect to be able to withstand the rigors, and toll on their health, of the office is important. Otherwise, why wouldn't you vote for the person most likely to "step-in" in the case of presidential debilitation, whether temporary or permanent?The very fact that laws were enacted to ensure a continuity in the presidency in case the president is debilitated show that the occupant's health is considered important. We no longer want an unaccounted for and unanswerable individual running things as we had during the Wilson and FDR terms.
Are you Clinton supporters voting for her - or for Huma?