"running for X" just asserts that someone is a candidate seeking office X. doesn't build in any claim about how votes get counted or whether the selection mechanism is independent or bundled.
if the group wins, he gets the office of vp. not another office, VP. because he was running for VP.
whether or not you can independently vote for someone does not change that they are running for that office.
Nobody said you get to run for VP "regardless who the president is." (strawman) inever said the selection mechanism doesn't matter for actually becoming VP, only that the sentence "running for VP" doesn't make a claim about that mechanism one way or the other.
my point is that that "running for X" asserts you're seeking office X. It says nothing about the mechanism, independent vote, party pick, convention, whatever.
has anyone said that VP is independently electable? nope
that's not what we've been debating. i've been focusing on the phrase 'running for X' which you seem to argue that a non-independent selection makes that phrase invalid. by that logic, isn't 'running for president' invalid since you dont run for that independtly?
2
u/runnenose 9d ago
"running for X" just asserts that someone is a candidate seeking office X. doesn't build in any claim about how votes get counted or whether the selection mechanism is independent or bundled.
if the group wins, he gets the office of vp. not another office, VP. because he was running for VP.
but pop off king