1/8
Mike Pence is the 48th Vice President, the 2nd highest office in the U.S. executive branch. He’s also the Senate president, with the authority to cast the tie-breaking vote. That’s what made his response to a vital question during this week’s debate so feckless. #velshi

2/8
Just before the debate ended, the moderator reminded Pence that Trump has, several times, refused to commit himself to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. She asked, if Joe Biden won the election and Trump refused to leave office, what would he do as VP? #velshi
3/8
In his roughly 2-min. answer, Pence talked about Hillary Clinton, spying, the Mueller report, Trump’s impeachment, mail-in voting & the FBI. One of the only thing Pence didn’t mention was what he would do if Trump refused to accept a peaceful transfer of power. #velshi
4/8
Here's the thing: Mike Pence isn’t about to tell Trump anything he doesn’t want to hear. It’s the basic rule of survival in the Trump orbit. But back in 2016, that is exactly what Pence told “60 Minutes” he WOULD do. #velshi
5/8
Pence said in 2016, “I promise you that when the circumstances arise where I have a difference on policy or on presentation…I would have no hesitation, were I privileged to be vice president, to walk into the president's office, close the door, and share my heart.” #velshi
6/8
What’s in your heart, Mike Pence, about that basic tenet of democracy: a peaceful transfer of power and departure from office at the end of your term? It’s a simple question, but one on which the success of a democracy hinges. What door is Pence leaving open and why? #velshi
7/8
This hypothetical question is relevant because Mike Pence’s boss, Donald Trump, made it relevant. And to be clear, when Joe Biden was asked in the Presidential debate if he would accept results of the election, he said, “Yes.” #velshi
8/8
This is Democracy 101: Anyone who won’t commit to a peaceful transfer of power doesn’t deserve your vote. #velshi

More from Ali Velshi

More from Politics

We’ve been getting calls and outreach from Queens residents all day about this.

The community’s response? Outrage.


Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.

When we talk about bringing jobs to the community, we need to dig deep:
- Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?
- What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?

Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families.

Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.

We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.

It’s possible to establish economic partnerships w/ real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.
"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"

This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD


There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.

In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut

If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.

Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.

You May Also Like