Post: #201

(06-11-2016 10:34 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  I like Sessions but the SJWs Marxist Feminist Open Borders Globalists are out in force for the Shrillary as the First Women history making Choice meme... Joni Ernst is a former Military National Guard Reserve officer (LtC) and is a darling of the Koch libertarian brothers and their massive Donors network - far more powerful than Adelson.

The risk is she's a first-term Senator (elected in 2014) with little track record. Upside is she could flip Iowa (6 points), which usually votes Democrat in presidential elections.

Post: #202

(06-12-2016 02:14 PM)American Rampage Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 10:34 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  I like Sessions but the SJWs Marxist Feminist Open Borders Globalists are out in force for the Shrillary as the First Women history making Choice meme... Joni Ernst is a former Military National Guard Reserve officer (LtC) and is a darling of the Koch libertarian brothers and their massive Donors network - far more powerful than Adelson.

The risk is she's a first-term Senator (elected in 2014) with little track record. Upside is she could flip Iowa (6 points), which usually votes Democrat in presidential elections.

Bush won it in 2004 and it's still a very white state so I think it's possible. The white working class will vote in droves this year, just like they did for Bush.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...Iowa,_2004

Post: #203

Definitely agree there. Trump was runner up in the Iowa caucus and did great all over the midwest, especially the blowout in Indiana where he won all 57 delegates. Iowa will be close in the general election, but this is in line with Trump's strategy of campaigning in corn belt and rust belt Democrat states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Trump won't pick Joni Ernst soley to deliver Iowa. If Trump wants to use the VP ticket to secure midwestern votes, he'll pick Kasich to deliver Ohio.

Jeff Sessions is a better overall running mate.

Post: #204

I'm sold on Ernst.






Ventura was my first choice, but the campaign and country mood have pivoted after Orlando. Ernst is just about the perfect running mate on so many levels:

-neutralizes Pantsuit's woman card
-very wholesome, genuinely so. MSM attacks on her won't stick. She's at the other end on the character scale from sleazebags like Cruz and Clinton.
-traditional values from the heartland, farmer girl softens up Trump's glitzy Upper East Side image. Solid family.
-solidifies conservative vote - impeccable 2nd Am. credentials
-military background solidifies post-Orlando emphasis on protecting the homeland and effectively neutralizing the threat overseas
-high energy, young, Harley-riding, gun-toting gilf. She's a better version of Palin, with more military discipline and gravitas.
-Competent enough to lead her troops near combat, won't get pushed around by back-stabbing Rep. cucks and MSM. Will stand her ground in what will be a tough environment.
-Will deliver the main battleground: Big Ten country. I think that even in Ohio, she'd be better than Kasich (disagree with AmericanRampage on that). IA, IN, PA, OH and even WI, all these places are hungry for genuine, trustworthy, uncorrupted leaders who will make a high-energy honest attempt to reverse the Bush-Clinton-Obama damage. You win the Midwest with Midwestern values, she's got more of that in her tank than Kasich does.

Ernst got attacked by libtard pundits like Maher and Maddow for her stance on the 2nd amendment and global warming, if anything it's a stamp of approval.

Post: #205

Ernst is a pretty weak choice and I'm surprise some people here are talking her up as legit. I wrote a breakdown about her back in the Trump thread a while ago; showing clearly how she was a poor VP choice. I didn't know much about her when her name started popping up a month or so ago but it only took me about 20 minutes to write her off as a contender:

(Post from Trump thread)

I'm not feeling Joni Ernst at all given the other possible options.

Political Career:
Trump has said he wants someone who knows politics and is fit to take over if he isn't around but Ernst only has 3 years as a Iowa state senator and 1.5 years as a US senator (her current job). She was also elected county auditor prior to the state senate seat if that matters to anyone.

Obviously, she has zero political executive experience and otherwise unremarkable general political experience; both in length and accomplishments.

Regarding her military career:

She was a part-time (with periods of full-time status) career officer in the Army guard/reserve but only retired as a Lt.Col; so her experience running very large operations is relatively limited. In either case, despite being in the Army guard/reserve from 1993 to 2015, she only had ONE deployment to the Middle East... to fuckin Kuwait! How in the flying fuck does a Army Guard/Reserve officer from 2001 to 2013 only have ONE ME deployment and it's Kuwait of all places?!

(I can tell you why: Because the guard/reserve is a VERY buddy buddy place and I'm sure she knew the right people to avoid the shit deployments and get the cake gigs/promotions).

She also has made claims in the past that she is a "combat veteran" and while by definition technically true, she is trying to pull a fast one on people by associating herself undeservingly with people who have been in actual firefights and/or been on the receiving end of enemy fire. According to what I briefly looked up, no one in her unit was on the receiving end of enemy fire of any variety (IEDs, mortars, gunfire, etc) during her entire year plus deployment.

Finally on the military front while running for US Senate in 2014, she made this claim:

Quote:“I do have reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Source: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susa...-wmd-claim

The fuck? Beating THAT dead horse as late as 2014?! Jesus.

Moving along....

Iowa isn't a contested battleground state [of major value - it's only 6 electoral votes]. So no pull there.

She is also pretty conservative across the board. For example, she wants a federal personhood amendment despite being all about states' rights on pretty much everything else; that shit ain't gonna fly with independents. Her crossover appeal is minimal to non-existent [based on her political leanings.]

Then there is THIS:

Quote:Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst made her support of Marco Rubio known Monday when she introduced the Florida senator at a rally in Des Moines. But she stopped short of a full endorsement, saying she will stay neutral in the Republican presidential primary.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../79320318/

So... basically she gave an unofficial endorsement to Foambot super early in the primary process. What does that say about her judgement and real loyalty to Trump? Like her "combat veteran" technically correct definition bullshit, she does the same thing here with the Rubio; trying to walk the line and play bullshit word games so she can have her cake and eat too while still avoiding making hard choices that could have real ramifications if she picks poorly. In short, she is a typical woman and politician.

That all said: if anyone here [still] ends up voicing support for her, I'd really like to know why. I don't see the appeal at all [beyond the superficial value of being a woman. Honestly, I think some people are propping her because of the pussy pass as oppose to judging her based on the merits.]

(End of Trump thread post)

So if you're cool with someone:

1. With barely any political experience; about the equivalent of Obama in 2008.

2. With a largely PART-TIME military career of little/no consequence despite being an Army officer throughout an entire war; who furthermore tries to sell herself as some kind of legit warrior combat veteran superwoman on top of it. I can't stand people who pretend to be real combat veterans nor buy into the on-the-surface military "warrior woman" bullshit that people go gaga for because, "OMFG, she like shoots guns and shit! OH MAN! WATCH OUT SHE IS TOUGH! SHE RIDES A BIKE TOO?! DAMN BRO SHE IS AWESOME!"

I've been on the inside. 99% of women in the military are all big "I'm a warrior badass" talk until shit gets real. I've seen it first-hand. Many upsell their experiences and struggles in the military (many men do as well in fairness). I recall a girl I knew who went to Qatar (super safe place) who did 6 months of basically supply runs inside a guarded base and she acted like she was some kind of warrior badass afterwards. In particular, she liked to highlight often after her deployment that one is not a real "veteran" unless they have deployed to a "warzone."

Seen similar bullshit a ton of times with other military women. All big talkers.

3. Showed poor judgement/disloyalty in siding with Rubio way early in the primaries.

... Then by all means, vote for her. But I would be HIGHLY disappointed if Trump picked her. She is NOT a good choice at all.

Post: #206

Looks like a dyke.

Post: #207

Just reading this thread for the first time, but definitely Mike Tyson. Black Muslim and greatest heavyweight champion of all time. Would ensure that Trump would not be assassinated for one, but more importantly would destroy the racist and anti-islam arguments instantly. Most voters are completely unaware of Tyson's endorsement and he would certainly sway a lot of votes. Also the democrats would try to attack Mike Tyson and would accidentally show their true racism by calling him a stupid nog. Just read Mike Tyson's book recently and he is such a strong, loving person. There is not an ounce of hate in this man, he really is a champion in every aspect of life.

And imagine if god forbid something did happen to the Donald, America would have it's first real black president, not some half breed faggot.

Post: #208

(06-15-2016 11:35 AM)crazyfingers Wrote:  Just reading this thread for the first time, but definitely Mike Tyson. Black Muslim and greatest heavyweight champion of all time. Would ensure that Trump would not be assassinated for one, but more importantly would destroy the racist and anti-islam arguments instantly. Most voters are completely unaware of Tyson's endorsement and he would certainly sway a lot of votes. Also the democrats would try to attack Mike Tyson and would accidentally show their true racism by calling him a stupid nog. Just read Mike Tyson's book recently and he is such a strong, loving person. There is not an ounce of hate in this man, he really is a champion in every aspect of life.

And imagine if god forbid something did happen to the Donald, America would have it's first real black president, not some half breed faggot.

TRUMP-TYSON 2016: What's not to love?!

Funniest post I've read in a while even though you're actually serious. America would have it's first real black president instead of some half-breed faggot. Very rude and very true hahaha.

Great book and I am glad he's doing alright again. Fascinating life story and he got fucked over a lot. It should go without saying this he should be in no way involved in anything important.

He did perfectly encapsulate the Trump candidacy strategy of complete political shock-and-awe:

"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth."

Said by Tyson but could just as well be in the future autobiography of former president Trump where he explains how he attacked with rhetorical uppercuts politicians who had only prepared for play fighting with other puppets. Just like the primaries was a constant anxiety attack for Jeb Bush not understanding what the hell was going on ("These are not the rules! You can't insult your way to the presidency! It's my time!") it will be the same for Hillary who was prepared for Romney but got the political equivalent of Charles Manson. God bless.

Post: #209

Not experienced enough but I'm liking this Tom Cotton guy, who has also served in the military.

From "Occupied Territory" at The New Yorker:

Quote:Paul Ryan stood before one microphone and Tom Cotton, a thirty-six-year-old freshman congressman from Arkansas, stood before another. Ryan, who spoke first, argued for passing a version of the Senate bill, saying that reforming the immigration system would strengthen the economy, supplying U.S. companies with a steady number of immigrants to take jobs that other Americans didn’t want. Cotton, who is tall and scrawny and loves partisan combat, delivered an unexpectedly sharp rebuke. He told me that he condemned the Senate bill for giving priority to “the illegal immigrant population” over the plight of “natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens who are out of work” and warned his colleagues that Republican voters were against immigration reform. Cotton was eyeing a Senate seat in deep-red Arkansas, where voters were strongly opposed to it. He led the House opposition to the Senate bill, and Boehner, then the Speaker, decided not to bring the bill to the House floor.

Good job. Fuck those pro-immigration cucks.

Quote:Cotton, who has said that he would not rule out becoming Trump’s running mate, had a modest upbringing in the small town of Dardanelle before attending Harvard and Harvard Law School. He spent two years working as a law clerk in Houston and as a lawyer in Washington before joining the Army. In June, 2006, he sent an e-mail to the Times from Iraq, criticizing the reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for an article they had written exposing a Treasury Department program to thwart terrorist financing. Cotton called for the reporters to be jailed for interfering with security operations and violating espionage laws. The Times didn’t publish the letter, but it was posted on a conservative blog, and turned the young soldier into a minor hero on the right.

Good job. Fuck those media traitors.

Cotton gets it:

Quote:Cotton told me that the Autopsy Report, the Senate, and Paul Ryan had it all wrong. “There’s no issue on which elites in both parties are more disconnected from the American people—in both parties—than immigration.”

Quote:“If you’re a first-generation Guatemalan working in northwest Arkansas, legal, you’re working for Tyson or something, maybe you’re working for a landscaping company or something, maybe your wife is a nanny or something, you have the same concerns as the white guy living down the road from you,” Cotton said.

He seems one of the few good men.

Post: #210

This article is saying Newt is at the top of the list, followed by Krispy Kreme. My favorite, Sessions, is still in the running though. And a few others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

Post: #211

(06-30-2016 08:23 PM)Dusty Wrote:  This article is saying Newt is at the top of the list, followed by Krispy Kreme.

Ughh. Neither is a good choice.

People will look at a Trump/Gingrich ticket and think CHAOS.
People will look at a Trump/Christie ticket and think CORRUPTION.

He needs someone who is obviously -- both in reality and perception -- competent, well-organized, and above reproach. And he needs someone who can fight for him on the issues and be on board with his agenda.

Jeff Sessions is the obvious best choice, but there are quite a few others that are better than either Newt or Christie.

Post: #212

Christie is one of the worst choices possible. He has glaring negatives and no positives whatsoever.

Post: #213

I'm going to throw IN Governor Mike Pence's name into the VP mix. Very solid, has experience in both the House and as a governor, and is young enough to run for POTUS in 8 years.

Post: #214

(06-30-2016 08:41 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:23 PM)Dusty Wrote:  This article is saying Newt is at the top of the list, followed by Krispy Kreme.

Ughh. Neither is a good choice.

People will look at a Trump/Gingrich ticket and think CHAOS.
People will look at a Trump/Christie ticket and think CORRUPTION.

He needs someone who is obviously -- both in reality and perception -- competent, well-organized, and above reproach. And he needs someone who can fight for him on the issues and be on board with his agenda.

Jeff Sessions is the obvious best choice, but there are quite a few others that are better than either Newt or Christie.

Give me Hermain Cain or someone like those black pastors he has to fire up the crowds at rallies. I want the VP to be like a non corrupt Don King that is Trump's fight promoter.

Post: #215

(06-30-2016 08:44 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Christie is one of the worst choices possible. He has glaring negatives and no positives whatsoever.

Christie and Trump would be like Guns 'N Roses with two Axls or the Beatles with two Lennons. You need balance -- not just for the sake of whatever you're doing but for public appearances.

On top of that, they're from New York and New Jersey. Is Trump's idea to lose the rest of the country?

This is where the political skills of someone like Bill Clinton or John Kennedy came in. Each knew his own weaknesses.

With Kennedy it was geographical. He was seen as too East Coast. So he choose a running mate from Texas. Clinton knew he had the rep as a bit of a wildman and too liberal. So he chose someone who (at the time) was considered very balanced, a deep thinker, and a bit conservative (because of his wife).

My vote here goes to Sessions as well. Every quote I've ever seen from the guy I've liked, plus he's from Alabama and will provide a Johnson/Kennedy geographical balance.

Choosing a woman -- unless she's mega-qualified -- will make him seem like he's doing John McCain pandering. And we all know where the led McCain.

Post: #216

If Trump chooses Christie, the effectiveness of "crooked Hillary" goes out the window. Rightly or wrongly, the bridge scandal has totally destroyed his personal brand. Trump HAS to know this, but maybe his loyalty to Christie could get in the way of things. Nevertheless, if he makes that choice, I might have to rethink a lot of what I thought was true about Trump.

Gingrich is a less prima facie stupid choice, but he's been around for so long and is known well enough that he's a target for confirmation bias. The negatives a lot of people think of him won't be amenable to doing what Trump needs to do the most, and that's making himself seem less scary - a crucial thing right now. Something on that front needs to happen quickly.

Of the three, Sessions is the best. More calming and rational, and most people don't know him so he's relatively fresh. First impressions matter a lot (primacy effect), and he can work wonders in painting an entirely new picture.

That's just on those three. I haven't seen the other names that have come out yet.

Post: #217

Have to wonder if Christie is misdirection.

Trump is keenly aware of affects of imagery and perception. He also knows the power of frame and narrative. Christie on image alone isn't a VP. Harsh but just a fact. Newt on his history and well know name is an "establishment" guy. "Movements" don't run pull from the establishment.

Maybe I'm suffering from wishful thinking but I'd like to think John Miller knows exactly what he is doing with these leaks.

Post: #218

Completely agree, greekgod. Trump may appoint Christie to some key position within his administration, but I highly doubt he would choose him as his VP.

I know Lewandowsky isn't "officially" with the campaign anymore, but didn't he mention something about how Trump would pick “someone who has federal elective experience so they understand how to make sure that they can get his legislative agenda done"? Wouldn't this disqualify Christie from any serious consideration?

I'm sure Trump is well-versed in the works of Niccolo Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and Robert Greene, or at least his performance in the election cycle thus far would seem to suggest. I have no doubt that he's aware of Machiavelli's quote or at least the concept, "No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution." I doubt Trump would let the cat out of the bag on who his VP pick is so soon before the convention. I could, however, see him employing some smoke and mirrors to detract attention away from who he's actually going to pick.

I doubt it will be Gingrich after his comments about Trump and the Mexican judge. Besides, didn't Trump already effectively turn down the possibility of Gingrich as VP when he refused the campaign contributions from the casino magnate?

Post: #219

If Newt and Christie are the two "top choices" its because there isn't any support of Trump from mainstream politicians.

If he wins great, but if he loses and you are VP your career is over. Maybe Trump can sign a deal that if he loses the VP gets a job in Trump industries.

If Newt and Christie are picked I will have lost faith in Trump. Ask for a refund on the MAGA hats.

Post: #220

Trump will lose if he picks either Gingrich or Christie.

Won't happen, but I think the best choice would be Rand Paul or Andrew Napolitano.

Post: #221

(07-01-2016 01:10 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  If Newt and Christie are the two "top choices" its because there isn't any support of Trump from mainstream politicians.

If he wins great, but if he loses and you are VP your career is over. Maybe Trump can sign a deal that if he loses the VP gets a job in Trump industries.

If Newt and Christie are picked I will have lost faith in Trump. Ask for a refund on the MAGA hats.

Your political career is over.

Your lobbying career starts which makes substantially more money and has less public demands. This isn't occurring in a bubble, Paul Nehlen is another example of no bullshit era of politics being ushered in.

Lewandowski landed on his feet. In broadcast journalism, no less. Remember that list of 40 female media personalities calling for his head? Yeah, that had teeth

Boldness is the new currency. Enjoy it.

Post: #222

Trump is apparently meeting Mike Pence over the weekend, who as you'll recall, is the governor of Indiana who endorsed Cruz in the primary there, but only very tepidly.

I don't know the guy or how he speaks, but me not knowing is precisely the point. You want someone fresh. He's also from a crucial region that Trump absolutely needs to win (the rust belt).

In my mind, the only thing that matters about a VP pick is making Trump less scary. This is absolutely critical. If he doesn't pick the right candidate, I think it's more likely that he loses than wins.

You do that by meeting these three conditions, and in my mind, all three must be met:

1. A steady hand with good experience and an impressive resume.
2. A calm, measured, and distinctly "presidential" demeanor.
3. A fresh face in the public mind so he has more room to create a favorable impression without negative reputations or confirmation bias looming over him.

I'm not sure about Pence, but from what I do know, he seems to fit at least two of those three criteria. By default he's a far better choice than Gingrich or Christie.

Post: #223

One other positive of Pence is that he has that silver fox look mid to late 20+ chicks love. He looks like that dude from Mad Men but his body language is much stronger. He gives Trump "social proof" with the career gal demo and softens him a bit. That's huge.

Whether or not his politics check out is another story.

That about the extent of the research I'm going to do on him this weekend but on the surface, looks good.

Post: #224

Pence connects with the "Socialist Cuckservatives" crowd (they don't find him to be threatening) as well as the "Defense/National Security" folks. He comes across as a steady hand.

That's a nice combo of attributes to bring to the table.

Post: #225

(07-01-2016 01:34 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  Trump will lose if he picks either Gingrich or Christie.

Won't happen, but I think the best choice would be Rand Paul or Andrew Napolitano.

I was with you until Rand Paul, I don't know if he brings anything to the table really.

I gotta go with Sessions