Post: #151

I'd be OK with Chris Christie getting the VP. I'd rather it was Sessions. Kasich would make sense because Ohio is a swing state and they love Kasich in Ohio, the one state that he won.

But the real problem in this election, I am convinced is with the massive amounts of voter fraud from camp Hillary.

Post: #152

Quote: 4. No one gives a fuck about Ohio.

It's swing state and Kasich is rather damned popular.

Post: #153

I don't understand why people think Trump would choose anyone he took down as VP.

How bad would it look if he chose Lyin' Ted or 1-47 Kasich? Even little Rubio would be a bad look.

Whoever he picks is going to be someone he has never talked shit about.

Post: #154

(04-30-2016 02:09 AM)Kickb Wrote:  Whoever he picks is going to be someone he has never talked shit about.

I guess that rules out Rosie O'Donnell.

Post: #155

Kasich is useless since Trump can win Ohio easily without him on the account of being anti-NAFTA and pro-bringing jobs back tor US.

Christie doesn't have high approvals in New Jersey and has the Bridgegate skeleton in the background. He is also too similar to Trump (blunt, northeastern type) to bring any balance. He will very likely be Attorney General.

I still stand by my pick of Jon Huntsman for now. Huntsman would also be a strong State Department pick if not VP.

The only major thing that Huntsman doesn't MAYBE have going for him is his gender and race. If he was a minority or a woman, he'd be the pick for sure. Gender and race are going to big deals in this election and its a bit of a debate if Trump is gonna seek out a hispanic and/or female VP to balance out his poor demographics with those groups. I don't think Trump will pick a substandard VP pick just to appease identity politics but if he can find a competent minority or woman, it COULD help him a bit.

On the other hand, identity politics is politically correct and Hillary is already playing the woman's card hard this campaign, If she picks a hispanic as VP to appease hispanics (that fag from San Antonio probably - Julian Castro), I could see it back-firing BIG TIME since it will only reinforce the current democrat/liberal narrative of putting race/gender pandering and identity politics above competency. People are really getting sick of that shit.

Think about these two tickets:

Hillary/Castro credentials:

1. Hillary - Secretary of State (not earned, given since she extorted SoS from Obama in exchange for a clean nomination) that engaged in dubious if not illegal actions on her watch. ISIS/radical Islamic terrorism also grew on her watch.

2. Hillary - US Senator (not earned, practically given due to connections/cronyism) that accomplished nothing except for voting for a stupid war.

3. Hillary - First Lady that was given the lead on important healthcare reform and ultimately fucked it up so bad she was blacklisted by the White House from touching anything else ever again.

4. Hillary - Failed to secure the 2008 democrat nomination despite having a VERY popular ex-President husband and his political connections/money. Remember, this is 2007 and people were longing hard for the Clinton years after 2 terms of Bush. Ultimately, she lost to a half-black guy with a funny sounding name that had only been at the federal level for a few years.

4. Castro - HUD Secretary (not earned but given to help groom him for higher office) and Mayor of a 2nd/3rd tier city. Whoopie do.

VS

Trump/Huntsman

1. Trump - Enormously successful businessman worth a billion+.

2. Trump - Called out stupid Iraq War when unpopular. Pre-9/11, labelled Bin Laden a real threat when not well known. And this isn't even his JOB! He is a businessman!

3. Trump- Despite no political experience, controversial politically incorrect views, a corrupt primary electoral process, a corrupt media, a mostly corrupt party, and doing a campaign with minimal cost, overcomes enormous odds and secures RNC nomination in ONE shot.

4. Trump -<about 1000 other things>

5. Huntsman - Successful governorship with high approval ratings.

6. Huntsman - Ambassador to major international trade player (China) / speaks language / significant international political experience.

7. Huntsman - He has around a decade of private sector experience being an executive in the family business.

8. Huntsman - Respected by moderates / liberals for nuanced views in previous election cycles. Was often labeled by liberals as the "the one republican they could see themselves voting for."

When looking at each tickets credentials regardless of race/gender/charisma (or lack of), the contrast between the two is worlds apart. I think Trump could pick Huntsman, claim he did so because he is a great fit ABOVE ALL, and call out Hillary for picking out her guy to pander to Hispanics instead of picking the best person for the job. That fact alone should disqualify her; Trump could argue very effectively that specific point and drive a stake into the heart of identity politics at the same time.

"That's the only thing Hillary is really good at really: Getting jobs she is overwhelming unqualified for and giving jobs to people that they not qualified for."

Post: #156

Apparently Hillary's camp had a falling out with Castro, I've seen a lot of calls online for Hillary to pick another Woman. This would backfire so bad, please Hillary pick someone with a short fuse like Warren. Although I feel like Hillary is threatened that Warren would steal all her thunder

Huntsman came out today strongly for Trump, he'll be a great pick.

Another thing to keep in mind trump might pick someone that the GOP doesn't like, as impeachment insurance. The most annoying wing of the party the freedom caucus has been the loudest nevertrump whiners.

Post: #157

(04-30-2016 07:33 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  Apparently Hillary's camp had a falling out with Castro, I've seen a lot of calls online for Hillary to pick another Woman. This would backfire so bad, please Hillary pick someone with a short fuse like Warren. Although I feel like Hillary is threatened that Warren would steal all her thunder

I hope this happens. This would be great especially when Warren's fraudulent "native american" fantasy roleplay transracialism stuff gets brought up again by Trump.

Post: #158

(04-30-2016 01:27 AM)CostinR Wrote:  

Quote: 4. No one gives a fuck about Ohio.

It's swing state and Kasich is rather damned popular.

And Trump would get JFK'd in the first month he's in office.

Kashit or Cruz would be the only one's that would make me seriously consider not voting for Trump. Picking one of those two would signal a yuge lack of judgement on his part.

Post: #159

(04-30-2016 03:05 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  Kasich is useless since Trump can win Ohio easily without him on the account of being anti-NAFTA and pro-bringing jobs back tor US.

The concern with Ohio is again: election fraud. Trump will have to win these swing states by a wide margin to get past all of the cheating Hillary will do. It can be done

Having Christie on the ticket may put New Jersey into play as well. I've said it before, but my biggest concern is that Trump will cheap out and continue to spend nothing on negative attack ads and Hillary's superpacs will spend 2 Billion dollars on negative attack ads, and Trump loses. If he cheaps out, it is almost like "why bother running?"

Post: #160

Huntsman on the ticket would shut down the whole "Trump is extreme" thing, and that would be a big plus. But do his views on trade mesh with Trump's regarding "Chy-nah"?

Post: #161

(04-30-2016 01:27 AM)CostinR Wrote:  

Quote: 4. No one gives a fuck about Ohio.

It's swing state and Kasich is rather damned popular.

(04-30-2016 03:05 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  Kasich is useless since Trump can win Ohio easily without him on the account of being anti-NAFTA and pro-bringing jobs back tor US.

The VP effect is overestimated. Kasich is fourth in a two man race for the nomination. Trump got over twice as many votes as Cruz in the Ohio primary. Kasich is dead weight in a race against Clinton.

(04-30-2016 03:05 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  On the other hand, identity politics is politically correct and Hillary is already playing the woman's card hard this campaign, If she picks a hispanic as VP to appease hispanics (that fag from San Antonio probably - Julian Castro), I could see it back-firing BIG TIME since it will only reinforce the current democrat/liberal narrative of putting race/gender pandering and identity politics above competency. People are really getting sick of that shit.

Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote in 2012. A Hispanic VP is insignificant outside swing states like Florida and New Mexico.

(04-30-2016 07:33 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  Apparently Hillary's camp had a falling out with Castro, I've seen a lot of calls online for Hillary to pick another Woman. This would backfire so bad, please Hillary pick someone with a short fuse like Warren. Although I feel like Hillary is threatened that Warren would steal all her thunder.

Politico ran that story this morning. Castro "seems to have fallen out of favor with Clinton’s inner circle". I haven't seen this outside Politico but I can't say I'm surprised. The Clinton/Warren ticket will never happen.

Following the Washington Post earlier in the week, the New York Times is speculating on Trump's VP pick. It's a better list than the Post's (the Times at least lists Jeff Sessions and Tim Scott), but it's all speculation. This thread has better analysis. Next week the Post will say Trump should pick Bernie Sanders.

Post: #162

Quote:Politico ran that story this morning. Castro "seems to have fallen out of favor with Clinton’s inner circle"

hmm maybe this Castro dude isn't so bad after all...

Post: #163

I'm putting my money on Huntsman. The Black Knight called it in March. It's the right tactical move. Who is the best running mate to defeat Hillary? Not any of the losing Republican candidates. A woman running mate like Joni Ernst or Nikki Lena could dampen media criticisms and claims of misogyny but wouldn't sway many voters away from Hillary.

(03-19-2016 11:45 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  I like the idea of Huntsman. That could appeal to moderates turned off by Trump's bravado.

The daughters on stage for that ticket would be ridiculous.

I also like the idea of Jim Webb but that might be too much for the GOP. Have him be Sec. of Defense.

Webb didn't seek reelection for his Senate seat in 2012 and doesn't like Washington politics. He would be stronger as Secretary of the Navy or Secretary of Defense. Before Trump entered the race I would have voted for Webb. Props to Sp5 for endorsing Webb back in 2014.

(04-30-2016 10:54 PM)911 Wrote:  

Quote:Politico ran that story this morning. Castro "seems to have fallen out of favor with Clinton’s inner circle"

hmm maybe this Castro dude isn't so bad after all...

He's weak and has no real experience.

Post: #164

(04-30-2016 08:33 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 01:27 AM)CostinR Wrote:  

Quote: 4. No one gives a fuck about Ohio.

It's swing state and Kasich is rather damned popular.

And Trump would get JFK'd in the first month he's in office.

Kashit or Cruz would be the only one's that would make me seriously consider not voting for Trump. Picking one of those two would signal a yuge lack of judgement on his part.

Trump already said that Kasich and Rubio are on the short list.

Quote:Donald Trump says his campaign is about to head in a more congenial direction - and he might even name some of his rivals to his cabinet.

“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” Trump told USA TODAY about a possible spot in his administration. “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names. ... I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich. … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard. ... But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard.”

Using Rubio as a VP would bother me more than Kasich, Rubio turned out to be the Manchurian Candidate, a puppet for the establishment who could not think or act for himself and was totally in over his head. Kasich, I just don't think many voters outside of Ohio know who he is one way or the other.

Post: #165

(05-01-2016 12:46 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 08:33 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 01:27 AM)CostinR Wrote:  

Quote: 4. No one gives a fuck about Ohio.

It's swing state and Kasich is rather damned popular.

And Trump would get JFK'd in the first month he's in office.

Kashit or Cruz would be the only one's that would make me seriously consider not voting for Trump. Picking one of those two would signal a yuge lack of judgement on his part.

Trump already said that Kasich and Rubio are on the short list.

Quote:Donald Trump says his campaign is about to head in a more congenial direction - and he might even name some of his rivals to his cabinet.

“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” Trump told USA TODAY about a possible spot in his administration. “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names. ... I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich. … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard. ... But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard.”

Using Rubio as a VP would bother me more than Kasich, Rubio turned out to be the Manchurian Candidate, a puppet for the establishment who could not think or act for himself and was totally in over his head. Kasich, I just don't think many voters outside of Ohio know who he is one way or the other.

Going against Pantsuit, Trump can highlight his main strength, and her main weakness: he's a maverick candidate who won't be bought, while she's the ultimate establishment whore insider.

He should pick Jesse Ventura as VP.

The main path to the White House for Trump is through Reagan Democrats, dissatisfied and independent voters. There is no point in going after Pantsuit's core constituency of cat ladies, establishment cucks and SJW libs, but more conservative Democrats, patriotic blue collar workers, Bernie libertarians, independent libertarians, dissatisfied moderates: there is a winning coalition there.

Ventura would also put Minnesota and other states like Colorado or Wisconsin into play.

The other important factor for Ventura is that the establishment hates him even more than Trump, so he would be an insurance policy against foul play. The same way Nixon used Agnew on his ticket as insurance, he rebuffed the Rep. establishment who was pushing George Bush on the ticket. Watergate only came in after the PTB got rid of Agnew and placed Ford in position.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/08/19/...-lemon.cnn

Post: #166

Since Trump is the ultimate troll king, I'd advise him to chose Bernie Sanders as his VP. I'd laugh so hard.

Post: #167

I'm as much of a fan of the high art of trolling as anyone, but I'm unsure as to whether or not Trump nation is ready to be trolled by Donald. There's a lot of trust on the line right now.

Trolling the other way is fun, though. For VP, how about:

Ted Nugent
The guy who owns Chik fil A
Anne Coulter
Stacey Dash
Gavin McInnes
Jim DeMint
Will Ferrel (Just so I can laugh every time I watch or read any politics -but unfortunately too liberal. Ironically, it would probably assure his election)

Post: #168

What do you guys think of Newt Gingrich? He's logical, rational and a former speaker of the House so he knows the ins and outs.

Post: #169

(05-04-2016 11:01 AM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:43 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  A Trump-Gingrich Ticket: Brilliant or Crazy?

"If Trump is the embodiment of the populist fantasy of the outsider — with no political experience — who is thrust into power by an angry electorate with a mandate to turn Washington on its head, right all the wrongs, and “make America great again,” Gingrich could be Trump’s wise sidekick."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...nt-nominee

IMO, Newt might better be an advisor...quietly behind the scenes....making sure that things get done.

Newt would be better as an advisor. He's a loser when it comes to Presidential elections. Even if the man may have a lot of political wisdom, that doesn't negate the fact in peoples' minds that he isn't a winner. As Trump has made the case that he is a "winner", I'm not sure recycling someone who has a history of losing is a good idea. If Trump does pick a VP from the political world, it should be someone from an appointed position that has broad appeal and respect of the electorate and/or (ideally and, not or) someone that has proven they can actually get elected. Newt doesn't qualify on those grounds.

/thread-48360...pid1293187

Post: #170

I mentioned this in the Trump thread -- Trump might pick a broad for VP, SC Gov or New Mex Gov.

Post: #171

I'll reiterate the Dusty Theory of VP Choices.

Good ones don't help you much, but bad ones can hurt you.

By bad, I mean incompetent (dumb sounding). Palin hurt McCain and Quayle hurt Bush the elder (though he still managed to win because of Reagan's coatails).

Paul Ryan wasn't able to carry WI for Romney. John Edwards couldn't carry NC for Kerry. Biden and Cheney came from small states with few electoral votes.

I say Trump should go with Jeff Sessions. He's aligned ideologically, provides good impeachment/assassination insurance, knows Washington , and is knowledgeable of policy. Libs won't like him, but he won't appear incompetent so independents won't be turned off.

Post: #172

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...ning-mate/

Carson sounds like he is ruling himself out for the spot, unless he is blowing smoke. According to the article above, Trump may go Democrat. That would make him stick with the unconventional theme he's running.

Post: #173

Its going to be Ben Carson. See my post in the Donald Trump thread.

Carson is perfect. He's non-threatening, an outsider like Trump, someone who would probably fall in line with everything Trump says. He's Black and can help Trump with allegations of racism. He can get Trump all the Cruz voters and keep the base intact.

Also Clinton will most likely pick the Castro guy as her VP. Trump cant afford to pick another middle aged whote guy. He needs to spice it up a bit. Carson will be perfect to go up against Clinton's identity politics and probably her PC outrage strategy.

You can take it to the bank. I think its Carson.

Post: #174

I agree with Carson checking a lot of the right boxes. Just not sure how well he would hold himself in a debate against hillary's vp pick. I agree that trump will favor some spice and Carson is certainly on the short list.

Post: #175

(05-05-2016 11:38 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...ning-mate/

Carson sounds like he is ruling himself out for the spot, unless he is blowing smoke. According to the article above, Trump may go Democrat. That would make him stick with the unconventional theme he's running.

Choosing a Democrat would kill Trump. So far in the campaign, Trump's controversial moves have worked because the only people offended are people who probably weren't going to vote for him anyways.

As much bad blood as there is between Trump and Cruz, I reckon Cruz supporters are more likely to vote for him than Sanders supporters. Pulling a move like that would piss off republican voters and likely wouldn't pull enough Reagan democrats over to his side to make up for it.

As much as the cucks suck, Trump needs their votes to be competitive.