Post: #226

What about Josh Mandel, the treasurer of Ohio?

He's only 38 years old, is Pro 2A, anti-ObamaCare, and is for the Keystone Pipeline. Plus, he would probably help Trump in Ohio, a key swing state. The only downside is that he's a relative unknown.

I also like Herman Cain, and I think had he not gotten involved in that whole sexual harassment mess in 2011, might have given Mitt Romney a run for his money.

One other person I like, and I don't know if anyone has bring her up, but Judge Jeanine Pirro. Only downside is that they're both from New York. Oh, and she's hot as hell for her age.

I hope that either Cain or Mandel has been vetted. I used to like Newt Gingrich, until he pretty much revealed himself to be a globalist.

Post: #227

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

He is a proven public speaker and statesman. But he is 200 pounds overweight and as you said, corrupt even by New Jersey standards.

He'd be find as attorney general though.

I'm still hoping for Sessions. As for Newt, I thought there was some sort of falling out with him and Trump a month ago and that he is not being considered?

Post: #228

Mike Pence would be a very solid choice (there are some indications that he is being seriously considered). He is well-liked by all parts of the GOP and would help unite the party behind Trump, which is important. And he has a good resume, both legislative and executive, and is sane and not particularly offensive to anyone.

The only downside to a Pence selection is that it will imprint the Indiana neural pathways even deeper into Trump's brain, so we'll never hear the end of the Bobby Knight stories. But I can live with that. Pretty much any choice that isn't Newt or Christie would be a reason for celebration at this point.

Post: #229

(07-01-2016 06:14 PM)Libertas Wrote:  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.

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=26728

Quote:Just In: Trump May Be Meeting With His Running Mate and Its A GOP Senator

Post: #230

Hopefully that's just a clickbait headline. Ernst is not a good choice because she can be seen as "too new" and having "not enough experience." Not to mention that choosing a woman just looks like pandering at this point.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if all of these were just smokescreens.

Post: #231

And here I was worried Trump would end up resorting to Chris Christy

Post: #232

Sessions avoids saying he's being vetted for VP (video).

Quote:The first senator to endorse Donald Trump refuses to say if he is being vetted as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's running mate.

"I'm going to let the campaign talk about all that stuff because I’m not involved in that," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told The Hill's Molly K. Hooper in an interview.

Hooper pressed, “So, that means 'yes?"

"No," Sessions responded, "it doesn't mean anything. I'll let them worry about how to announce who they are considering for any position."

Time to double down on your Sessions position at PredictIt.

Post: #233

Chuck Johnson has posted on his Facebook that he is told Newt Gingrich will be the VP candidate.

Post: #234

(07-05-2016 06:22 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  Chuck Johnson has posted on his Facebook that he is told Newt Gingrich will be the VP candidate.

That would suck. I don't like Gingrich.

However, the strategy I could see used in that situation would be "fuck it, we're not going to get any significant black, latino or puple pubic hair dyed lesbian votes anyway...we have to mobilize every single white republican from the age of 18 to 95" Gingrich would bring that in as I'm pretty sure Trump is the draw for independents.

Post: #235

"Gingrich has married three times. In 1962, he married Jacqueline May "Jackie" Battley (February 21, 1936 – August 7, 2013), his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.[174][175] They have two daughters from their marriage: Kathy Gingrich Lubbers, married to Paul Lubbers, is president of Gingrich Communications,[176] and Jackie Gingrich Cushman, the wife of Jimmy Cushman, Jr., is an author, conservative columnist, and political commentator,[177] whose books include 5 Principles for a Successful Life, co-authored with Newt Gingrich.[178]

In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left his wife after beginning an affair with Marianne Ginther.[179][180] In 1984, Jackie Battley Gingrich told The Washington Post that the divorce was a "complete surprise" to her. According to Jackie, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce.[181] Gingrich has disputed that account.[182] In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, remembers that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.[183] Although Gingrich's presidential campaign staff continued to insist in 2011 that his wife requested the divorce, court documents obtained by CNN from Carroll County, Georgia, indicated that Jackie had asked a judge to block the process stating that although "she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce ... she does not desire one at this time [and] does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken."[184] The daughter of the former Linda May Clay and Wilbur Allen Battley, Jackie Gingrich was a native of Columbus, Georgia. She was a deacon and active volunteer in the First Baptist Church of Carrollton, Georgia. She died in Atlanta at the age of 77.[185]


Gingrich alongside wife Callista at a townhall in Derry, New Hampshire
According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of his first wife: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."[186][187] Gingrich has denied saying it. His supporters dismiss Carter as a disgruntled former aide who was miffed at not being asked to accompany Gingrich to Washington.[188]

In 1981, six months after his divorce from his first wife was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.[189][190][191][192] Marianne helped control their finances to get them out of debt. She was also coauthor of his 1984 book Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future.[193] She did not, however, want to have the public life of a politician's wife.[194] Gingrich's daughter Kathy Lubbers described the marriage as "difficult".[195]

In 1993, while still married to Marianne, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior.[196] Gingrich and his second wife were divorced in 2000. The marriage produced no children. On January 19, 2012, Marianne Ginther Gingrich alleged in an interview on ABC's Nightline that she had declined to accept Gingrich's suggestion of an open marriage.[197] Asked about the allegations at the beginning of the televised South Carolina primary debate, Gingrich said the story was false and told the co-ordinator that making an ex-wife a significant question in a presidential campaign was "close to despicable".[198]

In August 2000, Gingrich married Callista Bisek four months after his divorce from Marianne was finalized.[199] He and Callista live in McLean, Virginia.[200] In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying, "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."[191][192] In December 2011, after the group Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government requested that he sign their so-called "Marriage Vow", Gingrich sent a lengthy written response. It included his pledge to "uphold personal fidelity to my spouse".

Well we already know how the media will frame all of this. Trump will be going straight for the white male vote only if he picks Newt. Newt won't bring any women over.

Newt is really more of a hand to the establishment than a grab for voters. If they wanted more voters they'd get a young, handsome male who makes good TV skits, or a female like Joni Ernst.

Post: #236

Newt would be a very surprising VP pick as he has shown public disloyalty to Trump. I'm hoping this is disinformation and Sessions gets the nod.

Post: #237

Michael Flynn or Sessions.

Post: #238

(Edit: Liberty Sea beat me to it, but let me elaborate.)

What about Michael T. Flynn? He's being mentioned now.

• Retired United States Army lieutenant general
• Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
• Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
• Chair of the Military Intelligence Board
  

Previously, I was thinking about what should be one of the main goals of a Trump administration, and that is undoing the long march through the institutions, where key positions have been filled with subversives. This trend has been especially alarming in the armed forces as many have opined on Obama's efforts to weaken the institution from within, replacing old school quality men with his progressive operatives.

I couldn't remember any names, though. But here we have one:

"General forced out by Obama is on Trump’s VP short list"



Trump absolutely must undo the ongoing efforts to subvert the institutions and reinstate the great, righteous men that have been purged for their resistance against the globalist threats. This is one such man. And a strong, high-level military man further solidifies Trump as the protector and the law-and-order, safety and security candidate. Not the nation-wrecking, mercenary military, but the American military that has been quietly replaced.

From the article:

Quote:The outspoken and brash Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — who was forced out of his post by the Obama administration in 2014 after pointing out the rising global jihadist threat — has already briefed the Republican presidential candidate on several occasions and is in close touch with high levels of Trump’s staff.

[...]

“All I would say is that I have been honored to serve my country for the past three decades and look forward to serving in other ways now that I am retired from the US Army,” he said. “I’ve been a soldier too long to refuse to entertain any request from a potential commander in chief.”

Sounds like a great man. And to everyone still doubting that only thorough conviction is driving Trump: Look at who he is gathering behind him. All the few remaining good people in politics and other high places. Real Americans who care about the nation against the near-invincible global elites.

Here's an older article that shows this could be our man: "Ex-US Intelligence Chief on Islamic State's Rise: 'We Were Too Dumb'."

Quote:Without the Iraq war, Islamic State wouldn't exist today, former US special forces chief Mike Flynn openly admits. In an interview, he explains IS' rise to become a professional force and how the Americans allowed its future leader to slip out of their hands.

And with Flynn, who might hold a grudge against the hostile elites that ousted him, we wouldn't lose the great Sessions from his important place in the Senate.

What do you guys think?

Edit: Great timing and might not be coincidental:

From Wikipedia: The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies, with Michael Ledeen, is forthcoming from St. Martin's Press (2016).

And just look at that high-energy and high-testosterone face! Who could have hoped a year ago we would be talking about this? Understandable so many people feel so excited for the first time in ages about the future. And also understandable the global elites and their media cronies are in such a panic. Beautiful.

Post: #239

I don't think that Newt will be vp. Trump has been using Newt to build up some media hype, but Trump always uses diversion for free publicity. I'm calling Ernst as a wildcard VP pick. I don't think it has to look like a pandering play either.

Post: #240

^ The insider that gave AMA's on /pol/ predicted it would likely be Michael Flynn and that Christie was going to be his AG. You can see the screenshots in the Trump thread.

Post: #241

Well I've been a little out of the loop then. Flynn appears to be a bad motherfucker, so I would be all for Trump doubling down on the aggressive approach to this election. I still see Ernst as a smart play in a calculative way for getting the female vote, but Flynn seems more solid for republican confidence sake (much needed right now after the Hilary deal).

Post: #242

Does this sound like Donald Trump? Absolutely. I would not be surprised if a partnership between the two has been planned for a long time. As with other possible candidates I really like, I can't say Flynn should be the running mate per se, but he should have an important role in the administration.

Read for yourselves:

Quote:Spy General Unloads on Obama’s ISIS War Plan

Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn likens the fight against Islamic militants to the Cold War and calls for an international chain of command akin to that of the Allies in World War II.

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency slammed the Obama administration on Monday as “well intentioned” but paralyzed and playing defense in its the fight against Islamic militancy.

Recently retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn called for the U.S. to lead the charge in a sweeping, decades-long campaign against the Islamic State group, al Qaeda, and its ilk—a fight like the one against the former Soviet Union—against a new enemy he said is “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life.”

“There is no substitute, none, for American power,” the general said, to occasional cheers and ultimately a standing ovation from a crowd of special operators and intelligence officers at a Washington industry conference.

He also slammed the administration for refusing to use the term “Islamic militants” in its description of ISIS and al Qaeda.

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” Flynn said.

He said the administration is unwilling to admit the scope of the problem, naively clinging to the hope that limited counterterrorist intervention will head off the ideological juggernaut of religious militancy.

“There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity,” said Flynn, so they “accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.”

[...]

Flynn left his DIA post in the summer of 2014, with close associates muttering about his frustration with the Obama White House’s inaction against al Qaeda, the self-proclaimed Islamic State, widely known as ISIS or ISIL, and more. Since his departure, he has been speaking to business executives and contemplating several offers from corporate America and academia, but has stayed mum about why he left his DIA post earlier than planned.

Within the shadowy world of special operations-driven intelligence, Flynn developed a reputation for bluntly speaking his mind, working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal at the elite Joint Special Operations Command and later serving as McChrystal’s intelligence chief in Afghanistan before McChrystal had his own run-in with the Obama administration for impolitic remarks in Rolling Stone magazine.

Flynn caused controversy during his Afghan stint when he went outside military channels to a think tank, publishing a monograph called Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan [sixsix: link]. That broadside was maligned for the delivery method but widely praised for its message—that traditional military-intelligence practitioners were too focused on targeting the enemy rather than understanding the cultural and economic environment driving the enemy to fight.
In this latest critique, Flynn accused the administration of failing to understand what drives ISIS or al Qaeda.

“They want us to think that our challenge is dealing with an undefined set of violent extremists or merely lone-wolf actors with no ideology or network. But that’s just not the straight truth,” said Flynn. “Our adversaries around the world are self-described Islamic militants—they say,” he told the crowd at the annual National Defense Industry Association’s special-operations meeting. There were many nods of approval.

[...]

Flynn described the enemies arrayed against the U.S. as varied, but “fueled by a vision for worldwide domination, achieved through violence and bloodshed. They want to silence all opposition. They hate our ideals and they hate our way of life.”

In the fight against militant extremism, Flynn said the problem is so sweeping, the world should create a “single unified and international chain of command, probably civilian-led,” like the coalition championed by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II. He made further references to former President Ronald Reagan’s all-out war against the Soviet Union, not only outfighting them in proxy wars, but outspending them and outthinking them in terms of fighting their ideology.

Flynn said that since 1960 there had been more than 30 insurgencies, conflicts, and wars, “and in two-thirds of these cases, the bad guys won.”

“A strong defense is the best deterrent,” against such fights, he said, adding that, “the dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary.”

“Retreat, retrenchment, and disarmament are historically a recipe for disaster,” he added, making reference to budget cuts and troop drawdowns faced by the current military as the Obama administration attempts to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, as it did in Iraq before sending small numbers of trainers and advisers to assist the government there in the current crisis brought on by the territorial gains of ISIS.

Compare this to Trump:

"A strong military will stop wars. Peace through Strength! Let’s Make America Great Again!"

And:

"When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can't say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!"

Post: #243

Trump is one of the most enlightened public figures on earth.

Post: #244

Trump was with Bob Corker yesterday, who would be a decent choice too.

I like this Flynn guy though. A lot of people are getting upset with Obama over terrorism, so he brings that credibility as well as fits the three criteria I mentioned on the previous page.

Post: #245

(07-06-2016 07:36 AM)Libertas Wrote:  Trump was with Bob Corker yesterday, who would be a decent choice too.

I like this Flynn guy though. A lot of people are getting upset with Obama over terrorism, so he brings that credibility as well as fits the three criteria I mentioned on the previous page.

Corker would also be OK, but Flynn would amp things up to a crazy conflict level, which would be awesome.

Having some stone faced general talk about Clinton's evasion of the law or even just addressing protesters would put a very serious "This campaign is not here to fuck around" icing on the cake.

Also, if Trump were assassinated I would prefer a military leader to take up the reins in the aftermath.

Post: #246

Corker is out. Ernst is basically out.

Quote:Joni Ernst all but removed herself from Donald Trump’s vice presidential search, telling POLITICO in an interview that she wants to help Trump become president but that she’s focused on Iowa and the Senate, where the freshman senator said she's “just getting started.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/jo...z4Df0LvFw3

Quote:In a lengthy interview with reporters on Capitol Hill, Corker had warm words for Trump, whom he campaigned with in North Carolina on Tuesday.

"I’ve always thought that I’m better suited for other kinds of things and I think most people who know me agree with that," Corker said Wednesday afternoon. "I do want to say I had a remarkable day there yesterday and you know, the Trump family is most impressive."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bo...z4Df0oJNme

Post: #247

(07-06-2016 04:08 AM)sixsix Wrote:  snip

I am really starting to like this guy!



WITH FLYNN YOU WIN

Post: #248

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...-trump-vp/

Ann Coulter is worried Trump is going to follow bad advice for the first time.

Requirements for Trump VP for any red-blooded American must be:

- A patriot who does not buy the unnuanced neo-classical/globalist agenda
- Who is fiercely anti-PC and not tainted by progressive lies (like most GOP'ers), ie. he only pays lip-service to the stupid religious truths that govern our culture (e.g. that talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not, that men and women are equal in other ways than moral, etc.)
- Attack dog that can wade into Clinton
- Legislative experience
- Enough energy for a grueling campaign
- Could become POTUS after Trump
- Would never betray Trump or undermine him.
- Can help rally GOP

Sessions meets almost all those criteria, he's just old and looks it. Coulter thinks he is best placed in the Senate, but with his Army background and distinguished career, I think he is perhaps the best choice for 1st term. Make Kris Kobach the AG, and then in 2020, let Sessions retire and make Kobach the VP.

That would guarantee 16 years of Republican control of the executive branch. Perhaps enough time to right the ship.

But Kobach went to Oxford, Yale and Harvard, so can probably learn faster than anyone how to do the job. He could be deadly. If it's either one of those two, we know Trump is serious about winning the culture war Buchanan talked about in his 1992 speech.

In other heartening news, Trump raised 50 million bucks in June, most of it at the end of the month. At this rate, July is going to look good, and the cowardly GOP'ers who are considering betraying him will think harder about it.

Post: #249

From Politico:

Quote:"Trump on VP: There are 2 generals under consideration"

But the list has "about" 10 names on it , two of which are military generals, he told Fox News Channel's Kimberly Guilfoyle in a telephone interview as he called into the show the same day two of the top contenders to be his running mate said thanks, but no thanks.

"Well, I like the generals. I like the concept of the generals. We're thinking about—actually there are two of them that are under consideration," Trump said, declining to provide specific names, although Guilfoyle later referenced the name of retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. "Really, we're looking to go more the political route in terms of getting legislation passed, which is what they do. And I think, frankly, we don't want to do the executive orders like [President Barack] Obama has been doing."

So my bet is still on a seasoned politician and Trump is known for sending out mixed signals for misdirection purposes, but he's also unpredictable and unconventional. In any scenario, his campaign has been partnering with Flynn for a while and they have listened to his criticisms of the current military strategy.

But Newt Gringrich? He has a lot of qualities and would be great in some capacity, but he also has a lot of baggage and would not counterbalance Trump's rough edges and perceived personal flaws. Also, he's been in bed with the behind-the-scenes power structures a bit too much and his early support could be a way of the establishment to gain access to the office (read "Report: Trump Refused $200 Million To Pick Gingrich As VP"). Most importantly, he has not backed this agenda from the start and cannot be trusted to fully back it in the future, whereas a man like Sessions feels it from the heart.

Edit:

Great Anne Coulter quote from the Breitbart column ElJefe linked to above:

Quote:How is Trump going to find a decent running mate from among the Republicans who have gotten ahead under the old model of sucking up to donors and lobbyists?

In that system, guys like Gingrich got so much power by his donors having some kind of leverage.

Post: #250

Just heard on Hannity radio that Mr Trump met with Reince and LYIN Ted today! Wonder what that was about.....