• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's VP Pick

Having the left talk about DJT's VP pick is a good thing. It means they are entertaining the idea that both The Queen of Corruption and Comrade BS are going to be losers in this race. They are getting used to the idea. lol

Hillary is still the better act. A token woman president trumps an outspoken Trump.:lol:

She is a lawyer and a well seasoned professional liar. She puts on a more believable act that she is for the average American. Most of us know she is a power hungry liar who one day wants to be part of the 1% who own her and the democrat party.

Trump may make a mistake picking the best person for the job instead of a politically correct media sensation. Maybe not. He might be up on all the reality shows and he clearly knows how to manipulate the media. It should be interesting.
 
You remember Zel Miller? He was a Dem congressmen from Georgia, if I recall correctly. He was the last real democrat that I actually liked. But really, the Dem Party is gone. It was stolen by the radical left.

Yes, of course. I have read his "Not a National Party Anymore" book.

The Democrats have lost their moorings a center-left party by attrition. But the same thing is happening right now with the GOP: only it is not gradual, it is a populist putsch deposing not just the "center-right" (vaguely defined but energetically vilified "Establishment", but everything "right" (as in: conservative or libertarian) in favor of a statist Latin America-style caudillismo. We know what Peronism did to Argentina - it turned a once very rich country with limitless potentials into a perennial joke. I am not eager to reproduce the experiment.
 
Of Donald J Trump, your Lord and Savior.

Now that's funny. I don't ever remember saying I was a supporter of his. Talk about gullible. LMAO.
 
Now that's funny. I don't ever remember saying I was a supporter of his. Talk about gullible. LMAO.

Anyone who claims to be "Very Conservative" says all I need to know about their support. We have had several cons here who claimed to oppose Trump and are now fully lodged in the crack of his ass. Many other cons here will fall in line eventually.
 
Hmmmm, interesting. When you say "1%," are you referring to the political establishment? And if so, do you think Trump is a reflection of those people that are political anti-establishment? So, wouldn't be beneficial to elect Trump, as the "anti-establishment" candidate? Just curious. Whaddya think?

To some degree. We don't know where Trump stands. He is in the 1% the same as Hillary. The difference is he is on the high end of the 1%. He is where she wants to be. He also is smart enough to use the media for free where she must use the money of the people who own her to fund her message. While he is not bought and paid for like Hillary he is worth the amount of money that usually does the buying and paying for.

When I refer to the 1% I am talking about the people wealthy enough to go to the $1000. a plate dinners and discuss how they will benefit from the candidate they fund or own. The owners of all our media who help determine the outcome of most elections with bias articles to keep themselves and their cohorts in the top 1%. The people on the board of directors of both industry and labor unions who use our money to keep themselves in the top 1%. Then you have the 1% of the 1% richest which use their massive wealth to keep both parties almost equal divided so the people never unite and take control of the government. The bankers who get what they want no matter who is elected. Actually it never really was our government. The government of this country has always been under the control of the rich and powerful. The average citizen has always been a pawn kept equally divided and too busy fighting each other to see what was really going on. Magicians have been doing this for millennia.
 
To some degree. We don't know where Trump stands. He is in the 1% the same as Hillary. The difference is he is on the high end of the 1%. He is where she wants to be. He also is smart enough to use the media for free where she must use the money of the people who own her to fund her message. While he is not bought and paid for like Hillary he is worth the amount of money that usually does the buying and paying for.

When I refer to the 1% I am talking about the people wealthy enough to go to the $1000. a plate dinners and discuss how they will benefit from the candidate they fund or own. The owners of all our media who help determine the outcome of most elections with bias articles to keep themselves and their cohorts in the top 1%. The people on the board of directors of both industry and labor unions who use our money to keep themselves in the top 1%. Then you have the 1% of the 1% richest which use their massive wealth to keep both parties almost equal divided so the people never unite and take control of the government. The bankers who get what they want no matter who is elected. Actually it never really was our government. The government of this country has always been under the control of the rich and powerful. The average citizen has always been a pawn kept equally divided and too busy fighting each other to see what was really going on. Magicians have been doing this for millennia.

Okay, cool. Considering your post, it seems you would be a Trump supporter. He is basically an outsider although a 1%er, but isn’t one of the establishment elites.
 
Anyone who claims to be "Very Conservative" says all I need to know about their support. We have had several cons here who claimed to oppose Trump and are now fully lodged in the crack of his ass. Many other cons here will fall in line eventually.

Leftists spend a lot time on crack. So, what's your point? ROTFLMAO
 
Mark Cuban is saying he may be interested in VP of either Clinton or Trump. I think that would be a good pick for Trump.

Forbes Welcome
 
Mark Cuban is saying he may be interested in VP of either Clinton or Trump. I think that would be a good pick for Trump.

Forbes Welcome

You will be able to tell if he is a good pick if the left gets a hate-on for him.

Good find, thanks for posting that.
 
Okay, cool. Considering your post, it seems you would be a Trump supporter. He is basically an outsider although a 1%er, but isn’t one of the establishment elites.

That is the impression I get from him. Unfortunately we will have to wait and see. All politician say what we want to hear until they get in office. Then it is the other parties fault they can't accomplish anything. That is unless the billionaire bankers need money. Bush and Obama along with congress couldn't print the money fast enough to give it to the failing banks. No money for raises in Social Security but trillions available any time the bankers screw up. God forbid they have to give up their multi-million dollar bonuses, European vacations, their private jets, or maybe one of their many homes.
 
Okay, cool. Considering your post, it seems you would be a Trump supporter. He is basically an outsider although a 1%er, but isn’t one of the establishment elites.

I cannot in my right mind support Hillary. The last thing I need is millions of illegal alien driving down wages. Plus I spend most of my time fighting for my rights and freedom if she gets elected. She is a for sure a bought and paid for party puppet of the rich and powerful and will provide them with 10's of millions of cheap labor. Even the unions are losing everything they have fought for. These people are more than willing to do any job for less money, no benefits, less hours, unsafe working conditions, and the list goes on. If this is what the union supports then I am misinformed.
 
You will be able to tell if he is a good pick if the left gets a hate-on for him.

Good find, thanks for posting that.

Not only that but I think he is going to play the media as part of the process. He is clearly sharp and knows how to get the most form them. He most likely has known foe a while who he will choose. He will most likely try to make a media sensation out of the process to counter the media sensation Hillary gets for just being a politically correct woman candidate. Bernie learned that the hard way.
 
Only if you are from the left. I think he will choose who he thinks is best for the job and to get him elected and could care less what the left think. Rich people stay rich by surrounding themselves with smart people.
[emphasis added by bubba]
you believe he will choose the best qualified

his campaign has told us that will not be a woman or a minority

which then allows us to conclude the campaign believes no woman or minority is qualified to be the VP

how is that not bigotry?
 
Too Jewish.


Once I realized that Olympia Snowe hates on Trump I never had another woman as the right fit for VP, and it was never going to be a minority, we knew that from the get go.

I want Eric Cantor, and he fits the bill.

I think I am the only one.
 
The very premise of picking a VP, for a good long time now, has been for the purpose of pandering.


Yes and this inherently wrong as look what happened to John Cain. He was willing to risk us just to take on a cartoonish broad thinking it would help with the female vote. I really thought he was better than that.

True the actual VP does not require a lot yet it is one of the most important decisions of the candidate as that pick will have the possibility of being POTUS.

I guess if the candidate can be select a VP who is competent and capable and also is strategic for wining the election I have no issue. When it is strictly for pandering it is not only disappointing it is reckless.
 
Yes and this inherently wrong as look what happened to John Cain. He was willing to risk us just to take on a cartoonish broad thinking it would help with the female vote. I really thought he was better than that.

McCain was DOA. He barely had any support/enthusiasm from his base and used Palin to pander to that demographic while using himself as the pull for some moderates. She did help him get more base support but probably lost him some independents and moderates. Gotta be careful that when pandering for one group you don't alienate another.
 
McCain was DOA. He barely had any support/enthusiasm from his base and used Palin to pander to that demographic while using himself as the pull for some moderates. She did help him get more base support but probably lost him some independents and moderates. Gotta be careful that when pandering for one group you don't alienate another.

Good points you have made - and even though I did not vote for McCain I had respected him yet felt his pandering was over the top as his VP of Palin was so reckless considering his age and health issues.
 
I didn't say Trump has a problem with Jews.





What makes you think Trump has a problem with Jews? I am not aware of such a thing.
 
[emphasis added by bubba]
you believe he will choose the best qualified

his campaign has told us that will not be a woman or a minority

which then allows us to conclude the campaign believes no woman or minority is qualified to be the VP

how is that not bigotry?

Did he say he would not choose a woman or a minority even if they were the best qualified? He most likely has known who or between a few choices who he was going to select. If it is not a woman or a minority then he is just telling you he has not chosen a woman or minority. Choosing the best person for the job is not bigotry. Judging him to be a bigot for not selecting a woman or a minority without knowing why he chose that person is bigotry. I would have to listen to that statement and see in what context he said it would not be a woman or a minority. But until we see his choice and get his reason for that choice prejudging him to be a bigot is prejudice plain and simple.
 
See post 16.

You must love gov't corruption. Congratulations, you're a leftist. LMAO

Says the guy who stands up for the party which brought us Iran/Contra, our illegal and utterly useless invasion of Iraq, the law that doesn't allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, and much, much more!
 
Did he say he would not choose a woman or a minority even if they were the best qualified? He most likely has known who or between a few choices who he was going to select. If it is not a woman or a minority then he is just telling you he has not chosen a woman or minority. Choosing the best person for the job is not bigotry. Judging him to be a bigot for not selecting a woman or a minority without knowing why he chose that person is bigotry. I would have to listen to that statement and see in what context he said it would not be a woman or a minority. But until we see his choice and get his reason for that choice prejudging him to be a bigot is prejudice plain and simple.

tRump ruled out a woman or a minority as his VP

he excluded them from consideration

tell us why that is not bigotry

it presumes a woman or minority could not meet the VP qualifications
 
Says the guy who stands up for the party which brought us Iran/Contra, our illegal and utterly useless invasion of Iraq, the law that doesn't allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, and much, much more!

ROTFLMAO. Which party do I "stand up" for? We already know which corrupt party you stand up for.
 
tRump ruled out a woman or a minority as his VP

he excluded them from consideration

tell us why that is not bigotry

it presumes a woman or minority could not meet the VP qualifications

Wrong, what it means is that Trump has decided that it would not help promote the Trump brand as he intends to establish it in Washington. THis is part of the long running trend of Trump going in the opposite direction of PC culture. I am fine with this.
 
Wrong, what it means is that Trump has decided that it would not help promote the Trump brand as he intends to establish it in Washington. THis is part of the long running trend of Trump going in the opposite direction of PC culture. I am fine with this.

i am not surprised that you are fine with this

but what you have not shared with us is why tRump's exclusion of women and minorities as possible running mates should be viewed as anything except an act of bigotry against women and minorities
 
Back
Top Bottom