Pence As Trump's VP

[Andiron]

Sir,  it appears to be a series of characters that look like downward pointing arrows


 (/incredible statement of the obvious passed off as profound thought.  Been watching way too many Star Trek TNG reruns)

[dogmush]

Quit bellyaching.  Rethink not voting or voting for a lost cause (who aren't at this stage of the game much better than Hillary as they are just another batch of politicians) just because your ego and self awareness seems to be more important to you than the health of our nation.  That's selfish thinking and frankly your posturing about it looks and sounds stupid.

Ah yes, the ever popular "Quit being selfish and suborn your ideas and vote to who I feel is best" coupled with the always present "THIS election is too important to have ideals in" and tempered with a pinch of "I'm older than you and know better anyway".

Let's see how that works out for Republicans.

I am not a "NeverTrump".  I am currently, strongly a not Trump as he has yet to articulate a plan(that has any chance of succeeding in our three branched system) to actually govern anywhere close to my ideas of what should happen.  He has a coupe months to try and convince people like me.  Failing that, I'll fall back on my long term plan to slowly, by drips and drabs convert people to an actual pro liberty party until they either take over an existing party, or push one out and take over as the second party('ala the Whig/Republican swap).  You're right that it won't be this year.  But we'll make progress a little bit at a time.*

Liberals aren't the only people that can read Rules for Radicals

*At the risk of sounding a little churlish, if all the people currently telling us that "THIS ONE is too important!! Have principals next time!" had listened to us 15-20 years ago (or longer) we wouldn't be in this situation.  Perhaps you folks should stop being so selfish and help us with the decade long work of prying people and seats away from the liberals.

[AJ Dual]

Now I'm wondering about Hillary's pick. It'll be interesting if she goes far left to try and shore up Bernie supporters, for someone who's squeaky-clean to try and mitigate her scandals and legal troubles, or someone with actual "warmth and charisma" as she has none.

I'm trying to think of someone who's "all three", but I'm coming up short.

However, as compared to Hillary herself, I'm thinking that the squeaky-clean and charisma categories might actually be a rather low bar.

[grampster]

Ah yes, the ever popular "Quit being selfish and suborn your ideas and vote to who I feel is best" coupled with the always present "THIS election is too important to have ideals in" and tempered with a pinch of "I'm older than you and know better anyway".

Let's see how that works out for Republicans.

I am not a "NeverTrump".  I am currently, strongly a not Trump as he has yet to articulate a plan(that has any chance of succeeding in our three branched system) to actually govern anywhere close to my ideas of what should happen.  He has a coupe months to try and convince people like me.  Failing that, I'll fall back on my long term plan to slowly, by drips and drabs convert people to an actual pro liberty party until they either take over an existing party, or push one out and take over as the second party('ala the Whig/Republican swap).  You're right that it won't be this year.  But we'll make progress a little bit at a time.*

Liberals aren't the only people that can read Rules for Radicals

*At the risk of sounding a little churlish, if all the people currently telling us that "THIS ONE is too important!! Have principals next time!" had listened to us 15-20 years ago (or longer) we wouldn't be in this situation.  Perhaps you folks should stop being so selfish and help us with the decade long work of prying people and seats away from the liberals.

Well, that's been ongoing now since the Bull Moose Party of Teddy Roosevelt.  Then it spawned (if that is an appropriate word. Perhaps so.)  George Wallace and on to Ross Perot and then the Tea Party, the only actual movement that had some promise and actually put some folks into elected positions.  Of course the Establishment wrecked that movement because of the tangible threat that it was.  Too bad more of the wishful thinkers didn't get on board and resisted that.    Some of us have been working at it at the grass roots for years trying to get school boards to get their collective heads out of their nether parts, at the township and county and town and village and state levels.  There has been some progress.  Smaller government units not doing stupid things and getting in debt, some schools actually teaching the trades,  Shall Issue, Castle Doctrine, Right to Work, conversion of some smaller unions into actual benefit of its members rather than enriching its overlords and some in state houses and governors and the federal congress who have the courage to stand. (As for the age issue.  That makes me laugh out loud.  I've watched for many years the young bucks come along with "new" idea that we older folks have seen fail before, but they were just to young to actually know the "new" idea was old bunkum. Maybe some day you youngsters will understand that... and besides; Get Off My Grass.)  But you need to pick your battles.  To guarantee Hillary gets the presidency is not one of them.  She might anyway, but why help her?  Before you close your mind, you have 4 months to mellow out.  If you want to think a bit more about Trump, you need to get past the media, Democrat and Liberal propaganda.  He is what I suggested in post 11.   If Trump attempted presidential/executive overreach as Obama has and Hillary surely will, the congress is more likely to do its job as they wouldn't be accused (oh horror) of being a sexist pig or misogynist as they would with her.  We the people have the benefit of him being an old, rich, white male.  Besides, we get to watch the liberals and MSM's heads explode.  If the Libertarian, Gary Bland, was worth his salt and any support, he would have been part of the Tea Party trying to change the Republican Party.  What he is is just another egotistical politician who's throwing a monkey wrench into the works like those who have gone before.  Some of his notions are closer to the Democrats if you listen to what he says.

[seeker_two]

Here's the thing about a third-party vote in this election....

If you truly and thoroughly support the third-party candidate, then you should vote for that candidate. But, no third-party voter should have any delusion that his/her vote will prevent Hillary Clinton from winning. The only vote that has a chance to do that is to vote for the only candidate that gets closest to defeating her. Right now, that's Trump.  If you don't want Hillary, Trump is the only realistic option. Then, after this election is over, you can work on making your third party a viable choice in state and Congressional elections. Get that done, and then your candidate has a shot.

Reality is cruel......

[dogmush]

 If you don't want Hillary, Trump is the only realistic option. Then, after this election is over, you can work on making your third party a viable choice in state and Congressional elections. Get that done, and then your candidate has a shot.

Reality is cruel......

That's what I was told about Obama. Twice. And Bush. Twice.

And yet, here we are. Every election is too important to have ideals. Every one is an emergency for the republicans, and I just need to suck it up this time and start working on a third party next time.

I'm over it.

If Hillary wins, it's because the GOP didn't even pay lip service to the ideas of people like me, but acted (again) like I owed them something. Not because I demurred to be bent over by a NYC crony capitalist.

[Andiron]

Now I'm wondering about Hillary's pick. It'll be interesting if she goes far left to try and shore up Bernie supporters, for someone who's squeaky-clean to try and mitigate her scandals and legal troubles, or someone with actual "warmth and charisma" as she has none.

I'm trying to think of someone who's "all three", but I'm coming up short.

However, as compared to Hillary herself, I'm thinking that the squeaky-clean and charisma categories might actually be a rather low bar.

Watch her nominate Bill...  Everyone remembers that guy fondly,  and none of his misdeeds ever stuck.

[AJ Dual]

Watch her nominate Bill...  Everyone remembers that guy fondly,  and none of his misdeeds ever stuck.

Except for Monica's dress. (drum hit, high hat)

[Scout26]

The funny thing is, is that if everyone that dissatisfied with the Trump or Hillary options voted third party, then the third party candidate would win.

I'm too, am being sick of being told to "suck it up, this election is too important".  If it's that damn important, then then do what you promise you will do.  This last election I was told was the most important because "We need to stop Obama's illegal immigrant amnesty, budget, defund Obamacare, and stop his other actions." * Yet within days of handing the R's a majority in senate and largest R majority in the house, they literally spit in our face and passed everything Obama wanted and asked for.

Sorry, but when you lie to my face, I'm done with you.   If you lose this election, it's because of the your actions, not mine.  And I'm of half a mind to even vote for Hillary just to burn this MF'er down.




* - Do I even need to mention what the R establishment did in Mississippi to the Tea Party Candidate to protect one of their own?

[AJ Dual]

I give the GOP a partial pass, because a lot of the anger is over not understanding that Obama could/would just veto anything the GOP passed. And without a 60 seat majority, the Democrats can still tie the Senate up in knots if they wish.

However, as scout26 alludes to, there's still a TON of actions the GOP has taken the past four years that has shown people the GOP isn't that different than the DNC in that the politics of power are definitely more important than the politics of ideology. Something I think doesn't shock anyone here as much as it has the nominal American Right voter base overall. I think when a lot of people throw up their hands in frustration saying "Meh. They're all the same!" this is what they really mean.

The GOP has definitely NOT learned the "Trump Lesson" so far. They still fall too easily to the Beltway/Costal Urban "bubble" and the MSM. Not realizing that at least half of America approves of their politicians by how much the MSM hates them. And not really getting at a gut level the MSM is always going to hate them anyway.

[Fitz]

every time we hear the same thing. "Voting third party is a waste! Support our guy! it's the only way to keep the republic alive a little longer"

and yet... here we are.

[Angel Eyes]

A point that has been made elsewhere is: the GOPe keeps asking "How do we stop Trump?" when they should be asking "How did we fail our constituents so miserably that a guy like Trump looks good by comparison?"

[seeker_two]

A point that has been made elsewhere is: the GOPe keeps asking "How do we stop Trump?" when they should be asking "How did we fail our constituents so miserably that a guy like Trump looks good by comparison?"

QFT....

.....and awkward that the only anti-establishment candidate in the election IS Trump.

[Ben]

I give the GOP a partial pass, because a lot of the anger is over not understanding that Obama could/would just veto anything the GOP passed. And without a 60 seat majority, the Democrats can still tie the Senate up in knots if they wish.

I can't give them that pass. To me, it's quitting before you even start. Sure, Obama can veto, but that puts the ball in his court. MAKE him veto stuff. The whole "playing ball" thing has not worked for Rs throughout Obama's administration. They fold, yet are still labeled obstructionists by D's and the MSM. Make Obama (or Clinton if we go to hell in NOV) the obstructionist by putting legislation on their desk that they refuse to sign.

[Hawkmoon]

I can't give them that pass. To me, it's quitting before you even start. Sure, Obama can veto, but that puts the ball in his court. MAKE him veto stuff. The whole "playing ball" thing has not worked for Rs throughout Obama's administration. They fold, yet are still labeled obstructionists by D's and the MSM. Make Obama (or Clinton if we go to hell in NOV) the obstructionist by putting legislation on their desk that they refuse to sign.

^^^ This.

IMHO, when both sides only offer bad solutions there's actually a lot to be said for stalemates. If the only new laws being proposed are bad, what's so bad about not getting any new laws signed into being?

[roo_ster]

1. Many folk here seem to hold the notion that their vote matters.
It doesn't.  Do the math.  Also, see the results when the vote is whipped by GOPe, they are elected to majorities on a message, and then GOPe betrays both message and voters.  Don't get so wound around the axle about something so worthless.  OTOH, whipping up voters en mass via propaganda and other influence can be effectual.  2010 and 2014 were very good for GOPe functionaries as the cosmopolitan billionaire bucks just rolled in.

2. GOPe has largely fallen in line behind Trump.
They did not do this out of principle, but because they think the outcome for them will be better if, given current circumstances, Trump wins the GOP POTUS candidate race and the general election.  "Better" for them means they more or less get to keep their positions in GOPe and that money keeps rolling in.  IMO, GOPe will get a shearing, but it will be a closer & bloodier shearing if they make it harder for Trump.

3. Scott Adams thinks the Pence pick is a good one:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147495137831/gingrich-pence-and-monitoring-mosques
Maybe he is right.  But I think a rubber-spined VPOTUS candidate with a rubbery ideology increases the odds of Trump being impeached, as his replacement is so easily influenced.  Impeachment insurance would have been to nominate someone with a long track record of patriotic stances on immigration, trade, etc.  Someone like Jeff Sessions, Pat Buchanan, etc.

4. Peter Pan Voting
Voting an Utopian 3rd Party never-electable ticket means you can stay a boy forever and never have to grow up.  Never have to see how your ideology would work in the real world as there is no risk it will ever be implemented.  "See, here, the NAP would manage that seeming libertarian contradictory gordian paradox just swimmingly."  "Where's your proof and data?  Because less ideologically informed (but more traditionally-minded) political systems have managed the issue more or less well over the last couple thousand years."

5. And let there be no doubt: The Libertarian Party is based on a utopian view of reality.
The moment it is implemented, several of its key points would see it destroyed.  Just one example being open borders, as third worlders flood over the border and turn California in Mexico del Norte and Dearborn into Karachi West.  Tell me again about the robust libertarian streak in the average Mexican peasant and Paki screaming beard.

6. Liberty-Destroying Libertarians
With open borders and sexual perversion uber alles, libertarians have shown they can be as destructive to the culture as socialists are to the economy.  In some cases, implementing libertarian-backed policies have resulted in less liberty over all. 

7. For my own part, I think Trump's Pence pick reduced his chances of getting anything pro-American done as POTUS from 10% down to about 7%.  Still better odds than any other remotely plausible option.  Plus, Trump doesn't hate Americans the way BHO and Hillary do.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

After 4 decades of being a rep this very pro  life non gay marriage supporting old man is voting johnson
 And I don't even smoke pot

He's less morally objectionable than other choices

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[grampster]

If you look at some of Johnson's positions, he's more like Hillary.  I've seen comments from people who lived in his state and one that worked with him and they say he's a piece of work.

[Ron]

The libertarians disqualify themselves on the immigration issue and abortion issue.

They are pro third world invasion and and pro death to babies.

[Ben]

I should specify that when I was talking "third party", I seem to default to that term to mean I'm not voting for the designated R or designated D, not that I'm actually voting for one of the other parties. I might, if they had candidates I really believed in, but for what seems to be the default APS third party, the Libertarians, I don't think I could vote for Johnson.

If I can't bring myself to vote for Trump, my "third party" will actually be a write-in this time around.

[cordex]

The libertarians disqualify themselves on the immigration issue and abortion issue.

They are pro third world invasion and and pro death to babies.

So, no different from the other two parties then.

[Fitz]

The libertarians disqualify themselves on the immigration issue and abortion issue.

They are pro third world invasion and and pro death to babies.

Lol

As opposed to the other two parties yeah?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The libertarians disqualify themselves on the immigration issue and abortion issue.

They are pro third world invasion and and pro death to babies.

So are the other 2 in real life

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[RoadKingLarry]

One one hand the liberals were all foamy mouthed about Pence so that's a point in his favor. One the other hand Ryan likes him so that's a point against him. One the other other hand he's kind of squishy on religious freedom and managed to piss off both sides of that issue at home, pissing off everybody is kind of a plus.

[Hawkmoon]

One the other other hand he's kind of squishy on religious freedom and managed to piss off both sides of that issue at home, pissing off everybody is kind of a plus.

Does that mean if everybody likes him it's a negative?