In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 02 2016 14:44 oBlade wrote: I think of the pool of candidates, Rand Paul would be the most likely running mate. Outside of that pool, I doubt anyone could predict a choice.
Do you think Rand Paul would run? The poor guy was Trump's first victim. Call me too proud, but I don't think I would run with Trump after that- better to try again in a non-Trump year.
It's mostly an argument of exclusion: -Kasich has said he won't be anyone's VP (although I would like him to be President, I don't think he could beat Hillary). -Carson, the other candidate who currently has amicable relations with Trump, has high favorability among Republicans, but is possibly not interested or up for it. He'd possibly be more suited to be Secretary of HHS. -Chris Christie I'm also worried about after seeing him with Trump today, but basically they're too similar (strong executive, big noisy guy from NY/NJ) so Christie doesn't add anything to Trump's ticket that's not already there besides complimenting Obama once when the hurricane hit. Also, Christie is obviously more suited for Attorney General in a Trump administration. -Cruz and Rubio are both going to stay in too long, and otherwise wouldn't want to be his running mate probably. -I doubt Bush would ever do it or get the offer. -Fiorina, despite being a woman (tradition from the 2008 ticket), is, like Trump, famous as a businessperson -Huckabee, et al. too irrelevant. The religious right isn't going to decide this election. -Jim Gilmore may be possible.
Rand Paul has a very deliberate, rational personality, and is an actual politician, but also not a mainstream establishment politician. He's well-known for libertarianism, and I think that strengthens Trump's broad appeal. And as a senator, he's on the foreign relations committee. Foreign relations is something Trump has strong rhetoric on, but Rand Paul has actual experience with. (This was one of the strengths of Biden being Obama's running mate, by the way.)
That's how I settled on Rand Paul. It's entirely possible Trump goes outside the candidates for a running mate, of course.
On March 02 2016 14:44 oBlade wrote: I think of the pool of candidates, Rand Paul would be the most likely running mate. Outside of that pool, I doubt anyone could predict a choice.
Rand Paul would rather rip out his eyes and replace them with barbed wire than run alongside Donald Trump. I don't think they actually agree on a single policy issue, and unlike Paul Ryan/Rubio/Cruz Rand Paul actually cares about what he says and firmly believes it to be correct.
(I think Kasich as running mate is also unlikely, just because his campaign has been pushing him so hard as the anti-Trump)
On March 02 2016 14:44 oBlade wrote: I think of the pool of candidates, Rand Paul would be the most likely running mate. Outside of that pool, I doubt anyone could predict a choice.
I don't think that he can pick any of the current/past candidates. He's savaged them all too badly.
I don't think he picks anyone for VP that isn't also a Trump. Trump has savaged everyone in politics that doesn't have his last name. Has he praised any Republican politicians? I can't name any. He waits for their praise. I fully expect him to pick his Wife, Daughter, or Son as the only ones possibly good enough to succeed the Donald.
I'd put money on Ivanka.
Ivanka gets charge of the company according to Trump. Pretty sure his sons names were floated though.
John Kasich is the obvious running mate for Trump. He managed to secure the knowledable statesmen while still being technically a Washington outsider. It also checks the box of being from a swing state and overall just does nothing but enhance the ticket.
On March 02 2016 15:00 Nyxisto wrote: The scariest thing about this all is that I have not one person seen debating the actual political platforms. It's all about walls, Shillaries and foolish guac bowl merchants from now on. Long live democracy
Political platforms is like the the least consequential part of presidential elections.
On March 02 2016 15:07 Adreme wrote: John Kasich is the obvious running mate for Trump. He managed to secure the knowledable statesmen while still being technically a Washington outsider. It also checks the box of being from a swing state and overall just does nothing but enhance the ticket.
Now that I think about it, Kasich and him share a decent number of positions-- off the top of my head, both are anti abortion but pro healthcare. He'd also be a foil to Trump's abrasiveness.
Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
On March 02 2016 14:44 oBlade wrote: I think of the pool of candidates, Rand Paul would be the most likely running mate. Outside of that pool, I doubt anyone could predict a choice.
Do you think Rand Paul would run? The poor guy was Trump's first victim. Call me too proud, but I don't think I would run with Trump after that- better to try again in a non-Trump year.
It's mostly an argument of exclusion: -Kasich has said he won't be anyone's VP (although I would like him to be President, I don't think he could beat Hillary). -Carson, the other candidate who currently has amicable relations with Trump, has high favorability among Republicans, but is possibly not interested or up for it. He'd possibly be more suited to be Secretary of HHS. -Chris Christie I'm also worried about after seeing him with Trump today, but basically they're too similar (strong executive, big noisy guy from NY/NJ) so Christie doesn't add anything to Trump's ticket that's not already there besides complimenting Obama once when the hurricane hit. Also, Christie is obviously more suited for Attorney General in a Trump administration. -Cruz and Rubio are both going to stay in too long, and otherwise wouldn't want to be his running mate probably. -I doubt Bush would ever do it or get the offer. -Fiorina, despite being a woman (tradition from the 2008 ticket), is, like Trump, famous as a businessperson -Huckabee, et al. too irrelevant. The religious right isn't going to decide this election. -Jim Gilmore may be possible.
Rand Paul has a very deliberate, rational personality, and is an actual politician, but also not a mainstream establishment politician. He's well-known for libertarianism, and I think that strengthens Trump's broad appeal. And as a senator, he's on the foreign relations committee. Foreign relations is something Trump has strong rhetoric on, but Rand Paul has actual experience with. (This was one of the strengths of Biden being Obama's running mate, by the way.)
That's how I settled on Rand Paul. It's entirely possible Trump goes outside the candidates for a running mate, of course.
He needs somebody with conservative cred since he holds so many moderate and left views. It's like when McCain picked Palin to retain voters that would just as well stay home as vote McCain. I can see Rand Paul or Scott Walker. I'm leaning towards somebody with political cred or foreign policy cred. Remainder of the candidate field is mostly out for the reasons you cited. I'll think more on this. I still think protest votes against Trump will be a minority in this election, the left is just too far left for the base (but not the GOP political class).
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
On March 02 2016 15:07 Adreme wrote: John Kasich is the obvious running mate for Trump. He managed to secure the knowledable statesmen while still being technically a Washington outsider. It also checks the box of being from a swing state and overall just does nothing but enhance the ticket.
I would not be opposed to that, but it's a question of whether you believe Kasich when he says he won't be anyone's VP. I do.
Here's Trump adopting what Rand Paul said in the early debates about Syria and so forth:
Here's Rand Paul flushing out the temporary Muslim ban rhetoric into a real, workable, debatable policy:
Jim Gilmore is the other possibility from the candidates, but he might not be necessary in order to get Virginia to swing red. From my perspective, Virginia's just one state, but Rand Paul offers a wider appeal and would actually be a good VP rather than just someone to grab votes with (Palin, Haley, Gilmore).
On March 02 2016 14:44 oBlade wrote: I think of the pool of candidates, Rand Paul would be the most likely running mate. Outside of that pool, I doubt anyone could predict a choice.
Do you think Rand Paul would run? The poor guy was Trump's first victim. Call me too proud, but I don't think I would run with Trump after that- better to try again in a non-Trump year.
It's mostly an argument of exclusion: -Kasich has said he won't be anyone's VP (although I would like him to be President, I don't think he could beat Hillary). -Carson, the other candidate who currently has amicable relations with Trump, has high favorability among Republicans, but is possibly not interested or up for it. He'd possibly be more suited to be Secretary of HHS. -Chris Christie I'm also worried about after seeing him with Trump today, but basically they're too similar (strong executive, big noisy guy from NY/NJ) so Christie doesn't add anything to Trump's ticket that's not already there besides complimenting Obama once when the hurricane hit. Also, Christie is obviously more suited for Attorney General in a Trump administration. -Cruz and Rubio are both going to stay in too long, and otherwise wouldn't want to be his running mate probably. -I doubt Bush would ever do it or get the offer. -Fiorina, despite being a woman (tradition from the 2008 ticket), is, like Trump, famous as a businessperson -Huckabee, et al. too irrelevant. The religious right isn't going to decide this election. -Jim Gilmore may be possible.
Rand Paul has a very deliberate, rational personality, and is an actual politician, but also not a mainstream establishment politician. He's well-known for libertarianism, and I think that strengthens Trump's broad appeal. And as a senator, he's on the foreign relations committee. Foreign relations is something Trump has strong rhetoric on, but Rand Paul has actual experience with. (This was one of the strengths of Biden being Obama's running mate, by the way.)
That's how I settled on Rand Paul. It's entirely possible Trump goes outside the candidates for a running mate, of course.
He needs somebody with conservative cred since he holds so many moderate and left views. It's like when McCain picked Palin to retain voters that would just as well stay home as vote McCain. I can see Rand Paul or Scott Walker. I'm leaning towards somebody with political cred or foreign policy cred. Remainder of the candidate field is mostly out for the reasons you cited. I'll think more on this. I still think protest votes against Trump will be a minority in this election, the left is just too far left for the base (but not the GOP political class).
I know exactly what you mean. My main objection is McCain lost. Romney lost. It doesn't work. I think what is more broadly happening in this election is that the religious right and social conservatives are no longer an anchor from which a Republican candidate can win an election, but something holding them back. There is a different Republican Party emerging, one that doesn't need to structure itself around that nonincreasing class of voters, one that can mobilize the electorate elsewhere. I think that being a career businessman, the things Trump needs to add to his ticket are more the experience-type qualities, political cred as you say.
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kind of reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
People are idiots and a Trump rally usually features level 5 idiots and above, so I'm not surprised. Sometimes I wish we'd just nuke the planet and get it over with already...going down in a blaze of glory...like the true idiots we really are. Embrace your inner idiot guys, next stop Idiocracy ...so everybuddy buckle up!
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
She was being rude and a disgrace to that event. Why should she be treated with respect?
It's against the law to assault "rude" people, otherwise a lot of people would shut up, for one.
I dont think its against the law to push people out of the way. She was blocking the view for people in more ways more than one.
You see where this leads us hesitant Trump supporters?
Let's say he does win by moving to the middle (and governs to the middle like many think), what do you think happens to all this rage and ignorance when their last savior abandons them?
It'll make die-hard Sanders supporters look like a picnic.
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
On March 02 2016 15:00 Nyxisto wrote: The scariest thing about this all is that I have not one person seen debating the actual political platforms. It's all about walls, Shillaries and foolish guac bowl merchants from now on. Long live democracy
In my opinion, the president should be more of a figurehead to lead the people, and more of the power should lie in the houses.
You say long live democracy, and let me tell you something, you are living democracy, this is democracy... We're in a state in history we've never been in before, never in the history of the human race has so much power been in the hands of the people. We've had democracy for over 200 years, but with that democracy, you still had power concentrated due to barriers to vote, but those walls are coming down, and everyone is given a voice. It really makes you wonder.
You'll always hear, democracy is a broken system, but it's the best system we've got. One really nice thing about this election is that the attention bring minds to try and understand the political process, and to ask yourself what is the best way going forward. As I've been getting older, I've been seeing more and more flaws with the way society is structured, and often it requires to go up many levels and to think in abstraction.You need to try and disconnect yourself as far as you can from contemporary society and really question why things are the way they are... And you'll see that, especially if you try use logic and reason, your arguments will fail you. Even better yet, try to write down some of your philosophical and sociopolitical ideas; by writing them down, you really start to see how what you wrote down doesn't make sense, and then you try to rationalize it, and then you see that the assumptions you built your argument on don't even make sense.
A few months back I wanted to write my own manifesto, to write my own bible if you will, on how society should be structured, and on how life should be lived to maximize the wellness of the world, and it was an extremely difficult thing to do. I'm getting too philosophical, but I just wanted to share some of my experiences with the process.
When I tried to remove religion and spirituality from the argument, you really start to deal with these really intangible quantities, and doing a rational and logical scientific analysis leads you to weird results, that's why philosophy while important is kind of useless as an academic topic in my opinion, because it doesn't lead to answers, because to start any philosophical argument, you must state your assumptions or givens to your model (which are arbitrary to begin with)... And you start to see that by changing the givens in your model, if you want to keep your model consistent, your end conclusions change completely.
I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is that being a democrat, a republican, a religion fanatic... It's really not a "oh, this is obviously the right way for the world to be", that's actually the number one way that your opinion gets discredited when talking to me, because there are so many different elements at play. And that's why my philosophy is it really doesn't matter how society is structured (it's easy to be unaware, North Koreans can live in a dictatorship and still be happy, ISIS can be happy, the world could live happy with women not voting), because if the framework is there, every system will make sense, but the best system is a system where the country (or world) is united and stays united, and share the same beliefs and values.
Hell, if you make your assumption that happiness is what the goal of society is, then hell, looking it from a biological standpoint, you can't really get happier, since you are defining your happiness as a dopamine release in your brain (and increasing production isn't really a thing)... Then keep people unaware of their surroundings, if you don't know there is better, then there really isn't better... Is a person who gets drunk and socializes with people every day any less happy than say someone like Elon Musk? I don't think so. There's a reason why governments haven't been able to tell people how to live over the centuries of educated human existence, because there's no way to formulate a logical argument to argue anything, and that's why all philosophical arguments are really just emotional arguments with faulty reasoning that doesn't delve deep enough, just to appease that part of the brain that wants to be that "I believe is logical, rational, and right". (I'm sure you've had an argument before, and once you've gone deep enough, you've reach the conclusion - does anything even matter?)
Well, not sure if anyone got anything out my rant, but please don't judge things on their surface value, or if you do, have a reason why.
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
She was being rude and a disgrace to that event. Why should she be treated with respect?
It's against the law to assault "rude" people, otherwise a lot of people would shut up, for one.
I dont think its against the law to push people out of the way. She was blocking the view for people in more ways more than one.
You see where this leads us hesitant Trump supporters?
Let's say he does win by moving to the middle (and governs to the middle like many think), what do you think happens to all this rage and ignorance when their last savior abandons them?
It'll make die-hard Sanders supporters look like a picnic.
black lives matter people beat up and rob veterans, people go crazy all of the time. why would you link extreme people to trumps political stances and grandiose gestures? are you going to blame rap music next? I mean where does it stop?
On March 02 2016 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure if folks saw this video from a Trump Rally, but it kinda reinforces the argument that he's revving people up in negative ways. I don't think this would happen at any other rally, particularly to this degree.
She was being rude and a disgrace to that event. Why should she be treated with respect?
It's against the law to assault "rude" people, otherwise a lot of people would shut up, for one.
I dont think its against the law to push people out of the way. She was blocking the view for people in more ways more than one.
You see where this leads us hesitant Trump supporters?
Let's say he does win by moving to the middle (and governs to the middle like many think), what do you think happens to all this rage and ignorance when their last savior abandons them?
It'll make die-hard Sanders supporters look like a picnic.
black lives matter people beat up and rob veterans, people go crazy all of the time. why would you link extreme people to trumps political stances and grandiose gestures? are you going to blame rap music next? I mean where does it stop?
It stops at Trump, because he says so.
That being said, I did say his views tend align those that are socially misaligned, but that alone doesn't mean anything in it self. That's like saying all racists breathe air, therefore if you breathe air, you're a racist.
I have followed this for some time as an outsider, I have to say the learning curve that trump has possessed is incredible, the guy started doing this 8 months ago and now his speeches and the manipulation he has put on other candidates is insane. It is true that if you read the art of the deal, you basically can understand why he is so resonating with people. This also got me questioning him what he is doing to the US economy when the guy used to say that economics is a wasted profession.
EPT
