politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Scott Brown Declines to Rule Out Serving as Trump’s VP (A great honor)
Source:
The Blaze
URL Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201 ... serving-as-trumps-vp%E2%80%AC/
Published: Jan 24, 2016
Author: Kate Scanlon
Post Date: 2016-01-24 11:30:37 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 17905
Comments: 79
NASHUA, N.H. – Former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) declined to rule out running for vice president with Donald Trump at the First in the Nation Town Hall in New Hampshire on Saturday. Trump recently implied that he would be willing to consider Brown for the position. Asked by TheBlaze if Brown would be willing to run with Trump, he said that it is an “honor” to be considered for a vice presidential nomination, but it is still too “early in the process” to seriously consider the position. Brown, who lost a 2014 bid to represent New Hampshire in the Senate, recently hosted an event for Trump in the state. Brown has also hosted events for other candidates in his “No BS Backyard BBQ” series. According to The Hill, at the Trump rally last week, when an audience member suggested that the two join forces on the Republican ticket, Trump said, “Vice president – hey, that sounds like it could, hey, hey, very good.” “Hey, you know what? And he’s central casting. Look at that guy. Central casting,” Trump said. “He’s great. Great guy and a great, beautiful, great wife and family. So important.” Poster Comment: Brown hosted Trump in the Granite State as a part of his “No BS Backyard BBQ” series. He will also hold a rally with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) The former Massachusetts senator relocated to New Hampshire to challenge incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) for her seat in 2014, but lost in a close race.Trump floats Scott Brown as potential VP
thihttp://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?40,file=210029,filename=Smug_Cruz.jpg this weekend.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
He will be an insurance for the establishment.
Just like bush was under Reagan. I hope not! Brown may be good for Socialist state of MA but not for America.
Just like bush was under Reagan. I hope not! Brown may be good for Socialist state of MA but not for America. Brown represents the interests of the rich and of the country club Republicans. And he lost in Massachusetts. He waged a fierce campaign against Elizabet Warren - the prominent critic of the present financial system. He got support from the likes of Rush Limbaugh whose main argument against Warren is that she claimed to have Indian ancestors. Of course for the Wall Street fans, this is the most important issue, not their profits.
I believe rush argued for Brown because its been a dim seat forever and to break the cycle of voting straight dim is important to getting voters to think before they pull the plunger on another super socialist/progressive. We all knew Brown was not a real conservative or even right of center but far better than the alternative. I must admit it must really suck being a non socialist/progressive/criminal up north. To always be a few percent short every election and have these people rule your life must be heart breaking.
I'm going to tell you the truth. This truth comes from having lived over the course of 52 years in Michigan, Maryland, Virginia, California, Florida, Texas, New York and Connecticut - and also Paris and Angers over in France, and Guadeloupe in the West Indies - I've lived Southeast I've lived Northeast. I've lived West, I've lived Midwest. I've lived Mid-Atlantic and I've lived Texas, and I've been through every other state at some point, and spent some real quality time in Hawaii, Alaska and Alabama. Truth is that the friendliest places I've been (measured objectively) have been Texas, Florida, France and Maryland, in that order. The most dynamic, New York, by a city mile. But the place where the government works the best, objectively speaking: low crime, good schools, well-maintained roads, tolerable DMV and reasonable cops has been Connecticut. Taxes in Connecticut are not low, but here, you definitely get what you pay for, and it isn't crazy. Michigan (the Northern and Western part, not the cities), Alaska and Hawaii are the most beautiful, but Connecticut is the best place I've been to raise kids. Connecticut IS liberal. They believe in public services here, and the taxes are high to pay for them, and the public services are good. They get what they pay for. I don't like their views on abortion, but these New Englanders are not a bunch of hypocrites. They believe in a public social model, they invest in it, and it produces a very pleasant place to live. The people here are pretty nice too. Not as warm and inviting as, say, Texans were, but then, I was a young man then, so I judged friendliness by the willingness of the local girls to let me play. I saw all over the world a pretty linear relationship - the hotter the climate, the hotter the blood. With the maturity of age, though, I'd say that the best big city in America, and maybe the world, for somebody who had a brain but no particular connections to find opportunity was - and still probably is - New York. It's tough, but it's fair in its way - you put in the effort, you can rise in New York. If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere, no matter who you are. New York is a foundry of lives and money - but you don't want to raise kids there. To raise kids in America in a place where the schools are functional, the crime is low, and the cops are not crazy, I've never seen anywhere like Connecticut. So I'd say, as a non-socialist, not-very-progressive, non-criminal whose been everywhere, that living in Connecticut aint' heart breaking. I'd prefer the beauty of Michigan, or Alaska, because I like the cold and snow and pines and deer and water and the Northern Lights. But for raising my child, I would not leave this northern state, because the other places don't take care of the business of looking after the knitting of government - safety, law, order, education - the way they do it in Connecticut. Maybe all of New England is that way, I've been there but I've never lived there. I've were 20 again, I'd head South for some more of that sweet southern pie dripping with honey. But to raise a kid, here is best. The liberals are not wrong about everything. In fact, they're right about education for all, and bridling the cops so that the cops serve the people, and not vice-versa. They're right about basic equality of people, and about the need to keep up roads and buildings - even though that costs money. They're wrong about the lives of unborn babies, and they're about as wrong as the Right is about military force, just in different ways.
Connecticut is super rich white upper class. This is where all the major companies have their head quarters. They have big government to keep poor to middle class people out. They make so much they could not care about taxes.
There is a lot of that here, yes. And that certainly helps. But there are cities that have city problems too...but the city problems are a lot less problematic than in other states. And the REASON is that Connecticut has lots of wealth, taxes that wealth, and provides good social services in those cities. When you provide enough, it DOES keep down crime, and quite a few poor kids DO grow up and out and enter into the middle class. To make the American middle class model work DOES take money - money for a thick governmental infrastructure in education, health care, policing, support for the elderly, infrastructure and a decent respect for the environment. It takes a lot of money. That means taxes and wealth redistribution. In Connecticut they do that. And guess what: the rich don't all flee to Texas and Florida and South Dakota and other places where there are no income taxes. Rich people have children too, and they tend to live around centers of commerce and finance, like New York. They don't want to live in slums and crime, and when they're liberal, they believe that slums and crime are driven by the lack of social spending, and alleviated by the lack of it. This is the Scandinavian and French belief, and from what I've seen of France and Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg and the Nordic countries, they're right. Connecticut is the closest I've seen to the Scandinavian model - but rather than destroying the wealth and causing the wealthy to all flee the state, the existence of strong infrastructure and strong education and social services makes the place desirable, and therefore retains the wealthy people, especially the ones with kids. New York City is an hour away. That's where the young and beautiful go to work, play, meet and marry. Then they have kids and move to Connecticut, because Connecticut is beautiful and safe and smart. And the REASON it is all of those things is because of heavy social infrastructure. And the REASON it has THAT is because of taxation, of the wealthy, to support it. The Walton family alone has enough money to turn Arkansas into Connecticut, as far as school quality go, and Warren Buffett could turn Kansas into Luxembourg...if he were willing to mobilize his wealth to do it. In places like Connecticut and Sweden, they don't give the Waltons or the Buffetts the choice. Live here because it's green and nice, pay to keep it that way. This makes sense. You get what you pay for. Now I wish they'd take care of the babies too.
Sometimes. Most the time its progressive planing to make people abide by their will. Money is not the be all of a society. Christian faith is built on self responsiblity and not using force unless absolutely nessacary. We have replaced good deeds with just tax the other guy and let him pay for it.
Money is not the be all of a society. Christian faith is built on self responsiblity and not using force unless absolutely nessacary. We have replaced good deeds with just tax the other guy and let him pay for it. Christian faith is built on divine revelations that began with Noah through Abraham and Moses to Jesus and onward through the Church. And that faith has never been a solitary affair. It has always been communitarian. Jesus did not wipe out the guidance, wisdom and law of God regarding Israel, he completed it and perfected it, for the whole world. What YHWH gave to Israel, Jesus modified and gave to the world. God's wisdom in Israel was not a bunch of individuals running around doing as they pleased and being nice if they wanted to be. It was people organized under religious leaders, with a mandatory collection for the poor and strict divine laws to make sure that everybody was taken care of, and that people were not oppressed through debt and force. It was not optional. God knocked down the Temple and its priesthood, and replaced it with Apostles, disciples and deacons, a new priesthood, but with the same moral mandates. It is not a voluntary thing for Christians to take steps and provide for everybody, it is the same mandate of heaven that was ordained by YHWH for Israel, but now for the world. If people don't want to do it, they're not followers of Christ, but those who are followers of Christ need to nevertheless see to it that it gets done. Christian Kings back to the Roman Emperors used their authority as ministers of state to direct the state to provide relief for the poor, hospitals and orphanages as well as Churches. This is not some sort of optional thing, and they did not sin by using their full authority at the highest level to tax society to do these things. The Christians within the society did them willingly. The rest of society, the children of the Devil, were taxed against their will to do them. Jesus and YHWH never said that Christianity ended at your front door. He said the opposite. Now, states provide infrastructure - roads and such - anyway. That is not a matter of Christianity. The Christian question is the treatment of the poor, the sick and children. Yes, Christians have an obligation to lighten their load if they can, but that includes through using the power of the vote to harness the power of the state to help them do it. Indeed, the first universal public school system in the world was in New England, established by the Puritans in Massachussetts, who taxed everybody to provide schooling for everybody, so that everybody would be educated in the moral law from youth, and be able to read for themselves out of the Bible where this law came from. The Massachussetts school system is what passed to the Northwest Territories which, when they were established by the Congress, had a provision in them that one square mile parcel out of every 36 square mile township was given by the government setting up the territories (the Congress) for the purposes of public education. In New England, they have had universal public education, paid for by the taxpayers, since the Protestant Puritan fathers established it. Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth - all of these old educational institutions that everybody all across the country clamors to get into - were established by the Puritan state for the education of ministers, at the public expense, because THEY understood that the proper maintenance of public morality required public education, paid for by everybody. And they were PROTESTANTS who did this. The notion that government action on matters of social morality and the infrastructure to provide for it is not Christian, that Christianity is a completely personal thing, is a newfangled concept of Americans who have decided they don't want to pay taxes. It's a noxious weed, and it isn't Christian at all. Christ was the Son of God. HE established a Church whose primary activity was providing for the physical needs of poor people to gather them and tend to their spiritual needs by teaching them as they ate together. And this fits the model that YHWH established in Israel. And it fits the model that the Byzantine Emperors established in Eastern Christendom, and that Charlemagne established in Western Christendom. It fits the model that the Protestant Puritan establishment established in New England. Other parts of the United States chose to have slaves and strong class divisions, and no sense of public responsibility for the poor. Their version of Christianity twisted around to somehow justify those things. And today the people of those places still have those tradtions, and still have relatively bad schools and relatively high poverty and lousy social infrastructure. And they're not good places to raise kids on account of that. Fortunately, America is a big place. So, if you don't think that the state has a moral role in education, health care and poverty relief, you can go live in Arkansas and Mississippi, where they agree with you and fund virtually nothing...and have roads falling apart, low life-spans and low levels of education to accompany those low, low taxes. For my part, I'll stick with the legacy of the Puritans in New England, where educational achievements are high, and have been since the 1600s, when the Christians first settled, and immediately began to tax the whole community to provide for the moral necessities, such as educating every boy and girl to know the law and to be able to read where it came from. You say "Christianity this, Christianity that". The Christianity of Arkansas is not the Christianity of New England, or of France. I prefer the Christianity of New England and of France - it produces better places to live than the threadbare disorganization of Arkansas and Mississippi. Better roads too, but that's not a Christian matter.
I can't argue education as I am from close to your neck of the woods in NY. However, the roads in CT are horrible. Pot holes galore in the cities and the highways when going to visit family were horrible too. Report: Connecticut roads among worst in the country So not raining on your other points...Just that I have spent a lot of time on the roads in my military career and visiting family. Arkansas not that bad for roads on the main highways. Off highways is another matter but that is why just about everyone has a truck. I once drove from Texas through Arkansas to Branson MO, and the roads were great. On poverty. You are 100% correct. It is our Christian duty out of love to not let our brother or sister or neighbor to live in poverty. Frankly if local, state or federal government wants to take that on then those who are unemployed and receiving assistance should be given jobs. If we keep this welfare state alive which encourages no work with benefits, we are not doing the poor any favors. Let them work like they did during New Deal 1 and New Deal 2. We got a lot of infrastructure done back then and the unemployed men learned many a trade which provided a livelihood later. Yes let's not be heartless but let us be smart about this and do those in need a favor. Let's 'teach them to fish.' Plus with men, when we earn something it does wonders for the rest of the family. Giving men handouts without an opportunity of accomplishment 'kills' that man internally. No matter the blather from feminism and the left, men are all beings who crave accomplishment.
#44. To: redleghunter (#39)
Yes let's not be heartless but let us be smart about this and do those in need a favor. Let's 'teach them to fish.' Plus with men, when we earn something it does wonders for the rest of the family. Giving men handouts without an opportunity of accomplishment 'kills' that man internally. No matter the blather from feminism and the left, men are all beings who crave accomplishment. I don't disagree. The way we did it in the New Deal, and in the 1960s, was by creating government jobs. That's fine. Example: double the number of people working at the DMV so there's no line at the door. I'd prefer to create jobs in government oilfields and gold and silver and coal mines, because most of those resources are on government land, and the government should mine and drill for the stuff, sell it, and put all of those profits into the treasury. Lower our taxes. Having Federal corporations do that would be good. Likewise, home loans for personal residences (not rentals) and student loans should be from government-run banks and paid over a lifetime and from estates. Lots can be done to reduce present costs and increase stability.
Yes let's not be heartless but let us be smart about this and do those in need a favor. Let's 'teach them to fish.' Plus with men, when we earn something it does wonders for the rest of the family. Giving men handouts without an opportunity of accomplishment 'kills' that man internally. No matter the blather from feminism and the left, men are all beings who crave accomplishment. Now you know the unions would never agree to that business model ,especially the public employee unions . Of course Roosevelt would not tolerate the nonsense that the public unions get away with now . If he were around today he would be the Scott Walker of our time.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: A Pole, hondo68 (#1)
He will be an insurance for the establishment.
#11. To: Justified (#6)
"He will be an insurance for the establishment."
#12. To: A Pole (#11)
#20. To: Justified (#12)
I must admit it must really suck being a non socialist/progressive/criminal up north. To always be a few percent short every election and have these people rule your life must be heart breaking.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
But the place where the government works the best, objectively speaking: low crime, good schools, well-maintained roads, tolerable DMV and reasonable cops has been Connecticut. Taxes in Connecticut are not low, but here, you definitely get what you pay for, and it isn't crazy. Michigan (the Northern and Western part, not the cities), Alaska and Hawaii are the most beautiful, but Connecticut is the best place I've been to raise kids.
#26. To: Justified (#22)
Connecticut is super rich white upper class. This is where all the major companies have their head quarters. They have big government to keep poor to middle class people out. They make so much they could not care about taxes.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
You get what you pay for.
#32. To: Justified (#29)
Most the time its progressive planing to make people abide by their will.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
Replies to Comment # 39. On poverty. You are 100% correct. It is our Christian duty out of love to not let our brother or sister or neighbor to live in poverty. Frankly if local, state or federal government wants to take that on then those who are unemployed and receiving assistance should be given jobs. If we keep this welfare state alive which encourages no work with benefits, we are not doing the poor any favors. Let them work like they did during New Deal 1 and New Deal 2. We got a lot of infrastructure done back then and the unemployed men learned many a trade which provided a livelihood later.
#55. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#39)
On poverty. You are 100% correct. It is our Christian duty out of love to not let our brother or sister or neighbor to live in poverty. Frankly if local, state or federal government wants to take that on then those who are unemployed and receiving assistance should be given jobs. If we keep this welfare state alive which encourages no work with benefits, we are not doing the poor any favors. Let them work like they did during New Deal 1 and New Deal 2. We got a lot of infrastructure done back then and the unemployed men learned many a trade which provided a livelihood later.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]