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: 17884
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
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: Justified (#12)
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.
Well Romney compared to Obama's second reign of terror? Yes Romney is clearly the better choice by a long shot and then some. Still hold my nose but most Obama's damage happen in his second term. Now Obama vs McCrazy then you have a toss up. It was the first time I voted third party.
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.
being a New Yorker I fully agree with your evaluation. It was a breakthrough for us that we had Pataki as Guv and Rudy as Mayor. They do not measure up as national candidates . But they gave us a reprieve from the corrupt socialist progressives that infest the halls of power in Albany .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
....and GE is bailing out and heading to Taxachusetts because the taxes there are actually less than in Cn.; and the business environment friendlier .Larry Kudlow for Governor ! Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
He'd pick Kasich, hoping to pick up 5% of Ohio as a result. A Republican has no chance to win nationally if he can't carry Ohio. A Dem nominee might be able to win without Ohio but Republicans have an electoral college disadvantage.
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.
Or perhaps to New York. But GE is already selling off GE Capital, which is the biggest piece of Stamford, so that will all stay, under a different name. If GE moves its HQ, Sacred Heart University will probably get the property.
You are so predictable. Every time someone talks smack about a filthy democrat libtard... you fling poo about GW and Mitt. I've never had a doubt how libtard far left you are... whether it was at LP or here. If 1,000 random picked registered democrats were polled and asked just one question, What past republican president do you despise most... It would be overwhelmingly answered... GW BUSH. That leaves you in good company. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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.
I dare to say that (with the exception of some enclaves) the New England is like Connecticut or even better.
That you're Ready for Hillary! 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.
He'd pick Kasich, hoping to pick up 5% of Ohio as a result. A Republican has no chance to win nationally if he can't carry Ohio. A Dem nominee might be able to win without Ohio but Republicans have an electoral college disadvantage. Not necessarily, I've seen/heard speculation that some think NY and a few of the other Blue states may be in play because of all the Democrat voters that are supporting him at the present time. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Trump will not pick Kasich. He's not going to pick some failed politician who insulted him on stage. He's not going to pick some two percenter to try to gain some state. Trump will win Ohio because he's Trump, not because he puts an Ohio loser on the ticket with him. Trump won't pick Bloomberg as his running mate either, but he's more likely to pick a success story like Bloomberg than a whiny failure who is being beaten by the margin of error. Cruz, Kasich, Paul all insulted Trump. There is ZERO percent chance that Trump is going to pick ANY of the dwarves who attacked him. Zero. Rubio hasn't attacked Trump personally, so he is still in the running. Jeb has. Even if Jeb were to recover somewhat, there is zero chance that Jeb will get anything from Trump other than the back of the hand. Don't necessarily expect Trump to pick a politician as his running mate either. He might pick another business person, perhaps a younger tech guy from California. Trump might pick Oprah. Trump and Oprah, two very successful billionaires who know how to talk to people, know how to listen, know how to organize, know how to lead, and who together would win a massive majority across the spectrum. Politicians like to pretend that what they do is hard and sophisticated. It is neither. The terms of power are simple: you get the most people in a group to vote for you. And what can be done with that power is simple: anything. There are all sorts of complex traditional "rules" that Congress has developed internally, and they are entirely optional and could be changed tomorrow. For example, rules about the power of the Vice President in the Senate are Thomas Jefferson's rules. They are not laws. Those rules can be thrown out and rewritten, and the President of the Senate COULD BE the Speaker of the House and then some. The Vice Presidency atrophied from the beginning, but that isn't because the CONSTITUTION requires that, but because the First President was rich Virginian George Washington, John Adams and he were not friends, and then Adams and Jefferson had a difficult relationship. I'm not suggesting that Trump, or Oprah, will rewrite the rules of the Senate. I AM suggesting that all of the cobweb of internal rules written by politicians to bottle things up are not laws, just rules, and that a powerful leader with a mandate can cause politicians to cut through those rules and change them. Trump isn't a traditional politician, and he doesn't have to be bound by the political traditions of weak men. Suppose he picks Oprah and wins 70% of the vote. Then the profession of politics itself changes, because the rules get rewritten.
You don't get it. You're a dinosaur who doesn't get modern politics. He will not pick the prick Kasich. Kasich is the enemy. People in Ohio hate Kasich. Even my folks who voted for him and are more sympathetic to establishment candidates.
I'm pretty sure his point is the people you vote for are just as bad as the ones you don't vote for... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Plus, if this is where his advisors are leading him, to a big NE liberal Republican on the ticket with a big NE billionaire then he needs to get new advisors. Trump needs someone from Ohio or Florida. I believe Trump was just being nice. Kind of like when they asked him if he would consider OPrah. No he doesn't have to pick someone from Florida or Ohio. It seems you have conceded defeat.
Re-elected in a historic landslide not long ago. There's real hatred for you. I dislike Kasich, personally and for his policies and his smarmy pronouncements to justify his straying into liberal policy. Not the same guy he was when he rose to House leadership as a conservative. But Kasich has a view of politics and the economy that is quite compatible with Trump. And Kasich would be a good pick in terms of working with Republicans in Congress. Both for election and for governance, Kasich makes the most sense for Trump. No other (available) GOP pol is quite so popular in a must-win state that the Dems will fight hard to keep in their column. Another ugly Trump VP pick (for conservatives) would be Rubio. For all the obvious reasons, Hispanic, talks a strong hardliner foreign policy line, eloquent speaker, impeccable family, etc. Neither Kasich or Rubio has launched any real frontal attacks on Trump though they've exchanges a few girly-slaps at pressers and debates. Nothing has been said by Trump or Kasich or Rubio to eliminate either as a VP pick. Unlike, say, Cruz or Paul or Bush who are radioactive as VP picks because they've said so many harsh things about Trump already. This is how VP lists get shortened mostly so there is nothing unusual about this process. Trump, as an "outsider" candidate, would benefit from a centrist "conservative" VP pick. Ohio is a tempting pick as it has been a while since Ohio had a GOP governor with some national reputation and establishment connections.
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. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Now I don't know if you are having some fun here or not. :) Have you looked into Trump's convictions of Pro-Life? For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Conceded whah? I'm analyzing the data given if taken to a conclusion of a Trump nomination. What I do find amazing is how two people such polar opposites as you and Vic can be going for the same candidate. Yet see two totally different Trumps. You both agree Trump will make America great again. You both just have different ideas or impressions of how he is going to do it. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Actually, the Oprah thing is a hoot, but it was Trump himself who said that, years ago, when he was talking about politics but not running himself. He volunteered that he'd pick Oprah as his running mate, and said why she'd be great, how she'd energize people. Do I think that now, all these years later, with Trump seriously running for office, he'll actually pick Oprah? No. I think he'll pick Rubio, for a great number of reasons, starting with the fact that other possibles - Jeb!, Fiorina, Kasich, Paul, Cruz - have all disqualified themselves by insulting the man. Rubio has steered clear of that. I think he'll pick Rubio in the end, and that Rubio will not personally go after Trump, because he knows he is still in the running for VP. But 'twas Trump himself who originally said Oprah as his VP. He said it with a gleam in his eye and a smile on this face. I'll bet if asked again today he'd say "Oprah's great! She'd be a great VP! A great communicator!" And win another week of news cycles with the buzz. Then Oprah would blush and walk a fine line of being coy and enjoying the publicity. She wouldn't come out eyeballs bulging and screaming at Trump. Nope. Because she's a master showman too. Oprah would get a line into the leader's ear by being nice, and Trump would pick up 8% black support from Oprah's saying nice things about him. It'll end up being Rubio unless Rubio is dumb and attacks Trump in a nasty way. But Rubio has always been smart and doesn't do that sort of thing. He only punches hard when punched, like when he knocked down Jeb! in the debate. But what do I know? It could end up being Bill Belichek or Tom Brady, or anybody else. Prob'ly not Rosie O'Donnell.
You're right about Rubio not having said anything nasty about Trump. Kasich has. Kasich is not the sort of winner Trump will pick. Rubio is a distinct possibility. The VP under Trump will be The Apprentice President. By the end of 8 years, whoever Trump's VP is, he'll be sold on the man and the plan, and unlike with Poppy Bush, we'll get 16 years of Trump. The new Prez after Trump will have Trump as his chief sage in the wings, with whom he consults all the time. We're going to get a good deal out of Trump. 16-24 years of consistent positive leadership will make America great again - greater than ever.
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.
Kasich has. Kasich is not the sort of winner Trump will pick. Rubio is a distinct possibility. At some point, Trump becomes just another pol, like the rest. The American political process is having a short hiatus among the GOP conservative base but it is strictly temporary. Trump is not the fair-haired boy of American politics to whom no rules apply. At some point, it's politics like in any administration. Swoon much? You project what you want on to Trump, like a lot of his followers. You still have no concrete idea of what his actual policy proposals are because he likes to issue contradictory statements on almost every policy and then let everyone believe whatever they hope he actually said. You only get away with this early in the presidential season. Later on, you can't wiggle away from taking more concrete policy positions. Trump is no exception, contrary to the fantasies of most Trump supporters.
What I do find amazing is how two people such polar opposites as you and Vic can be going for the same candidate. Yet see two totally different Trumps. You both agree Trump will make America great again. You both just have different ideas or impressions of how he is going to do it. I don't know how he's going to do it. I'm speculating. What I do know is that he's a phenomenal leader, negotiator and businessman, and that New Yorker patricians of both parties in the industrial age have a good track record of reforming government, when they're allowed to be President - the Roosevelts achieved monumental things. Mt Rushmore is full, so by the time Trump is done they'll need to take somebody's face off it to replace it with Trump's.
Or maybe put Trump on Mt. Ranier, because it's bigger and bolder. Or Pike's Peak. Wait - only Everest is big enough. And we'll get the Chinese and Nepalese to pay for it!
Trump already has taken concrete positions on a lot of things. You just don't believe that those things are POSSIBLE. Trump is going to show you different. You'll be a big fan of Trump by the time he's rolling out of there after 8 years, handing over the reins to his Apprentice.
It's pretty unlikely I'll be a big fan of the Sorcerer or his Apprentice.
"Angels and ministers of grace defend us! Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned, Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell, Be thy intents wicked or charitable,..." For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Or a national campaign. How many Trump for President HQs are there working now in the non-primary states, especially the battle ground states? Hitlery's minions are there now taking over what Obola never dismantled. Remember Obolo started running ads against Romney in 2012 starting in April in the battle ground state markets. A national campaign requires a party to run it in every corner where votes can be had. So valid point. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
The hangover from the sugar high will be significant. More so than when Perot dropped out of the race the first time. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
It is not as if the internet is has not provided such yet. They have. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
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. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
taking TR's face off the mountain is not a bad choice. But we are not the Taliban or the Islamic State destroying historic landmarks . right ? http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/naacp-wants-removal-confederate-generals- stone-mou/nmyKH/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It is my understanding that Trump hasn't even set up phone banks in Iowa . http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-ground-game-iowa/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Nice photo of Darth Rubio (a.k.a. the Sorcerer's Apprentice) alongside Sith Lord Donald.
Supposedly phone banks are a voter turnoff, for the same reasons that traditional polling has begun to fail. People won't just pick up the phone any more. You'll recall how Perry and some other candidates like Walker have dispensed entirely with yard signs in recent campaigns and seemed not to suffer at all. So maybe phone banks, like the yard sign, are yesterday's campaign flotsam and not a major factor going forward with the millennials. Cruz has a very strong precinct captain organization, perhaps the best ever seen. And Trump hired probably the best single organizer in the state and his campaign manager Lewandowski's career was all about registering new voters. That has to mean something about what Trump wants to do as a political machine, probably the result of conferring with Roger Stone before Trump started running. Can Trump's community organizer supremo outperform Cruz's experienced team on the ground in 80% of the caucus precincts? No one really knows.
A TRADITIONAL national campaign, sure. That employs lots and lots of political hacks - high school class presidents and their hangers-on who want to be "relevant" in politics. But high school classes had 1 President, and 99 other kids. They all vote. And there's a new kid in town, already vastly popular and known from years and years and years of television broadcasts, appearances, casinos, comedy sketches, ties, etc. He's running for President. So, you've got the High School Class Presidents out there saying "No, I am important! People like ME get to decide who wins and who loses!" And then you've got those other 99 kids, now adults, doing what they want to do. And this time, they can vote for the new kid in town if they want to. And they want to. So Trump wins because he's Trump, WITHOUT spending millions to feed all of the wannabee politician former High School class presidents. That's what is happening. OF COURSE the political class hates it: a Trump win means that they are exposed as being useless and expensive. Everybody already knew they were expensive. But expensive and useless is not something folks will put up with for long. Worse, their wrongness will be exposed along with their uselessness, and expense! Jeb! will have collected and squandered hundreds of millions of dollars to get himself beaten by the margin of error. Trump will have spent $2 million, maybe, and won without all of those necessary things that High School Class Presidents need to prop themselves up. Trump himself, his own reputation, precedes him. He props himself up, and people know him and like him, directly, so he doesn't NEED the parasite class of former High School Class Presidents to "organize" for him. His presence is like lodestone: compasses orient to him automatically without the need to pay parasitic sycophants. That's why they HATE him - o my God do the political classes and organization men of the Republican Party HATE him. He knows how REAL power works, because he's been one of the moneybags who hires lobbyists. It's fun to watch. Trump doesn't require a party to run it in every corner, because the people in every corner know him already, and like him, and will vote for him.
Comments (61 - 79) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI 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.
#21. To: hondo68, redleghunter (#19)
#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.
#23. To: Justified (#18)
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
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.
#25. To: redleghunter (#16)
Trump needs someone from Ohio or Florida.
#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.
#27. To: tomder55 (#24)
...and GE is bailing out and heading to Taxachusetts because the taxes there are actually less than in Cn.; and the business environment friendlier
#28. To: hondo68 (#19)
Elizabeth libtard warren
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
You get what you pay for.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
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.
#31. To: GrandIsland, Ready for Hillary (#28)
I've never had a doubt
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#32. To: Justified (#29)
Most the time its progressive planing to make people abide by their will.
#33. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, hondo68, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, GarySpFc, liberator, tomder55, (#16)
Plus, if this is where his advisors are leading him, to a big NE liberal Republican on the ticket with a big NE billionaire then he needs to get new advisors. Trump needs someone from Ohio or Florida.
#34. To: TooConservative (#25)
#35. To: TooConservative (#25)
He'd pick Kasich, hoping to pick up 5% of Ohio as a result.
#36. To: GrandIsland (#28)
You are so predictable. Every time someone talks smack about a filthy democrat libtard... you fling poo about GW and Mitt.
#37. To: redleghunter (#16)
Brown is pro-choice. Having a pro-choice candidate on the ticket is the kiss of death if Trump wants the Pro-life vote to show up.
#38. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#35)
People in Ohio hate Kasich.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Trump might pick Oprah.
#41. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#37)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#37)
Kind of like when they asked him if he would consider OPrah.
#43. To: TooConservative (#38)
#44. To: redleghunter (#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.
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
You're right about Rubio not having said anything nasty about Trump.
The VP under Trump will be The Apprentice President. By the end of
#46. To: redleghunter (#41)
'm analyzing the data given if taken to a conclusion of a Trump nomination.
#47. To: All (#46)
#48. To: TooConservative (#45)
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
You'll be a big fan of Trump by the time he's rolling out of there after 8 years, handing over the reins to his Apprentice.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
The VP under Trump will be The Apprentice President. By the end of 8 years, whoever Trump's VP is, he'll be sold on the man and the plan, and unlike with Poppy Bush, we'll get 16 years of Trump.
#51. To: TooConservative (#45)
At some point, it's politics like in any administration.
#52. To: TooConservative (#45)
You only get away with this early in the presidential season. Later on, you can't wiggle away from taking more concrete policy positions. Trump is no exception, contrary to the fantasies of most Trump supporters.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
(Edited)
Rushmore is full, so by the time Trump is done they'll need to take somebody's face off it to replace it with Trump's.
#54. To: TooConservative (#49)
It's pretty unlikely I'll be a big fan of the Sorcerer or his Apprentice.
#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.
#56. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#53)
Rushmore is full, so by the time Trump is done they'll need to take somebody's face off it to replace it with Trump's. It is not as if the internet is has not provided such yet. They have.
#57. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#51)
#58. To: redleghunter, tomder55, Vicomte13 (#54)
#59. To: tomder55, redleghunter (#57)
It is my understanding that Trump hasn't even set up phone banks in Iowa .
#60. To: redleghunter (#51)
A national campaign requires a party to run it in every corner where votes can be had.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]