Who should be Trump's VP choice and why?

[*pally*]

(06-10-2024, 05:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Of course Scott never said any of the above now did he?

He was referring to the time when black families were stronger by staying together and that they've lost their way.

This is just like Butker's speech all over again, you guys are putting things in there that was never said just to make someone look bad.  But yet when someone does it to one of your hero's you are quick to point it out that they never actually said that.

Scott? We were talking about Byron Donalds. And you cannot praise any part of Jim Crow without opening up discussion of all of the Jim Crow era. It’s kind of like saying Hitler did some good things or asking Mary Lincoln how the play was

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-10-2024, 07:28 AM)pally Wrote: Scott?  We were talking about Byron Donalds.  And you cannot praise any part of Jim Crow without opening up discussion of all of the Jim Crow era.  It’s kind of like saying Hitler did some good things or asking Mary Lincoln how the play was

Why try so hard to miss the point of his speech, if you listened to or read the whole thing?

People are contorting themselves in all directions trying to take the man's words out of context and put their own spin on them.

He was talking about the importance of the nuclear family and how that has gone away in a large part, in the black community. As other have noted, it was other families as well, but not the point he was making here.

The man made a speech, and suddenly the left jumps out taking his words out of context. Then the sole consumes of the media repeat the headline lines and have to twist themselves in knots to justify having fallen for the race baiting headlines.

No idea why people are in such a rush to gaslight themselves ove a false narrative, then to tell everyone lese what the candidate "really" meant. Quite the pattern.


Not that you are doing all of this, just putting it all in one post.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-10-2024, 07:28 AM)pally Wrote: Scott?  We were talking about Byron Donalds.  And you cannot praise any part of Jim Crow without opening up discussion of all of the Jim Crow era.  It’s kind of like saying Hitler did some good things or asking Mary Lincoln how the play was

I meant Donalds. and yes you can talk about certain parts and not refer to others. There's good and bad in most things and you are choosing to focus on the bad when he didn't even bring up.

[Dill]

(06-10-2024, 05:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This is just like Butker's speech all over again, you guys are putting things in there that was never said just to make someone look bad.  But yet when someone does it to one of your hero's you are quick to point it out that they never actually said that.

Yes, rather like that. Butker said young women had been seduced by "diabolical lies" regarding careers outside the home 
when their true calling was marriage and motherhood, and you heard him praising women's right to choose their path in life.

He also claimed Congress passed a bill which would jail people for telling the "truth" about who killed Jesus, and apparently
thinks any form of birth control controverts the will of God.  

What my "heros" have focused on is exactly what was said, in both cases. Your heroes are denying what was said. In both cases.

(06-10-2024, 05:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He was referring to the time when black families were stronger by staying together and that they've lost their way.

Donalds was referring to a time when, statistically, all families Black or White, under Jim Crow or not, stayed together more often and longer.

So he was trying to make a policy argument from history, but with a very confused and inadequate understanding of that history.

E.g., He DEFINITELY said more Black people voted conservatively under Jim Crow, right? "The Left" isn't making that up, right? 
Nevermind that they generally weren't allowed to vote under Jim Crow; what exactly would conservative Blacks be 
voting for under Jim Crow, except politicians who supported segregation? 

You are right to say he wasn't really trying to praise Jim Crow. He was praising family behavior before big government stepped in
to end segregation and promote affirmative action and other social policies designed to pull Blacks out of artificially created poverty.
Black conservatism played a rather negative role in that struggle for equality. But now its a reliable guide to bettering Black lives?  

Donalds was quite inept in using Jim Crow to mark the good old days. If that strange imprecision gives rise to "false narratives" that's on him.
He made his understanding of Jim Crow, or lack thereof, a legitimate story.  It's no defense to claim he didn't bring up "the bad" when
he referenced Jim Crow. It's hard to claim he's being taken "out of context" when he himself has fouled up the context so badly.

Black conservatism used to emphasize personal accountability. 

[*pally*]

(06-10-2024, 08:00 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Why try so hard to miss the point of his speech, if you listened to or read the whole thing?

People are contorting themselves in all directions trying to take the man's words out of context and put their own spin on them.

He was talking about the importance of the nuclear family and how that has gone away in a large part, in the black community. As other have noted, it was other families as well, but not the point he was making here.

The man made a speech, and suddenly the left jumps out taking his words out of context. Then the sole consumes of the media repeat the headline lines and have to twist themselves in knots to justify having fallen for the race baiting headlines.

No idea why people are in such a rush to gaslight themselves ove a false narrative, then to tell everyone lese what the candidate "really" meant. Quite the pattern.


Not that you are doing all of this, just putting it all in one post.

ACtually, he was trying more to push the idea that black fmilies were conservative and voted that way back then.  His problem is that he buried his lede.  HE brought Jim Crow into the discussion...no one else did.  He volunteered that information.  So if he wants to discuss what worked during Jim Crow he invites the comparason to what didn't work.  He wanted to paint a rosey picture of life befoe liberals screwed things up with the "Great Society"  .  Well, he did a lousy job of it because all he did was remind people how bad things really were back then

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

VP used to be an audition for the big seat. It has rather devolved this century to a person who can get you votes you otherwise wouldn't get, or to pander. Trump doesn't need to do the latter, so the former becomes his only real consideration. So which candidate can help him wing a crucial swing state like PA? Any other consideration is meaningless.

[*pally*]

(06-10-2024, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: VP used to be an audition for the big seat.  It has rather devolved this century to a person who can get you votes you otherwise wouldn't get, or to pander.  Trump doesn't need to do the latter, so the former becomes his only real consideration.  So which candidate can help him wing a crucial swing state like PA?  Any other consideration is meaningless.

Oh I don't think the VP sweepstakes has changed all that much over the years.  It's alway leaned more towards balancing  the ticket poltically or geographically than who is ready to be President.  The only difference is now, like everything else in politics, it is much more out in the open than it used to be

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2024, 12:39 PM)pally Wrote: Oh I don't think the VP sweepstakes has changed all that much over the years.  It's alway leaned more towards balancing  the ticket poltically or geographically than who is ready to be President.  The only difference is now, like everything else in politics, it is much more out in the open than it used to be

I think it has.  You're not wrong that balancing the ticket has always been a priority, but there was also an element of grooming the next POTUS, or at least candidate for POTUS.  But now political pandering has overtaken that role in importance.  Both Palin and Harris added nothing to their ticket but pandering to gender/racial politics.

[Luvnit2]

Trump has said consideration #1 is who he feels can take over his duties if needed. Liberals will say Trump is a liar and can't be trusted, yet say Biden is honest and everything he says is honest.

Simply, I trust Trump to pick the best VP for the country, he is not a politician and will not use gender or race politics. He did not in 2016 or 2020, he won't do it in 2024 either.

Loyalty to him and the party will also play in his decision. As a businessperson, I demanded honesty, trust from every employee so I get it and agree.

In contrast, Biden picked Harris using race and gender politics. Fast forward, it was a bad decision, and she has done nothing to help the Democratic party the past almost 4 years, it could be argued she weakened the party and hurt Biden's reelection efforts.

[Mike M (the other one)]

After reading up on several of them.
Rubio makes the most sense, he would help with the Hispanic vote and in a debate with Harris, he would crush her.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2024, 03:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: After reading up on several of them.
Rubio makes the most sense, he would help with the Hispanic vote and in a debate with Harris, he would crush her.

Rubio is Cuban, so I don't think he'd help with the Hispanic vote as much as you think. The Dems can pretty much rely on the Black vote, for both historical reasons and because the GOP has never really made any effort to bring them over.  But Hispanics can vary wildly by the region they're from, if they're immigrants themselves, or where their parents or grandparents are from, if that generation were the immigrants. (After that I don't think being Hispanic means anything in regard to how you vote or your political beliefs any more than being White does)

One thing to know is that Hispanic groups have their own views of each other, which are often not flattering.  There's a pretty steady current of "where I'm from is good, where you're from is awful".  Mexicans don't like Hondurans, El Salvadorans, etc.  Puerto Ricans don't like Cubans or Mexicans.  I am, of course, speaking in massive generalities here, but the point being made is that for people who haven't grown up, or otherwise been around a diverse group of people from Hispanic countries (or Brazil), probably aren't aware of this.

Of all the Hispanic cultures represented here Cubans are by far, again speaking generally, the most politically conservative.  So having a Cuban running mate wouldn't help you much with those of Cuban descent and wouldn't help you as much with other Hispanic groups as you might think.  Plus Florida is a red state now, so you don't need the votes there.

[*pally*]

(06-10-2024, 02:27 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Trump has said consideration #1 is who he feels can take over his duties if needed. Liberals will say Trump is a liar and can't be trusted, yet say Biden is honest and everything he says is honest.

Simply, I trust Trump to pick the best VP for the country, he is not a politician and will not use gender or race politics. He did not in 2016 or 2020, he won't do it in 2024 either.

Loyalty to him and the party will also play in his decision. As a businessperson, I demanded honesty, trust from every employee so I get it and agree.

In contrast, Biden picked Harris using race and gender politics. Fast forward, it was a bad decision, and she has done nothing to help the Democratic party the past almost 4 years, it could be argued she weakened the party and hurt Biden's reelection efforts.

Pence was chosen because he was an evangelical different criteria maybe but no different than choosing somone who fills out the ticket for other voting blocks.

The Vice President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION not the President.  Shouldn't that be part of the selection process.  But, that beings up that pesky fact of Pence doing exactly that thwarting Trump's bid to use unconstutional ,non-certified, non-elected electors to steal the election 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-10-2024, 11:52 AM)pally Wrote: ACtually, he was trying more to push the idea that black fmilies were conservative and voted that way back then.  His problem is that he buried his lede.  HE brought Jim Crow into the discussion...no one else did.  He volunteered that information.  So if he wants to discuss what worked during Jim Crow he invites the comparason to what didn't work.  He wanted to paint a rosey picture of life befoe liberals screwed things up with the "Great Society"  .  Well, he did a lousy job of it because all he did was remind people how bad things really were back then

Looks like you head very different takes on the speech, your focus on it being muddled and burying the lead, while I was listening to the overall message.

idk

[*Nately120*]

(06-10-2024, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: VP used to be an audition for the big seat.  It has rather devolved this century to a person who can get you votes you otherwise wouldn't get, or to pander.  Trump doesn't need to do the latter, so the former becomes his only real consideration.  So which candidate can help him wing a crucial swing state like PA?  Any other consideration is meaningless.

Ida know...I feel like LBJ being an old dude from Texas to offset the hot-shot junior senator who oozed new england smarm has made the ticket balancing rather blatant for quite some time here.

(06-10-2024, 03:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: After reading up on several of them.
Rubio makes the most sense, he would help with the Hispanic vote and in a debate with Harris, he would crush her.

It'd be funny if she just called him little marco over and over again, though.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-10-2024, 05:50 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Looks like you head very different takes on the speech, your focus on it being muddled and burying the lead, while I was listening to the overall message.

idk

Non-R's are going to look for anything Neg that they can. It's all about bad mouthing. 

He brought up JC era in reference to families being more traditional and sticking together. Never said anything about Tulsa and the bad parts from that era.

Just like Butker, they took parts and ran with it and did everything possible to put words in his mouth that he didn't actually say. 

The key for both statements, is supporting the Family and being a Strong Unit. 

[Luvnit2]

(06-10-2024, 07:28 AM)pally Wrote: Scott?  We were talking about Byron Donalds.  And you cannot praise any part of Jim Crow without opening up discussion of all of the Jim Crow era.  It’s kind of like saying Hitler did some good things or asking Mary Lincoln how the play was

Maybe you should post the entire article where Donalds brought up Jim Crow. He stated facts. He never used the words the black community was better off during Crow. He said in the point in time black families did not have the divorce rates they do today. He also said they were more black conservatives.

Please show the entire article and maybe the conversation Donalds had with one of the biggest racist on the planet Al Sharpton.

We know it does not fit your narrative to attack a black conservative as anything but an Uncle Tom, but Donalds is a good guy.

[Luvnit2]

(06-10-2024, 04:45 PM)pally Wrote: Pence was chosen because he was an evangelical different criteria maybe but no different than choosing somone who fills out the ticket for other voting blocks.

The Vice President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION not the President.  Shouldn't that be part of the selection process.  But, that beings up that pesky fact of Pence doing exactly that thwarting Trump's bid to use unconstutional ,non-certified, non-elected electors to steal the election 

Funny you mention the constitution as VP Harris and POTUS Biden do not preserve, protect and defend the constitution nor do you every time you pander the SC is biased.

Very convenient you also fail to see Biden and Harris are in violation of the constitution no protecting our borders and allowing 10's of millions into the US illegally. Please don't tell me now law to do so, if he can stop at 2500, he can stop at 1 entering illegally. 

[HarleyDog]

(06-10-2024, 07:47 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  if he can stop at 2500, he can stop at 1 entering illegally. 

Yes, he can. He can close the border and allow zero.

[*pally*]

(06-10-2024, 07:47 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Funny you mention the constitution as VP Harris and POTUS Biden do not preserve, protect and defend the constitution nor do you every time you pander the SC is biased.

Very convenient you also fail to see Biden and Harris are in violation of the constitution no protecting our borders and allowing 10's of millions into the US illegally. Please don't tell me now law to do so, if he can stop at 2500, he can stop at 1 entering illegally. 

 If undocemented people coming across the boeder equals a violation of the Consitution then every Presdident since the beginning of the Republic is huilty.  Incluing Trump

If you want to discuss violations of the Constitution shall I remind you yet again of the illegal elector scheme designed by Trump to stay in power despite losing the election

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-10-2024, 07:51 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Yes, he can. He can close the border and allow zero.

According to him, he didn't have that power, only Congress does and it's the R's fault!