Trump

[scagnt83]

I don't think anyone thinks that will apply if Donald gets the nomination. He'll be looking for the best.

In fact if he locks up the nomination early, I could see a TV show where he invites a number of candidates to tryout for the job, and where he gives them some jobs to do and systematically fires the worst ones as they fail to do a good job. People might watch that.

.

That is possibly the best idea you have ever had. Id pay to watch that, especially if it was filmed live!

 

[Winter_123]

I don't think anyone thinks that will apply if Donald gets the nomination. He'll be looking for the best.

Indeed. I did not say that he would pick someone with low standards- only that the standards are low such that the person can more or less pick whomever they want. The public will not be worrying about a lot of things that they do for the first place on the ticket. That gives the nominee the freedom to pick either a bozo or a good solid person who just is not a political hack, or a complete hack to get the electoral votes, or the hispanics or some quirky thing. Lot of freedom there.

If I were Sarah Palin I would not be holding my breath. Of course with Hillary it is Corey Booker or the Castro guy. (not fidel, the other one. bernie would have fidel). Maybe that would be good for them, especially if hillary gets FBI-itis along the way.

 

[DHK]

I don't think anyone thinks that will apply if Donald gets the nomination. He'll be looking for the best.

In fact if he locks up the nomination early, I could see a TV show where he invites a number of candidates to tryout for the job, and where he gives them some jobs to do and systematically fires the worst ones as they fail to do a good job. People might watch that.

Oh HELL yeah! Plus, get these candidates to raise money for CHARITY (or for the vets) instead of their own campaigns!

Political campaigns "for the people"? What a concept! Plus, he'll MAKE money doing it, rather than spending (wasting) it all. Now THAT'S the way to turn around politics in this country!

 

[Winter_123]

Oh HELL yeah! Plus, get these candidates to raise money for CHARITY (or for the vets) instead of their own campaigns!

Political campaigns "for the people"? What a concept! Plus, he'll MAKE money doing it, rather than spending (wasting) it all. Now THAT'S the way to turn around politics in this country!

Why limit it to VP selection. Supreme Court nominees?

 

[scagnt83]

Christie just publicly endorsed Trump... maybe he is making a play for the VP slot? Not exactly a Washington insider, but he has lots of political experience.

I think he needs a woman or some other type of minority. He needs a softer side to appeal to the masses. I guess Kasich would do, but 2 old white guys running the white house is not going to be a big appeal to independents and blue dog dems. Put Condi on the ticket with him and he will have a real shot.

 

[Robert Barney]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/

I think Christie has done the math, and analyzed the field. Having said that, the most important and timely endorsement Trump has had, head and shoulders above Sarah Palin.

Will he be the VP? It's not a bad choice, not bad at all. I think that I'm liking it. Christie can telegraph that Trump/Christie are a ticket that can work with Democrats to get things done, likely to be a popular notion with many independent voters.

 

[Winter_123]

I think he needs a woman or some other type of minority. He needs a softer side to appeal to the masses. .

Great idea. And if adding a woman to the ticket brings a softer more humanistic touch to a ticket then I recommend that Hillary do that as well. Oh, that's right. That's what she has bubba for and bubba is also the first black president.


Speaking of women, I am supporting Carly to be Ambassador to Japan. Hopefully, Trump will keep my wishes in mind.

 

[scagnt83]

I care more about who doesn't win rather than who wins. All I care about is not having a socialist or a snake in the White House.

 

[healther]

I care more about who doesn't win rather than who wins. All I care about is not having a socialist or a snake in the White House.

Trump vs. Hillary, pick your least slithery snake. I may vomit doing it, but I will vote for Hillary in that scenario... 1,000 out of 1,000 times.

 

[scagnt83]

Trump vs. Hillary, pick your least slithery snake. I may vomit doing it, but I will vote for Hillary in that scenario... 1,000 out of 1,000 times.

No way man. All I care about is that the republicans take the white house again. Hilary is better than Bernie... but she will just continue the Obama debt snowball that will ruin this country... slower than Bernie would do it but she will do it too because she will just carry on the current policy.

Kasich is the only candidate that I like right now. But the Democratic party might as well rename itself to the Socialist party at this point. Going back to our EU conversation a while back. Take a look at what the former head of the Bank of England (as of 2013) is now saying about the EU, Germany, and the potential exit of the UK:

By adopting a single currency, Lord King argues that differences between economies in Europe have been exacerbated because the normal monetary mechanisms used to make countries more competitive aren't available.

This has created a situation where powerhouse Germany is supporting the underperforming southern European countries.

This creates resentment among German voters, which leads to hash austerity measures for countries like Greece. That, in turn, creates resentment among Greeks.

What's more, the debts imposed on the likes of Greece through bailouts are almost impossible to pay back and cripple the country's already struggling economy further.

Now does that sound familiar to you at all here in the US if you replace "countries" with "people"?

To get out of this vicious cycle, Lord King proposes a radical solution — Germany should consider leaving the EU to bring about its demise.

Lord King writes:

The underlying differences among countries and the political costs of accepting defeat have become too great.

Germany faces a terrible choice. Should it support the weaker brethren in the euro area at great and unending cost to its taxpayers, or should it call a halt to the project of monetary union across the whole of Europe? The attempt to find a middle course is not working.

One day, German voters may rebel against the losses imposed on them by the need to support their weaker brethren, and undoubtedly the easiest way to divide the euro area would be for Germany itself to exit.

It's a radical suggestion and one that Lord King admits is probably not the most likely. He says: "But the more likely cause of a break- up of the euro area is that voters in the south will tire of the grinding and relentless burden of mass unemployment and the emigration of talented young people."

Lord King's anti-European argument comes at a pivotal time for Britain's future in Europe, with a referendum on membership of the EU set for June 23. It remains to be seen whether Lord King will do much to sway opinion.

This is what I fear for the US. Replace the "countries" with "people" and it describes the growing climate here in the US. Relying on government debt to boost the economy is not a sustainable solution in the long term. Socialist policies sound great to the poor on the surface, but in reality those policies are what keep the poor poor and the rich rich. Every single instance of a large successful middle class in a country has come about from embracing free market economics.