Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump choice of Mike Pence – Good or Bad? (READER POLL)

Trump choice of Mike Pence – Good or Bad? (READER POLL)

Great or Horrible Choice – or somewhere in between?

Numerous news reports today confirm that Donald Trump will choose Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. The official announcement is Friday at 11 a.m.

Of course, maybe these leaks are a diversion and it’s someone else. Even so, the Reader Poll would gauge Pence’s appeal. (UPDATE 7-15-16 – It’s official)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/753965070003109888

Is this a good choice? I’m going to give people a wide range of levels of reaction.

“10” = Superb Choice
“1” = Horrible Choice

Remember 10 IS BEST, 1 IS WORST. Capiche?

POLL OPEN UNTIL MIDNIGHT (PACIFIC TIME), FRIDAY NIGHT JULY 15.

NOTE — I have decided to extend the closing time until MIDNIGHT (PACIFIC TIME), SATURDAY NIGHT JULY 16


DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I was hoping for Condi Rice. But, can’t have everything.

I hope he hasn’t pissed away crossover voters put off by Pence’s social conservative views.

Pence is good but Newt would be a better debater and a more aggressive advocate. Go Newt!

Horrible or great? How about irrelevant? He could have picked Krusty the Clown, and it would make no difference come November.

When I saw this speech given at Hillsdale is when I became a Mike Pence fan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnoef7xW5sg

    Ragspierre in reply to bluemoon. | July 14, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    That guy died and is buried on the grounds of the Indiana Governor’s Mansion.

    Too bad, too. Another victim of Progressive Poisoning.

      murkyv in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2016 at 7:14 pm

      In other words, you don’t know doodley-squat about Pence.

      He’s been a fantastic CONSERVATIVE governor for my state.

      Not all his fault the legislature left him hanging out to dry over RFRA

Trump is going to lose anyway, but hey, we might as well torpedo Pence’s political career as well. He made a good start on it himself with his disastrous capitulation to the LGBT crowd in Indiana when he let them gut the religious liberty bill there last year. Do people really have memories that short? I mean, I don’t really care, I guess. Trump is such a bad choice for candidate anyway, that even if God grants us a miracle and lets him win, I don’t have much hope for how he’s going to govern. On top of that, I live in a state that hasn’t gone to the GOP since Nixon.

    Barry in reply to Othniel. | July 14, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    “Trump is going to lose anyway”

    Trump is going to win in the proverbial landslide.

    You fools have been wrong every.single.time.

      Othniel in reply to Barry. | July 14, 2016 at 5:31 pm

      Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy if he did. I REALLY want to see Clinton go down in flames. But I am very skeptical of his ability to carry battleground states.

        murkyv in reply to Othniel. | July 14, 2016 at 7:16 pm

        Which battleground states do you think Ted could have one?

        I’ve yet to get an answer to that even though I’ve been asking it for 6 months.

          murkyv in reply to murkyv. | July 14, 2016 at 7:17 pm

          “one”???

          oh well…

          And it’s a good question, murky. Battleground states are, by definition, hard to predict, and because Cruz didn’t make it past the primary and have a chance to campaign for a general election, we cannot know. My personal sense is that, this year, he may not have done very well at all had he won the nomination, and this would have been, in large part, because Trump’s fans would not have supported him and would have been actively working against him. Better Hillary than “Lyin’ Ted,” right? Better Hillary than a man whose father was clearly involved in the assassination of a president and who was probably also to blame for the sinking of the Titanic and the Hindenburg disaster. . . and whose wife isn’t “hot” enough, right? That’s what would have happened, and all the Trump loons would be slinging wild-eyed lies to the winds hoping that he would lose, and they would either be actually voting for Hillary (to “show” us!!! nanana!!!) or pushing their orange god to run third party run (and Trump’s such a self-inflated narcissistic nightmare that he would have done it, too).

          What I do know, however, is that I wouldn’t have qualm one voting for Ted Cruz. In fact, I fully plan to do just that.

          Barry in reply to murkyv. | July 14, 2016 at 9:33 pm

          Ted Cruz is not running for president Fuzzy, in case you’ve still not figured that out. Voting for any 3rd party or writing in anyone is wasting your vote.

          You would prefer shrillary to Trump.

          You are scraping the bottom of the barrel, Barry; I am fully aware that Cruz is no longer in the 2016 presidential race. Geesh, I’m pretty sure you know how threading works, so you may find it helpful to look at the post to which I was responding. Here’s the link and the text of it:

          murkyv | July 14, 2016 at 7:16 pm

          Which battleground states do you think Ted could have one?

          I’ve yet to get an answer to that even though I’ve been asking it for 6 months.

          I responded to this hypothetical question about Ted Cruz by actually discussing Ted Cruz. Go figure.

          Barry in reply to murkyv. | July 15, 2016 at 11:41 pm

          Fuzzy, I simply responded to what you wrote:

          “What I do know, however, is that I wouldn’t have qualm one voting for Ted Cruz. In fact, I fully plan to do just that.

          Did you mean something else? Did you forget what you wrote?

          I responded to what you wrote, but not everything you wrote.

          I was responding to an LI reader’s question about Ted Cruz, that I wrote about Ted Cruz should not be a point of contention (for anyone but you).

          As to my being #NeverTrump . . . *yawn* That’s no secret at all. I won’t vote for Hillary, and I will not vote for Trump. I can leave it blank or I can write in my preferred candidate; at this time, I fully plan to do the latter. I will never be part of either a Hillary or a Trump presidency, and I’ve been saying this all along, but I am happy to repeat it just for you: I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either Trump or Hillary for president. Because I cannot do so, I will not do so. It’s really not rocket science.

          Barry in reply to murkyv. | July 16, 2016 at 12:13 am

          Well excuse me, I did not realize it was a private conversation and that no one should respond to your comment.

          “What I do know, however, is that I wouldn’t have qualm one voting for Ted Cruz. In fact, I fully plan to do just that.”

          I don’t care who you vote for or not vote for. But it has nothing to do with principle. You will gladly and happily trash Trump to try and help Hillary win. You do it every time you write.

I’m guessing that if it is indeed Pence, and it looks that way, he was a safe choice. Not my first choice by any means, but not a bad choice either as far as I am concerned.

Leaves chief of staff for Newt, AG for Christie, Rudy for HS, etc. I think it will be an “All Star” lineup.

    Barry, you wrote: “Leaves chief of staff for Newt, AG for Christie, Rudy for HS, etc. I think it will be an “All Star” lineup.”

    So let’s see, you want someone who pushed cap and tax with Nancy Pelosi (because he believes in AGW or is a cynical loon trying to stay relevant) and blanket amnesty as chief of staff (and you clearly don’t know what chief of staff is; Newt would never take that. He was House Speaker, fgs), and you want someone for AG who has shown that he not only has a “punish my enemies” thug mentality but has also been vocal about how “stupid” and “crazy” people are who distrust teaching Islam in public K-12 schools or working with CAIR to make state dealings and judge appointments more “Sharia compliant.” Yeah, that sounds great, just great.

    Rudy, though, I don’t have much of a problem with, so one out of three.

      “and you clearly don’t know what chief of staff is; Newt would never take that. He was House Speaker, fgs),”

      My guess is that you are a political neophyte. You clearly have no clue how politics works, particularly at this level. That is from reading you all along. While I cannot guarantee Newt will be the COS, I think it is the most likely position for him, 2nd to VP. We shall see.

      As for the rest of your blather, it is just that. No one, not St. Cruz, not trump, not Newt, nor Pence is perfect. everyone has some compromised position.

      Newt’s pandering is typical. They’ve all done it, including St. Ted.

      Agreed that Christie has been weak on islam. I think his stance was political posturing and he is past that. Just my opinion however. We’ll see. He will be the next AG, count on it.

      Sorry that there are no clean toga’s for you.

        You may be right, Barry, perhaps Newt will take the job as a glorified secretary and office manager. It seems rather unlikely, but who knows how low Gingrich will sink?

        I never said any politician (or, in the case of Trump, wannabe) is perfect; are you just projecting here because you seem to believe that everything Trump says and does is near-godlike in its perfection?

        As to your “count on it” stuff with Christie being the next AG. Um, not if your beloved oompa loompa loses the Senate . . . which is highly likely given how few seats the Dems need and how disinterested both Trump and his fans are in that sort of thing. Here’s a hint from a political neophyte: no majority in Senate, no Christie for AG. Period.

          “You may be right, Barry, perhaps Newt will take the job as a glorified secretary and office manager.”

          Fuzzy, you should probably spend some time studying the presidential administration. You will discover that the Chief of Staff is considered one of the most powerful positions in government, certainly more than the VP position in most cases. Hint: Biden Vs Jarret – who do you think is more powerful?

          “I never said any politician (or, in the case of Trump, wannabe) is perfect; are you just projecting here because you seem to believe that everything Trump says and does is near-godlike in its perfection?”

          Since I pointed out that, no Trump is not perfect, nor anyone else, the “near-godlike” is just your projection. I have never seen you do anything but worship Cruz, never a word about his negatives. Who is acting like a worshipper?

          “As to your “count on it” stuff with Christie being the next AG. Um, not if your beloved oompa loompa loses the Senate . . . which is highly likely given how few seats the Dems need and how disinterested both Trump and his fans are in that sort of thing. Here’s a hint from a political neophyte: no majority in Senate, no Christie for AG. Period.”

          You nevertrumpers are the single most condescending group of political neophytes I have ever seen. Beloved oompa loompa? That’s rich. Did you pull that out of the Ted Cruz worship handbook?

          I have a great deal of interest in the outcome of every election. But because I support Trump, you decide I do not care about the senate, the house, or any other election. What is wrong with you people? What possible reason do you have to think this? TDS has gone to your brain and rotted all reason.

          And no, I don’t think Trump is going to cause any loss of congressional seats. Quite the opposite. The republicans faced a tough election this year in the congress and I think trump is going to help not hurt. It’s just my opinion.

          Barry, I hate to burst your self-important and highly deluded bubble, but Valerie Jarret is not the WH chief of staff. You make no sense and spew random words in what appears to be an effort to sound knowledgeable and politically savvy. Yet you end up sounding like a silly person. Jarret, chief of staff? Really?!

          And no, I’m not responding to anything else you say in this comment for the simple reason that I can’t read past that clueless nonsense. I really can’t.

          Poor fuzzy. I never said jarret was chief of staff. I gave you a comparison to consider, who is more powerful, jarret or biden.

          jarret is an advisor. The Obama WH is not a normal one by any means.

          You have no clue.

          Barry, I’m a bit surprised by this nonsensical response. We were talking about White House chief of staff, a specific position that I said was essentially that of a glorified secretary cum office manager and one that Newt would be unlikely to take, though you insisted he’d be the bestest evah pick for that role. Is any of this sounding familiar to you?

          You rebut stating:

          Fuzzy, you should probably spend some time studying the presidential administration. You will discover that the Chief of Staff is considered one of the most powerful positions in government, certainly more than the VP position in most cases. Hint: Biden Vs Jarret – who do you think is more powerful?

          And now you want me--and the other LI readers here--to believe that you didn't mean to say that Jarret was chief of staff? So, let's see. You say that the Chief of Staff is more important that the Vice Presidency, and then you say I need to consider Jarret's power over Biden's. Biden, of course, is VP. But you are now saying that you didn't mean to suggest Jarret was chief of staff . . .and have the unmitigated audacity to pretend that I am the dim-witted, drooling moron here?

          That's hilarious.

          What, pray tell, point were you making then in first discussing VP and Chief of Staff and then making the comparison between Biden and Jarret? Nothing, nothing at all, makes any sense in the context of this discussion but that you thought Valerie Jarrett was WH chief of staff, which clearly she is not. Can you even name the current WH chief of staff? Probably not without a quick Google search. And you know why? Because it's a crap secretary job (not as in secretary on the president's cabinet but as in gee, gang, is everyone on the same page? I scheduled Jim to buy more message pads and Sam to ensure the president received his Wheaties at the proper time. Let's make it happen, Team!).

          Yeah, that's got Newt written all over it.

          You've become a silly person that I just can't take seriously, Barry. It makes me a little sad.

          I don’t really care what you think anymore. I know precisely what and who, and what position Jarett holds. I did not use the Obama COS as the power has been invested in Jarret. That is the comparison.

          I’ll try to provide you with some education. You can search it further and perhaps learn something.

          “Because of these duties, the Chief of Staff has at various times been labeled “The Gatekeeper”, or “the power behind the throne”.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff

          “The White House Chief of Staff is, arguably, the most important appointment the President makes and has — at least since Reagan — at times acted as the president’s Prime Minister.”
          https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-powers-of-White-House-Chief-of-Staff

          How about Dick Cheney, a VP:
          “The White House chief of staff has more authority and more power than the vice president.”

          Or James Baker:
          “You could very well make the argument that the White House chief of staff is the second most powerful job in government.”

          http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/white-house-chiefs-of-staff-096492

      ““punish my enemies” thug mentality ”

      Left that out. Darn right. I want the enemies punished to the full extent. How ’bout we start with the crook, Hillary, that has gotten a pass from the republicans every single time.

      Or, we could put Cruz in place to play tiddlywinks with the democrats. Maybe he could read them “green eggs and ham”.

        Oh, and on this bizarre and willfully ignorant comment, Barry, you show only your own lack of principles and disdain for the rule of law.

        “Punishing” political “enemies” is not a good thing. Ever. And it’s antithetical to the principles on which our great country was founded.

        Your pretense here that it means going after a known criminal like Hillary is laughable. You know as well as I do, and as well as anyone reading these pages knows, that punishing political enemies has nothing to do with the rule of law (unless you count undermining and making a mockery of it).

        The IRS goes after Tea Party groups, and we are all outraged. Apparently, though, for different reasons. On one side, we “principled conservatives” your lot disdains were outraged because the act itself was wrong on a number of levels, and on the other side, your side was outraged not because of any amoral, unConstitutional act . . . but simply because it wasn’t your side engaged in the outrage.

        The more you Trump fans talk and reveal yourselves, the more deeply frightening you all are. The very idea that you people support such an overt abuse of government power, as long as it’s against people you dislike, makes me truly, physically nauseous.

          Bizarre. You accused Christie of wanting to “punish the political enemies”. You read to many hate sites apparently as there is nothing substantial showing Christie “punishing political enemies”, so what are you talkin about?

          So yes,I want to see crooks prosecuted for being crooks, which is what I said. They also happen to be political enemies, precisely because they are crooks. What part of this do you not get. That is the context I put it in and you know it. You just want to read something else into it to make yourself feel superior.

          It is you nevertrumpers that act like the left with your false accusations, distortions, and outright falsehoods.

          Barry, you are either the most naive or the most dim-witted person I’ve encountered in a long time. Let’s review, shall we, this idea of “punishing one’s enemies.” No, I won’t mention foreign tyrannies who do this, nor will I mention the many instances this have happened on our own shores. Instead, I’ll just remind you of Obama’s statement about how he “rewards his friends” and “punishes his enemies.”

          He didn’t mean, because that statement never means, “punishing” law breakers. He meant punishing people who did not support, in this specific instance, his amnesty plans. But everyone who didn’t support Obama “paid”; the Tea Party, of course, is the most well-known, but Obama also went after Gibson guitar, Boeing, the coal industry, etc. But he didn’t stop there. He wanted to “punish” the “enemies” of his progressive vision of the fundamental transformation of America. This included making “white, right-wing fanatics” enemies of the state and his ongoing battle against the Second Amendment. In each case, Obama finds ways to punish his enemies (real and imagined . . . or simply handy patsies like the filmmaker of the video that supposedly resulted in the Benghazi debacle).

          If you don’t know what it means for a president to be engaged in “punishing his or her enemies,” I’m happy to explain more fully. But I suspect you do know, and I am a bit appalled that you feign ignorance. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Sure, you have no idea what it means when the president of any nation takes the path of “punishing his / her enemies.” Sure, you truly believe that means just those “enemies” who are criminals. Uh huh.

          But I don’t’ think you’re stupid. Certainly not that stupid.

          You’re wasting a lot of time being obtuse.

          I made it clear in my comment what I meant. That I riffed off of yours doesn’t change the plain meaning of mine, by using the example of the crook Hillary.

          Get over it. Cruz is not going to get the nomination. Your only hope now is to elect Hillary, the crook. Perhaps you will succeed, but I doubt it. After all, you nevertrumpers have been wrong every time.

      quiksilverz24 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 14, 2016 at 10:54 pm

      Also, Trump has already stated he wants Gowdy as his AG. If that is something that can be proven to be true, I will stand 100% with Trump. Then we know Hillary will get her day in court.

        I have not seen that, and would be surprised to find it so. My opinion of Gowdy is not a good one anymore. Perhaps he would be a better AG than effective congressional investigator.

        While Christie has a lot of political drawbacks, he’ll be a highly effective AG, in my opinion.

        We’ll see.

Cuck move. Totally insecure. He should pick Newt who is more like himself.
And what is that talk about Trump producing a rabbi to talk at the convention? Why so defensive?

Governor Mike Pence

@GovPenceIN

Trade means jobs, but trade also means security. The time has come for all of us to urge the swift adoption of the Trans Pacific Partnership
12:37 PM – 8 Sep 2014

657 657 Retweets
306

and…

Governor Mike Pence

@GovPenceIN

Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.
9:30 AM – 8 Dec 2015

4,292 4,292 Retweets
3,162

But…

never mind. T-rump suckers will swallow it whole

    Zachary in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    C’mon Rags, you know in Trumpland every position is malleable, and one can be whatever one wants to be, depending on the need. It’s all about making deals and this is just a really good deal.

    murkyv in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2016 at 7:23 pm

    Hmmmm…not too much different than what your boy Ted said at the time.

      Milhouse in reply to murkyv. | July 14, 2016 at 11:54 pm

      Yes. And your point is? Pence and Cruz were right then and Cruz is still right; what about Pence?

    murkyv in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    And Ted didn’t just put out a Tweet about TPP.

    He actually voted for it.

      Zachary in reply to murkyv. | July 14, 2016 at 8:48 pm

      Oh, I see. You’re the new ‘that guy’ ’round here. Should be fun. Hopefully brief.

        Lady Penguin in reply to Zachary. | July 15, 2016 at 8:09 am

        Maybe, maybe not, ie. Murkyv presence. Just checked in to see if the same disrespectful behavior was going on around here toward anyone that had a reasonable attitude regarding accepting Trump. I see that nothing has changed – except, where is Rags? He was a knocking himself out doing trolling duty to be as nasty as possible to folks who are willing to support the nominee, Trump. Though it’s clear that are plenty willing to pick up the slack.

        Sorry to see a site, that once had polite and intelligent discourse, become nothing but an anti-Trump forum.

          Lady Penguin, when you start defining “reasonable” as “anyone who agrees with me,” you lose. Furthermore, you will never find your happy oasis of Trump love here at LI where we actually value varied opinions.

          Why not try Breitbart or Gateway Pundit or Alex Jones’ nutter site. There you will find all the “reasonable” people you could ever want.

I think it would be wiser to ask this after Trump actually announces his pick.

I wanted Sessions and I was intrigued by Flynn, so I’m dissapointed.

Pence was a big promoter of the touchback amnesty scam, and tweeted in favor of TPP two years ago. He’s just another politician, and he’s somebody the Democrats will use to exploit culture war issues.

    Um, Trump’s amnesty is touch-back; Pence, in that sense, is a great pick. It’s a bit odd that Pence would agree to tie himself to a strutting, gloating, mean-spirited and nasty bully, but he’s made his bed.

    Sessions would have been a good pick because it may have helped Trump with people who distrust his conservative credentials (not all such people–like me, but some). Flynn, the Democrat, would have been a mistake of epic proportions.

Somebody should warn Trump before he gets carried away: You can pick your VP and you can pick your nose. But, you can’t pick your VP’s nose.

Pence is at the very least a safe choice. Not a hammer guy, but a useful conduit to Congress and the Republican Party that Trump lacks. The GOPe folks will think they might be able to work with Pence, especially if Trump appoints a cabinet full of sledgehammers to push his agenda.

    Exactly why Pence (or some other GOPe) was probably part of the “deal” Trump struck with Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOPe. Trump’s deal-making is the story here, not Pence . . . who opposes everything Trump publicly states now, but supports everything Trump has, for decades, espoused.

    This is back-room dealing with the GOPe,and everyone knows it (except the die-hard Trump fans, it seems. They seem to be tying themselves in knots trying to convince themselves that Pence, a progressive establishment figure, has supported their hero’s giant shiny wall forevah. He never has; he pushed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill under President Bush (43), and when it was clear that was going nowhere tried to compromise with securing the border and blah blah (think Rubio, only in the ’00s). But hey, Pence shares Trump’s view that health care and education are two of the top three priorities of federal government. Yay!?

      Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 14, 2016 at 8:12 pm

      Mark Bellings (sp?) inadvertently laid out a perfect exposition of how I’ve been right all along WRT Mr. Establishment during his guest-hosting of Rush’s show.

      Point-by-point, he detailed how T-rump has made sweet, sweet love to every pol in D.C. with a few notable exceptions.

      He isn’t going to “burn down” anything. He’s just going to go along to get along, as he’s done his life entire.

      Fuzzy :
      What game are you playing?
      And are you in communication with Buzzy Ginsburg to destroy Trump to mutual satisfaction?

      I find it interesting the company you keep in your hatred for Trump.

        Care to repeat that in comprehensible language, Secondwind? This garbled mess makes no sense at all, but you appear to be stating that because I don’t support Trump I must support Ginsberg. Naw, that can’t be what you are saying; you’re not that simplistic and sophomoric in your thinking, right?

Pence has been mislead in his decision-making in Indiana. When the Republicans said “no more Common Core” – so he signed the law and then appointed the liberals who supported Common core to rewrite the standards. Guess what happened?

Beyond that, there has been a constant battle between the Democrat Superintendent of Schools Glenda Ritz that required Pence do something ugly – establish a State School Board to overrule her.

Then there was the hullabaloo about the Indiana Religious Freedom legislation that Indiana evangelicals had requested. When the simple act was passed the out-of-state aesthetic liberals claimed it discriminated against homosexuals and Pence folded.

Pence’s voting record in the House was favorable toward low-cost coal-fired power plants but in the past four years, expensive and environmentally-damaging wind power generators and corn ethanol plants are covering over the state. The 15% target for expensive “renewable energy” sources must be struck down – but the Big Power guys have him buffaloed.

While in the House in 2006, Pence proposed a temporary guest-worker program that would require illegal immigrants to leave the country before they could enroll as guest-workers – but it went nowhere in the House, and angered many Republicans. Now I suppose that Trump might find such a proposal interesting.

Overall, it seems that Pence tries to blend into the background at times when he should be leading the charge.

    murkyv in reply to gad-fly. | July 14, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Nobody could stop Big Blow from leasing land from private landholders except the local governing boards. (Same way even Obama can’t stop fracking and drilling on private lands)

    We tried everybody up to and including our US Senators for assistance. Form letters upon form letters from them all.

    The only way we were able to beat back Industrial Wind Turbine farms in my back yard was in a county Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

Might bring in some votes, which all one can expect of the office which “isn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit” as John Nance Garner put it.

Formerly known as Skeptic | July 14, 2016 at 4:39 pm

I heard the theory this morning (Chuck Todd I think) that Pence would be the pick if and only if Trump needed to shore up support for the convention. In other words, if it looked like there was a good chance of a move to unseat him as the nominee.

Compromising with the establishment, once, twice, … This is getting challenging.

    Zachary in reply to n.n. | July 14, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Oh it’s just hitting you now? Welcome to where I was around November last year.

People denying Pence is a done deal.

DouglasJBender | July 14, 2016 at 5:24 pm

Mike Pence — The Great Capitulator.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/14/trump-campaign-denies-reports-mike-pence-tapped-vp/

You have to say this, Trump certainly knows how to get peoples attention. Even if he announces Pence tomorrow people will still be talking “will he or won’t he…”.

    Zachary in reply to RodFC. | July 14, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    Yeah man it’s so cool how he just gets people’s attention and stuff. Wowzers.

      murkyv in reply to Zachary. | July 14, 2016 at 7:36 pm

      Is this your first election?

      Getting and keeping voters attention is more than half the battle.

      That’s why he was able to pull away from the other 16 while they were counting on him to flame out.

Reporters spent the last hour chasing two decoy mini-motorcades leaving the gov residence. No one has physically seen Pence in hours.

— Jose A. DelReal (@jdelreal) July 14, 2016

I didn’t vote because the VP choice is irrelevant unless the presidential nominee drops dead suddenly. Trump seems fairly healthy so I don’t see the VP mattering in the slightest.

    Milhouse in reply to irv. | July 15, 2016 at 12:04 am

    Or is impeached.

      Oh goodie Sopwith, you just suggested the next meme for you #never T-rumpers once T-rump wins in a walk.
      “Impeach T-rump!”

      If Trump somehow wins, he’ll be impeached. Rather quickly, too, I imagine, with the Trump fans tossing the House and Senate elections out the window to the Dems. As it stands, the Dems are quite likely to win the Senate back this year, and while they could conceivably win the House back this year, it will most likely take the 2018 midterms to bring that to fruition.

      And let’s not discount the GOPe who will be more than happy to impeach and then vote to convict Trump so that Pence can be president. It’s a tidy plan. And it’s likely to work quite well.

        Another nevertrumper prediction, impeachment.

        Goes along with your belief that you could ignore the will of the people and somehow subvert the republican convention process, thwart the rules, and install St. Cruz as the nominee.

        Your hopes were crushed. So now you hold out that Trump will lose, and if not be impeached.

        You people are all kooks. No other explanation.

Outstanding pick.Now President Trump can work on getting all the right people in the cabinet and reverse the trajectory of the Obama administration.

7

…and here I was almost convinced to cast a vote for Trump, and then Pence happened…

http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/14/four-statist-policies-gov-mike-pence-champions/#.V4e56sbVdrk.twitter

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend