Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

If you were Trump would Vance have been your VP pick?

CouchPotato
 Share

Recommended Posts

CdnFox Grand Master

CdnFox

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, User said:

Were they going to hang a midget?

 

Papa smurf actually.  He knows what he did. 

  • Haha 1

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yep

https://youtu.be/dXt9BDI4FCM

 

Edited by gatomontes99
  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
August1991 Grand Master

August1991

Posted
Posted
On 7/26/2024 at 10:44 AM, CouchPotato said:

I guess the thread title explains it all. Would you have picked Vance? Is there anyone else you might have chosen above him. I really have no opinion on the matter myself, but I am interested in what everyone else thinks.

I think Trump should have chosen Tim Scott.

At present, American politics are like Canadian federal politics in the 1890s.

 

gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

I think Trump should have chosen Tim Scott.

At present, American politics are like Canadian federal politics in the 1890s.

 

Tim Scott is an awesome man. But we need someone with sharp elbows.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
August1991 Grand Master

August1991

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Tim Scott is an awesome man. But we need someone with sharp elbows.

Trump must put all his cards on the table. Scott would have done that.

Trump needs to win massively in 2024. LBJ 1964, Nixon 1972.

gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Trump must put all his cards on the table. Scott would have done that.

Trump needs to win massively in 2024. LBJ 1964, Nixon 1972.

He's too nice. The left isn't going to let up because he's black. They are going to be even more vicious. Just look at their attacks on Clarance Thomas, Condoleza Rice, and every other black conservative.

If Scott is going to be a national candidate, he has to be better at hitting back. We can't be cordial any more. The left is vicious and they aren't goijg to change until they see it doesn't work for them.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
August1991 Grand Master

August1991

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

He's too nice. The left isn't going to let up because he's black. They are going to be even more vicious. Just look at their attacks on Clarance Thomas, Condoleza Rice, and every other black conservative.

....

Moot at this point.

But I disagree. 1/ The American Left is colour-obsessed. If Trump had a black-guy as VP, it would confuse them. 2/ Scott is smart.

  • Thanks 1
Michael Hardner Grand Master

Michael Hardner

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Moot at this point.

But I disagree. 1/ The American Left is colour-obsessed. If Trump had a black-guy as VP, it would confuse them. 2/ Scott is smart.

The vp for Trump doesn't matter. It's Trump and that's it. 

It would be like selecting a car based on the type of floor mat.

  • Like 2

 
Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS

Michael Hardner

CdnFox Grand Master

CdnFox

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The vp for Trump doesn't matter. It's Trump and that's it. 

It would be like selecting a car based on the type of floor mat.

it matters a little, but not that much. 

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Matthew Experienced

Matthew

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hm I can't get past the first four existentially disturbing words of the question.

It's easy to think of someone else as a distant abstraction. But to imagine myself looking through those sad, beleaguered eyes. What thoughts would I think with his tortured, masturbatory nervous system.

Edited by Matthew
  • Haha 1
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
On 7/26/2024 at 12:05 AM, Deluge said:

I like Vance, but I like Vivek Ramaswamy more. Vivek would've been my pick. 

I think this is too much of a power struggle. 

Both are egomaniacs, and its cringeworthy to see them both together, as you can feel that energy.

Vance is far more of a submissive person, not wanting to take any of his bosses' shine away, making him better for Trump's personality.

In a perfect world, Ramaswamy would have been picked, as he is insanely effective at picking people apart on the debate stage.

But I have seen some Vance speeches, and he can hold his own, too.

I think he resonates with more people. Served in the military, has political experience. 

Deluge Grand Master

Deluge

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I think this is too much of a power struggle. 

Both are egomaniacs, and its cringeworthy to see them both together, as you can feel that energy.

Vance is far more of a submissive person, not wanting to take any of his bosses' shine away, making him better for Trump's personality.

In a perfect world, Ramaswamy would have been picked, as he is insanely effective at picking people apart on the debate stage.

But I have seen some Vance speeches, and he can hold his own, too.

I think he resonates with more people. Served in the military, has political experience. 

Vivek may have an ego, but he wouldn't have let that get in the way of his vice presidency - he has more tact than that. 

Still, I think Vance is a good choice anyways, so it's all good. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,911
    • Most Online
      1,403
    AlembicoEMR
    Newest Member
    AlembicoEMR
    Joined

  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...