Donald Trump To Announce Mike Pence As Vice-Presidential Running Mate (theguardian.com) 413
Donald Trump has selected Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his vice-presidential running mate. A senior GOP official, cited by many media outlets today (including the WSJ), confirmed the news, adding that the announcement will be made Friday. The Guardian reports: Pence brings several qualities to the Trump campaign that Republicans have found lacking, not least of which experience in government. The 57-year-old spent 12 years in Congress, including two years in a leadership role with the House Republican Conference. He was elected governor of Indiana in 2012, and gained a degree of national notoriety that's to a controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he signed into law and then wanted revised, after many argued it would allow discrimination against LGBT people. A Trump-Pence ticket could send a message to Republican dissenters who feel they cannot support a candidate who has proven inconsistent on guns, abortion, LGBT rights and other social conservative issues. Just before the Indiana primary election, the staunchly conservative governor endorsed Ted Cruz, Trump's leading opponent and a far-right senator from Texas.An anonymous reader shared a BuzzFeed article on Pence today. The article digs into some of the opinion pieces Pence has penned over the years. In one such article, Pence wrote that "smoking doesn't kill." "Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill," he wrote. In another piece, he argues that Carbon Dioxide "can't be the cause of increased global temperatures" because it is "a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature..." not an unnatural one.
Indian? (Score:5, Insightful)
Editors, do you do anything???
Irish Catholic (Score:3)
I went to the usual sources, and it turns out his ancestry is Irish Catholic, not Native American. (Source: "What You Didn't Know About Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana" by Danielle Burton in U.S. News [archive.org])
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes! Thanks to Slashdot's egregious editorial incompetence, we can now accuse Mike Pence of basing his entire life off of the evil evil lie that he's from India.
Re:Irish Catholic (Score:5, Informative)
I can't find anything really negative about him,
How's this [thenewcivi...vement.com] for a start?
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing negative about being anti-gay.
Sez the guy with such a balanced and healthy world-view that even their signature is preachy.
Re: (Score:3)
You just got caught up in clueless reactionary gibberish. When Liberals make a claim, you need to fact-check them every time because they're brainwashed zealots who really want to believe they're good people, while spewing hate toward anyone who isn't part of their backward, propaganda-driven cult. They imagine that ethical people are their enemies, when their real enemy is the media that encouraged their hate, and told them that wingnut delusions are true.
Some hate-radio clowns and wingnut bloggers started
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Reaction from conservatives and Republicans on this will be little to zero excitement.
Pence shriveled up in the face of the challenges in his state when the religious freedom act came under assault, and he really bears no marks of being a person who could be sold as a moderating influence to Trump.
However, I suspect that Trump has left himself with few friends and fewer qualified choices, so this is what the Trumpsters get. Mike the Generic Guy.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I suspect that Trump has left himself with few friends and fewer qualified choices, so this is what the Trumpsters get. Mike the Generic Guy
There's also the fact that about half the names released so far that are speaking at the RNC are either Trump's family or sports "stars" like Dana White and Tim Tebow. Not really what you would call credible endorsers that can drum up much support. Tebow is an obvious play for the evangelicals though, and I assume Dana White is there to support Trump's whole "good in business(debatable)=good in government" platform.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
There's also the fact that about half the names released so far that are speaking at the RNC are either Trump's family or sports "stars" like Dana White and Tim Tebow.
That side of the campaign sounds more like Camacho 2016 with each passing day. Tell me this exchange doesn't sound familiar.
It sounds like every single platform statement Trump has come up with.
I'm growing weary of politicians using 1984 as a playbook, but I'd really prefer not to see Idiocracy used as one, either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The more viable VP candidates are probably extremely hesitant to poison their career by associating with Trump's historic, losing campaign.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the more likely explanation. Anyone with any ambition, or anyone who doesn't want to go down in history as Trump's running mate (which would probably include 90% of all the possible picks) is not going to drink from this poisoned chalice.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump wasn't elected by "fascists", for the most part. He was elected by white, working class people who finally woke up and realized that the mainstream Republican policies weren't working for them, and the mainstream GOP politicians were just lying to them and pandering to them.
Unfortunately, instead of just abandoning the GOP altogether, they picked the one guy in the GOP (who conveniently joined the GOP just before the election cycle) who told them what they wanted to hear, and really isn't a very good candidate.
But they were right to be angry at the mainstream GOP.
Unfortunately, despite all the (rightful) populist anger, we're going to wind up with two absolutely terrible candidates running in November, one who's part of the party that always pushes Big Business but voices support for populist policies (that probably won't help, like building a wall), and another who's part of the party that claims to be for the common main but is clearly sold out to Wall Street and private prisons.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)
What was he before?
Trump was a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Independence Party from '99 to '01, a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2009, switched to independent, in 2011, and then Republican in 2012.
Source [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:3)
this is a question more for that article than for you, but i can't ask that author: why start in 1987? what was he before 1987?
Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)
he really bears no marks of being a person who could be sold as a moderating influence to Trump.
But he looks good on TV. I would like to state with conviction that wouldn't be a deciding factor but we all know better.
Re: (Score:3)
would have voted for Trump had it been Gingrich (Score:2)
For all his faults, Newt accepts climate change and calls for "green conservativism", has good attitudes on minorities and women's rights (defended those and a potential woman president in an Ali G interview), and supports a base on the moon and a flight to Mars. What more can one ask for.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Gingrich saw the way that the Republican party was becoming more ant-science and changed his tune.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/... [factcheck.org]
Re:would have voted for Trump had it been Gingrich (Score:5, Informative)
Which makes him totally unacceptable to Republican voters. They don't care about the hypocrisy, or extremism, but they do care if someone threatens their collapsing delusional worldview.
The wacky things Republicans say and do make a lot more sense if you view them as a failed subculture, desperately trying to hold off the collapse of their propaganda and superstition based worldview for as long as possible. Choosing religion and pandering hoax-media over evidence is a dead-end, and on some level they know it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Its not the provable science at issue. It is the far left new-communist SOLUTIONS. Global wealth redistribution is the only solution. No mistake that is what carbon trading and carbon credits are. How can first world countries giving billions to 3rd world war lords help the climate in anyway? It will only make the new UN Politburo the most powerful unelected people on the planet. THAT is the progressive wet dream. Control EVERY person on the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
He's really into family values. He values families so much that he's had several of them.
Re:would have voted for Trump had it been Gingrich (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I think he did.
I suspect that Gingrich doesn't think Trump has any chance of winning. However, he and Trump both know that former republican candidates for both P and VP make crazy-large amounts of money on the conservative talk circuit. Republicans seem to pay very large amounts of money to listen to failed candidates speak. Democrats do too, but it seems to be less-crazy amounts and fewer venues, and the people usually have more credentials than "failed to become president".
(I personally think that that was the only reason Trump ran, and that he as surprised as everyone else that he's in this spot.)
Re: (Score:3)
He never said he was voting for Hillary. There are more than two choices, in case you didn't understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
he really bears no marks of being a person who could be sold as a moderating influence to Trump.
It kind of makes you wonder if Trump actually is on the conservative side of the divide, despite spending plenty of money on democrats in the past (and avowing liberal opinions).
tbh he comes across as kind of a blockhead, so maybe he matches Donald Trump [youtube.com]. I can't stand listening to him, so in that sense he matches Trump.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)
> It is possible that Trump is really doing this to put a final nail in the coffin of the Republicans as a Democratic "operative".
You could pick WAY worse than this guy. This piece slams him (and plenty more will too), but that would happen whomever he picked. Christie, you got the bridge thing, Newt you got the divorcing the wife with cancer thing, etc.
Every politician in contention for VP will have something to be fried on- remember when Quayle went with the spelling on the card for "potato" as "potatoe"? People didn't stop talking about that until halfway through the Clinton administration, he was The Dumb Guy.
This thing where good men are attacked endlessly for fictional vices has achieved its end effect of clearing the way for men with many serious vices to run, because the attacks and claims are the same in both cases.
In this vein- once everyone in the center bought that McCain was waging a "war on women", and Romney's strict insistence on adequate female representation in his potential administration became part of a "war on women" ("binders of women")- once every Republican had to bear the brunt of being a sexist, even if not, all that did was remove the social cost of ACTUALLY being a sexist. Far too much wolf-crying from the left to attack men on the faults they don't have, has removed the incentive to not just run men who actually DO have those faults.
Anyway, if you were trying to sink the candidacy, there are much more screwed up candidates to pick. But no one will bother researching whatever Sessions or whomever did anymore, because now the decision has (apparently) been made. The same will be true of the Democrats soon enough.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Informative)
Reaction from conservatives and Republicans on this will be little to zero excitement.
Pence shriveled up in the face of the challenges in his state when the religious freedom act came under assault, and he really bears no marks of being a person who could be sold as a moderating influence to Trump.
However, I suspect that Trump has left himself with few friends and fewer qualified choices, so this is what the Trumpsters get. Mike the Generic Guy.
Oh, he didn't "shrivel up". He outright LIED [go.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think either one has any major health problems
Not counting Clinton's serious brain problem, which put her out of action for quite a while, nearly killed her, and forced her to wear ultra-heavy glasses to pull her eyesight back into alignment. And, of course, have you watched any of her several uncontrollable coughing fits, bad enough that she's had to leave the stage where she's appearing? Neither are spring chickens, but I think she has more miles on her, health-wise.
Nice previously researched spin in the "article" (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what Mike Pence said word for word in his so-called "denialist" and "anti-science" article:
And he was right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get the joke you're going for here, but considering what happened to Turing, it's pretty fucking tone deaf.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
"Turing was an idiot savant, apparently. Imagine walking into the IRS for an audit and confessing to having hidden tons of income 20 years ago (where they are forbidden to look, and wouldn't find out anyway)? Well, that was along the lines of what he did. He basically volunteered himself for punishment."
Turing Swartzed himself. It was the classic nerd vs evil government locker stuffing.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Informative)
The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.
*Takes deep breath free of cigarette smoke*. I'm going with back handed big government since I'm not being killed by someone replacing my breathable oxygen with carcinogenic smog against my consent.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. The Republican Party Platform, as of now, wants government to:
* Regulate the porn industry and control what you're allowed to see.
* Regulate who you can marry.
* Regulate what operations your doctor can do on you (especially if you are a woman).
* Regulate what bathroom you can use.
* Spend more and more on the military.
* Pay for it all by cutting taxes, mostly on the wealthy.
Not what I would call small government.
But they want to be sure that fewer people have health care, so they have that going for them, which is nice.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Insightful)
if it's just substituting marijuana for tobacco in all the same places and contexts, then yeah it is a bad thing, as bad as the current status quo, which is already inexcusable.
marijuana and tobacco should both be legal in and ONLY IN contexts where OTHER PEOPLE aren't FORCED to take your fucking drugs with you. so away from public places, contained on private property, with consent of the property owner, but even then only where you don't have dependents like children or employees who can't just leave your space. if that means that only childless homeowners can smoke, and only in their own homes, then tough shit.
if keep it out of my fucking air then i don't fucking care, but KEEP IT OUT OF MY FUCKING AIR, and deal with whatever the fuck you have to deal with to accomplish hat.
Re: (Score:3)
True if the intensity is too much. The same can be said from industrial air pollution, traffic, the neighbours cooking food that I don't like etc. etc.
Yes cigarette smoke in a car is too strong, but smoke from the neighbours? The smoke won't hurt you, yet you can smell it. There are many smells in the world, and many tastes.
If it is bad or not depends on the health of the population at large, the cost for society in terms of health, money and quality of life.
In that sense, I would asume that substituting ma
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:5, Informative)
there is plenty of evidence to support it. And if it is harmful to me then I have a right to live and you dont have a right to smoke around me. You can smoke anywhere you want, just not around me.
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of evidence to support negative-association reparative therapy to turn gays back into normal people, too; it just happens that the full body of scientific information suggests said evidence is faulty, insignificant, or anomalous.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Insightful)
Never mind whether it's even harmful or not. It's arrogant and rude to force other people to breath your fumes, whether they come from your cigarette or -- uh, elsewhere.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Informative)
There's decades worth of evidence of the harm of second hand smoke. It isn't 1950 any more, Big Tobacco's "research" has long ago been debunked, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances. Your right to smoke ends at my fucking lungs.
Re: (Score:3)
...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances.
Agreed, for the sake of argument. Now you have to stop operating any petroleum consuming devices in my vicinity. Cars, motor boats, lawnmowers, etc., all have to go. Don't even THINK about running anything on diesel! Also, no more dryer sheets, colognes, or perfumes. Keep your toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic smells in their tanks and bottles, thank you.
Man I like this idea!
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Informative)
the NIH, CDC, Cancer.gov, American Cancer Association, Surgeon General, International Agency for Research on Cancer, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, just to name a few, would disagree with that statement. But I know, biased sources with agendas.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Informative)
This is an absolute fabrication. You are a liar and a bad one at that.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat... [cdc.gov]
There are 10 scientific paper linked at the bottom of that CDC page that affirmatively show a statistically significant connection between secondhand smoke and the conditions and problems listed. The smokers lungs only filter about 10% of the pollutants contained in the tobacco smoke, the rest remain in the second hand smoke and will be absorbed partially by the next person that inhales the smoke.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Informative)
There's never been any proof that second hand smoke is even remotely dangerous.
You might not want to smoke, but you have no right to prevent anyone else from doing it.
It amuses me that the way the US is going, it might soon be legal to smoke marijuana but not tobacco.
Then how do you explain the fact that I have COPD with ZERO cigarette smoking "experience"?
I'll tell you how: Six decades of constantly LIVING WITH cigarette smokers.
Second-hand smoke really is no joke. I'm not an anti-smoking crusader (quite the opposite, actually); but I have to pay at least some attention to my personal experience...
Re: (Score:3)
Usually propylene glycol, if you've got the good stuff. Frequently acetylamides that break down into diacetylamides, which causes popcorn lung over long-term, extreme exposure. Aldehydes can also form into formaldehyde if you gunk up the mechanism and cause localized hot spots.
The stuff dissolves in air to a less-than-toxic (LC0) dose, and is known-harmless. The ingredients are often published, and almost always well-known. The amount of douchebaggery is readily measurable by how big and gaudy the va
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Informative)
Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer. This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit. The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.
Smoking doesn't kill... except for those one out of every three smokers who die from a smoking related illness. Then he tries to say that the relevant part of a conversation about smoking is really about second hand smoking... On the whole, it's just a bunch of nonsense.
If you take just the part about "smoking doesn't kill" it does make him sound worse than he deserves, but similarly the bit that you quote makes him sound better than he deserves. Mostly he's just spewing gibberish here.
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Insightful)
Then Trump's perfect running mate. Between the two of them, they can create a cloud of incoherence so thick that no one will be able to tell what the hell they're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
If you take just the part about "smoking doesn't kill" it does make him sound worse than he deserves
Not at all. Telling people something doesn't kill you because it only kills 33% of the people who use it is completely illogical. Putting it in context does not make it any less insane.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Smoking does raise your risk factors for fatal disease dramatically, thus can be said to "kill". Science has consistently shown second-hand smoke has zero impact on anyone, aside from annoying people and irritating the bronchial passages. CO2 is a natural phenomena; the amount of CO2 we're pumping out in the given time frame is *not* a natural phenomena (in so much as human activity can be said to be not natural); and whether you believe the AGW line or the anti-AGW line, that distinction remains a cold,
Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. CDC link [cdc.gov]:
Health Effects in Adults
From the American Cancer Society [cancer.org]
But go ahead, claim all their science is junk and you're smarter than the experts. That seems to be a symptom of people who can't admit facts.
Re: (Score:3)
The AHA, ACS, and CDC all have 50-year-old research and positions on these things. They lag behind modern science by an enormous margin.
In a study of 76,000 women [oxfordjournals.org], current and former smokers had statistically higher chances of lung cancer; exposure to second hand smoke showed NOTHING.
Studies that show links between second-hand smoke and disease are almost universally case-control, where you find someone who has a disease and ask if they were exposed to a potential cause. This kind of study overwhelmin
Re: (Score:2)
keeping other peoples fucking drugs out of my own goddamn lungs is not "big government" that's basic fucking law and order that is a libertarian governments only fucking mandate
shove whatever goddamn needle full of nicotine and tar into your own fucking veins you want, i don't fucking care, so long as I DON'T HAVE TO BREATH IT
you smokey goddamn ash-hole
Re: (Score:3)
That selective quote is just as bad as the bias you claim to be against.
He wrote "Time for a reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness"
So 1 in 3 does die from a smoking related illess Mr Pence? And you are going to use THAT statistic as support for "smoking doesn't kill". When it kills 1/3rd of smokers? How many smokers exactly Mike, does it need to kill before you consid
Indiana will be delighted (Score:3)
The republicans in Indiana will be celebrating. Pence was going to lose the governorship there if he ran again. So now they can get a new face and possibly retain the governor's mansion.
For now just a rumour (Score:3)
So, until now at least, it seems to be only a rumour and I wouldn't put past one planted by his campaign to generate buzz to his announcement tomorrow.
Bleah! (Score:4, Informative)
I just googled Mike Pence's legislative history and he is bloody awful!
Totally against abortion, "[2011] remove the mandate on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee to focus on maximum employment", against same-sex marriage, does not want gays and similar to have equal rights, remove restrictions on campaign contributions, reduce taxes on the rich...
He is no friend of the people .
Re: (Score:3)
I guess if you're going to go for the crazy vote you might as well go all in on crazy.
Re:Bleah! (Score:5, Informative)
Over his 12 years in Congress, he was the primary sponsor for 63 bills. 18 made it to committee. 0 made it out to the floor even for consideration. He was useless in Congress. He was harmful to Indiana. If the pattern continues, he'll be awful as VP even with token powers.
The only good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
I keep coming back to the time when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity [politifact.com] during the run-up to the 2008 election.
People kept pointing out that this one act caused the telecoms to donate more money to him, which got him elected. Given the closeness of the 2008 election, it's plausible that if Obama *hadn't* done this that he would not have become president.
People also pointed out that: "it was necessary to get elected - he can't implement hope and change unless he wins".
It was a rationalization based on "the ends justify the means".
I shudder to think that Pence was chosen simply for this reason - an expedient choice to increase the odds of Trump being elected, and not for his opinions, competence, or experience.
My soul is fading, I am become like the Democrats.
Indepent thinker (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I am sure you hate Obama because of his "flip-flop on telecom immunity". You guys are so transparent. You hate Obama because of "flip flopping" but Bush was great, right?
Actually, I hate Bush more.
Taking the country to war under false pretences, torturing prisoners... that's a lot of sin to wash away.
Obama caved to the establishment and is generally ineffective, but he hasn't done anything that rises to that level of evil.
I'm an independent thinker, not a party hack.
Re:Bleah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Homosexuals (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Homosexuals (Score:5, Informative)
As a Representative, he co-sponsored an amendment to prohibit same sex marriage. He voted against the Employee Non-Discrimination Act because it would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted to oppose prosecuting hate crimes based on orientation. He voted against repealing of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As governor, he allow businesses to discriminate based on orientation before RFRA was amended.
It's pretty clear that he has made hostile actions towards LGBT in what he's introduced, supported, or signed into law. As a politician, I'd say that qualifies more has hates LGBT rather than disagrees with LGBT.
Good pick. (Score:5, Funny)
Pence is just as nuts as Trump which is good... for Trump. If Trump picked a good VP and somehow got elected, someone might try to assassinate him just to get the VP in place. Way to double down on the insanity! ;)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trump will succeed because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Money is not "elite" (Score:3)
I have read stories about thousands of people who win the lottery and I would not call them elite either. "Elite" is a set of people holding lots of power. Money is just one form of power, but there are many more forms of power. Elites also use that power to scratch each others backs. It's a "click", or a "club". Hillary is a member of the club, Sanders was not. Pence is not, Paul is not, and I think you will see the point and be able to spot the trend.
Trump is interesting though, because he was a car
Re:Trump will succeed because... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe in a savior. Hillary is terrible, but Trump is a real real bad joke. He isn't even conservative. He is just playing a bunch of morons for attention.
It's a choice between Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil.
One possible advantage to Chaotic Evil is that it's possibly less likely to be effective in the implementation of Evil.
Plus, with all the bridges to the rest of the Republican Party that Trump has napalmed, he'll be an impeachment magnet. Half the Republicans and all the Democrats will be aching and itching for any excuse to remove him from office. In contrast, the Democrats would not vote to remove Hillary if she turned the traditional White House Lawn
Re: (Score:3)
Some folks in the UK apparently thought the same thing about the Brexit vote...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is cute and all, but when some of the things being shaken up include 4 of the top ten world economies, the biggest military, and a few thousand nukes, you can understand why people might think that sentiment makes you look like a dipshit.
Re:Trump will succeed because... (Score:5, Insightful)
People are tired of the elite ruling, making decisions based on cronyism and who lines their pockets. Trump isn't afraid to call them out.
Right... because Trump isn't a multi-billionare elite looking to do nothing but line his own pockets...
Re:Trump will succeed because... (Score:4, Insightful)
People are tired of the elite ruling
I don't understand this line. Isn't Trump part of the "elite"
He currently has the power to change the course of thousands of lives if he so chose.
He runs in the same circles as the "elite" right now.
How does that not make him a part of the ruling class?
Re:Trump will succeed because... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that not make him a part of the ruling class?
Because all the actual, real members of the ruling class hate him. There are plenty of people as rich or wildly richer than Trump. Unlike many of them, he hasn't been hip-deep in real politics all his adult life. He's a fairly successful person with an outlook on life that is shared by millions of people, and an awareness (say, halfway through his life) that his own success could be bolstered by adding "entertainer" to his box of tricks. But if he's "ruling class," then so is Michael Jordan, Steven Spielberg, Taylor Swift, Richard Branson, or JK Rowling. "Running in the same circles" isn't even vaguely like being, say, a Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will Trump being president be a disaster, probably.. but at least it would shake things up[...]
Yeah. I've been gaining some weight lately and need a shake up. But there's no way I'm injecting myself with HIV to do it.
No, I don't think Trump would cause World War 3. There are too many safeguards to prevent a president from going 'rogue'. But I also don't think his policies would be good for either the country or the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Will Trump being president be a disaster, probably.. but at least it would shake things up and make the elite take notice how easily they can be replaced by the unsatisfied masses when the option presents itself.
I think that is a definitely, not a probably. For all his faults Trump is a business man first and foremost. And while there is nothing wrong with being a successful business man(1) the government can't be run as a business, and to me that's the biggest issue that Trump will face. His "My way or the highway" attitude will not endear him to anyone else in power and you can't be isolationist in todays world.
One other thing that I can't see him doing is, if he becomes President then he will have to hand ove
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump is the fucking elite.
And electing a vile racist buffoon just because you want to "shake things up" is like lighting your house on fire because you don't like the living room furniture.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hoping the campaign can share some info (Score:4, Funny)
Re:hoping the campaign can share some info (Score:5, Funny)
You're not using the right toupee.
I'd be more impressed if he picked Ivanka (Score:2)
Seriously, I know she has no government experience, but she is a strong woman in her own right and if you watch her speak, she is no push over... I could see her as President in 20 years...
She is also one of the few people Trump can really totally and completely trust...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd be more impressed if he picked Ivanka (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't much care if a president is having orgies and playing online as a cam girl, so long as she has good policies. It's kind of like drug testing: weed isn't my thing and we don't smoke up at work, but I'd hire a guy who smokes weed in a place where smoking weed is legal, so long as I have reason not to project any performance issues. If he has a good work history, seems well-adjusted, and interviews well, I have reason to believe his personal life isn't my business; and let's be honest: you can put in all the screens and filters and 6-day interview processes you want and still hire a crap candidate--or worse, you can get me.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it implies that, if somebody were to offer you a million bucks for a couple of hours in front of a camera, you'd take the million bucks.
Look on the bright side (Score:4, Interesting)
This means that Pence won't be running for governor of Indiana. Which means he's going to be out of office entirely come 2017.
protip about quoting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything marked as a quotation should be lifted verbatim.
Exception: If you add something (such as an explanation or clarification) it should be in square brackets.
Exception: If you omit something for brevity, mark the missing section with an ellipsis in square brackets.
Exception: If you spot a grammatical error and you want to draw attention to it, add [sic] after it.
Original Grauniad article:
Slashdot summary:
As soon as you start frigging around with tenses, pronouns, voices or any other form of paraphrasing, even a tiny bit, it ceases to be a direct quote and should NOT be marked as one. This is Journalism 101.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't even know how they went from "thanks" to "that's". Its like some blind monkey typed it in rather than doing a cut and paste.
Seeya, Mike! (Score:3)
Anything that gets him out of this State is good news, indeed!
GOP Vice Presidential Checklist for Mike Pence (Score:3)
[x] Can not see Russia from his porch.
[x] Does not own a pig or lipstick.
[x] Able to name all of his children from memory.
[x] Is aware that the Founding Fathers did not know the Pledge of Allegiance.
[x] Has no unmarried, pregnant daughters promoting abstinence.
[ ] Understands that smoking tobacco kills.
[ ] Knows that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of Global Warming.
[ ] The movie Titanic is not a metaphor for the USA today.
[ ] Realizes George Washington was not a Republican.
Smoking doesn't kill, indeed. (Score:3)
That's lung cancer that does.
A reminder: the VP is a ceremonial position (Score:3)
For those who haven't taken politics 101 in the high school, this is a good time to look up at the responsibilities of the American Vice President. [wikipedia.org] (Hint, this is not the person who takes over president's duties when the president goes on vacation or a work trip).
The American vice president is technically legally allowed to retired into his Florida mansion immediately after his ticket wins the White House election, and then chill all day at the beach until one of two highly unlikely events happens. First, he is the first in line to succeed the president should anything happen to him or if the president resigns or is removed from the office. Second, the VP can break the legislative battles in the senate when the vote is split exactly 50-50, which you can imagine doesn't happen very frequently. In between of such highly unlikely events, the VP isn't supposed to do much. If he decides to chill all day at the beach, he can't be fired or sacked for having such a carefree life unless he somehow broke the law, because VP is an elected office.
So what good is the VP for? The VP is primarily a marketing figure. The Vice President has to be the side-kick of the presidential candidate during the election campaign. The VP candidate is always selected based on his ability to attract the electoral vote, rather than his ability to cast that precious tie-breaking senate vote (and usually, nobody chooses him based on the ability to lead the country because normally someone who is running for the presidential seat doesn't plan to die or retire soon).
For example, the Democrats often have a "south problem", because the American South isn't usually inclined to vote for a Democrats. So one type of electoral strategy is to have at least one southerner on the electoral ticket. Clinton had Al Gore (both were southerners) and Kerry selected John Edwards (a North Carolinian).
Re: (Score:2)
Now if he could only actually raise some funds. And by that I mean not threaten lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)