Say it isn't so ...

Published by carolyn on Tue, 2016-04-12 01:01

Gov. Kasich, Gov. Walker and Sen. Rubio were mentioned by GOP frontrunner Donald Trump as "people he liked" for his administration.

Breitbart News ran this story on Monday by Alex Swoyer which is really shocking, but they don't seem to recognize it, nor do the commenters (as far as I have read them, not very far). It goes like this:

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump suggested he could put fellow 2016 GOP presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich in his administration — possibly even as vice president on his ticket.

“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” Trump told columnist Kirsten Powers about putting Rubio in his administration.

He was asked if Rubio was a potential vice president choice for him.

“There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names. … I do like Marco. I do like [John] Kasich. … I like [Scott] Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard. … But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard,” Trump responded.

*    *     *

Trump repeats that he "likes them." What does "liking" have to do with it? Trump portrays himself as someone who gets along with everybody unless he's competing with them. Then he says harsh things about them but apparently doesn't really mean what he says. He's just playing politics.

Like Anne Coulter, I'm often frustrated with Trump because of the disappointing things that come out of his mouth. She said, "Our candidate is mental." In this case, he is certainly thoughtless. I hope it's just his way of speaking "off the cuff" wherein he sometimes hits the mark perfectly, but other times makes a mess of it. This is one of those messes.

None of those three mentioned support building a wall, deporting illegal aliens, or even want to reduce immigration! They are opposed to what he has made the cornerstone of his campaign from the day he announced his candidacy. Is he not really serious about the most important position - and the most popular - he has taken?

Just think if any of these three were his Vice President. And consider the possibility of a successful assassination against him. Kind of like Kennedy-Johnson. It's a mistake to have someone who covets your job to be the second in line. Kennedy, the Catholic, was very much worried about getting elected against Nixon so he put winning the election ahead of a congenial running mate and figured he could ditch Johnson later. Instead, Johnson did him in, and then created "The Great Society," which turned the U.S. into a debtor nation.

In the case of Trump and one of these three, Trump would be betraying his supporters if he selected any one of them. Ted Cruz is better on the immigration issue than any of those men. It's possible Trump is signalling the choice of Cruz by mentioning his primary opponents as possible running mates, and that he "likes them" in spite of all the mean words that passed between them. I hope that's it. I could tolerate (but not like) Cruz as VP under Trump, but if he were, Trump should be advised not to travel to Texas to campaign.

Category 

US elections

Comments

I suspect that making Kasich, Cruz, or Walker his vp would be equivalent to the mistake that JFK made in making Johnson his vp. I am sure that Roger Stone could explain it. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FVsS2sDkpE 

I don't agree with a lot that Stone says there, but the proposition that Kennedy was killed to put Johnson in power seems credible.

I have believed Johnson was instrumental ever since I read the book by Barr McClellan in around 2003. He's a Texas guy who made a very convincing case. I'd like to read Stone's book. That period never loses it's fascination for me, probably because of my age at the time. 

For me, Trump is only a stopgap. I'm just hoping he can stop the heavy bleeding (illegal immigration) until we can find someone better. I don't think he'll do anything to combat the Jewsih domination of this country. All of the men he mentioned as potential VP's are detestable in my opinion.

You can't expect to have perfection right away. Things change through stages. Before Hitler there was Hindenburg. After Trump there might be an ultra-Trump.
 
Trump has been doing some very useful work by inducing disloyal persons in the United States to show where they really stand. This should cause many of our people to see and think more clearly and realistically.

I'm telling you that's the ticket. A population of 300,000 with no military.
I can take it over by myself.
Because this Country is screwed.

If Trump would choose Cruz as VP and Cruz accepted, then not only would he get the voters from Cruz, but also would it be impossible for the leadership of the Republican Party to deny him the nomination. Afterwards, after having become president, he could discover that Cruz is actually not "naturally born" and that he has to fire him. Then he could nominate his real choice.

Maybe Trump is hoping they will rush to be the first to endorse him to get a chance at the VP spot. Then Trump can make one of them Ambassador to Uraguay or something and pick a good VP.

Mr Trump is very clever, he is trolling the Republican leadership with comments like this. They are constantly accusing him of disloyalty and using it to justify trying to steal the nomination from him using Cruz. By saying he would consider establishment candidates for VP, he is publicly undermining their narrative about him, while at the same time taunting & confusing them, because they doubt he would actually chose any of these men, but they also consider him unpredictable and aren't 100% sure about anything he's likely to do. I think they still don't know for sure whether he is just an opportunist, or whether he really is a genuine nationalist, though they aren't taking any chances in trying to stop him! Donald knows the people he mentioned, especially Cruz & Walker, are "bad guys" as he says and can't be trusted. They would undermine his entire platform, and he knows it. 

Remember when he first entered the race and was talking about having Oparh as his VP? It's not like Trump is even remotely NS, after all. He is just better than Jeb or Hillary.

Hi Evelyn. No, I don't remember that. But I just looked it up and it's true.

I think Trump goes beyond just being the least bad. He has some very positive positions which would, however, be difficult to carry out. Strong opposition. Plus the media would continue to be against him. What would Pierce have said about him?

Trump is being called a populist and that is an accurate label. His main positions, on trade and immigration, are the same ones that Pat Buchanan espoused in 1992 and 1996. 
 
Trump represents a move in a positive direction, and the best that we can expect under present circumstances,  very much as I advocated in my 2012 essay "A Party of Plutorcats has no Future."
 
The important thing is to keep the trend moving and not to let Trump's reforms be the end of the improvement, since what he represents is not enough.

I think you can gauge what Dr. Pierce would have said about Trump from what he said about Buchanan, since their two core positions, on trade and immigration, are similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al1ed6wz0sQ 
He probably would have added that Trump's proposals don't go nearly far enough.

"We have to be straight-talkers. This political correctness is killing us." (from Trump's Plattsburgh speech)
 
Exactly the attitude that we need.

I think Hadding is right. But the main problem with Tump is that he does not really have a membership organization behind him. I think it is great that he is not taking donations as this makes him far less beholden to special intests than any other canidate, but at the same time raising money and networking usually go together. One cannot "support Trump" the way one would support an ordinary canidate, that is one cannot go to a local campaign office and volunteer (at least that I have seen). There are a few fan-style groups on MeetUp not controled by Trump and that is about it. As he doesn't control them someone who is anti-Trump could easily cause havoc there (if it was worth anyone's time).
 
I think Whites really need to organize to promote White interests. It would be great if Trump was doing this, but he isn't and it really can't be expected that he would.
 
I think WLP would have been pleased that Trump is shaking things up a bit. I loved it when someone brought the matters of race and immigration to national attention. He also pricked up his ears when someone who didn't fit the usual mold was active and getting attention, whether he was a politician, writer, or scientist.
 
P.S.: Carolyn can't you activate spell check or allow cut and paste in comments? I can't imagine all the errors I must be typing!  ;-)

One of the main things WLP would look for is how the Jews react. It seems to me that they are not fond of Trump, but haven't went into full attack mode. It will be interesting to see if they will. Of course it doesn't take someone who in any way threatens them for them to feel threatened.

The Jews were already irate with Buchanan for Reagan's Bitburg speech and the defense of Demjanjuk and peripheral "Holocaust Denial," and on top of that opposing the first war against Iraq.
 
Trump doesn't have this kind of factor working against him to the same degree. Also, a lot of people recognize that the Middle-East wars have been a disaster. So, Trump is not as controversial in general, from the Jewish perspective, as Buchanan was. On top of that of course his family is intermarried with Jews, which in itself would not protect him.
 
Even a Jew like Bernie Sanders at this point says that ordinary Americans are being screwed with trade and immigration.

Add new comment