The next Vice President will be...

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:08 pm

Now that it's become unavoidably obvious that Donald Trump will be elected President, who is he bringing with him to the party?

(I'd volunteer Michael Gove if he were eligible, but sadly he's not.)

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:16 pm

spot;1493967 wrote: Now that it's become unavoidably obvious that Donald Trump will be elected President, who is he bringing with him to the party?

Don't agree it's become unavoidably obvious, spot. Continuing to the next stage of what's on your mind, his VP choice might be Ryan Seacrest.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:34 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493968 wrote: Continuing to the next stage of what's on your mind, his VP choice might be Ryan Seacrest.
You named a politician after Richard Basehart's submarine?

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:35 pm

the tide is slowly begining to turn to the far right

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:37 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493968 wrote: his VP choice might be Ryan Seacrest.I've looked him up. He seems to have little political experience.

Ah.

Okay, point taken.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:18 pm

the grumps;1493973 wrote: the tide is slowly begining to turn to the far right

I should stop sing "My yiddisher momma"........................just in case.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:35 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493968 wrote: Don't agree it's become unavoidably obvious, spot.Postress Anne is correct.

Spot, being on the outside looking in is usually not the best place to be.

The GOP is well aware that a Trump nomination would almost certainly hand the election to Hillary, especially if she were to choose the Bern as her running-mate.

Trump would receive almost no Hispanic-American votes, very few African-American votes, his audience is the yay-hoos (we used to call them yahoos, but that term has now been adopted by a web service), you know, the ones whose IQs are about the same as their shoe size.

Rubio is dead meat, Cruz is way too far to the right, in my opinion, Kasich would have the best chance of beating Hillary/Bernie. If I were a moderate Republican I would vote for him enthusiastically; in fact, I think that he would make a really good POTUS. I've only voted for four Republicans in my life (I'm 75), but I would vote for Kasich were I not committed to Hillary and the Bern.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:45 am

could this be the end of the republican party as a viable politicakl force - at least for the foreseeable future?

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:10 am

Mark Aspam;1493991 wrote: I would vote for Kasich were I not committed to Hillary and the Bern.

The problem with Hillary is that she will continue in the footsteps of Obama and George W and her husband and Daddy Bush and Reagan by causing the deaths of large numbers of foreigners, just as she has done as U.S. Secretary of State - she's been the most memorable Minister for War since Kissinger held the same office.

Trump has the inestimable advantage over her of being isolationist.

He needs a better slogan for his placards and boot-stickers. I propose "Trump That!".

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:21 am

spot;1493994 wrote: The problem with Hillary is that she will continue in the footsteps of Obama and George W and her husband and Daddy Bush and Reagan by causing the deaths of large numbers of foreigners, I can't imagine ANY American, regardless of political orientation, lumping those presidents together. I don't dispute that some Brits and other non-Americans might have a different perspective.

Bill Clinton was one of our greatest presidents. He goosed the economy as it had never been goosed before. If anybody deserved a good b*** j** it was Bill!

Both Bushes were disasters.

Reagan has a history all his own, too complicated to discuss on this thread.

If the "large number of foreigners" were/are terrorists, as seen in Brussels and elsewhere, then they should be killed, the more the better.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:06 am

Mark Aspam;1493998 wrote: I can't imagine ANY American, regardless of political orientation, lumping those presidents together. I don't dispute that some Brits and other non-Americans might have a different perspective.

Bill Clinton was one of our greatest presidents. He goosed the economy as it had never been goosed before. If anybody deserved a good b*** j** it was Bill!

Both Bushes were disasters.

Reagan has a history all his own, too complicated to discuss on this thread.

If the "large number of foreigners" were/are terrorists, as seen in Brussels and elsewhere, then they should be killed, the more the better.

Try innocent Iraqis going about their own business and trying to survive - over a million civilians dead as a direct result of our invasion. Not terrorists, not soldiers, just men women and children who were the "victims" of the regime we toppled to create the power vacuum that caused today's chaos.

Add to that the people *we* killed by destabilizing the regimes in Tunisia, Lybia, Syria, etc.

You cannot point at the effect of our meddling and say that all of the dead deserved it because some of the survivors turned bad afterwards.

Death is *never* "the more the better"!

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:31 am

Bryn Mawr;1494001 wrote: Try innocent Iraqis going about their own business and trying to survive - over a million civilians dead as a direct result of our invasion. Not terrorists, not soldiers, just men women and children who were the "victims" of the regime we toppled to create the power vacuum that caused today's chaos.

Add to that the people *we* killed by destabilizing the regimes in Tunisia, Lybia, Syria, etc.

You cannot point at the effect of our meddling and say that all of the dead deserved it because some of the survivors turned bad afterwards.

Death is *never* "the more the better"!I pretty much agree with you though it is way off the topic of the thread, which you as moderator obviously know.

Surely you don't condone the atrocities of radical Islam. Surely. Do you? Of course not. I think.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:34 am

Mark Aspam;1494004 wrote: I pretty much agree with you though it is way off the topic of the thread, which you as moderator obviously know.

Surely you don't condone the atrocities of radical Islam. Surely. Do you? Of course not. I think.

I do not condone atrocities by anybody - and that includes by my own government committed in my name.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:24 pm

1. It is not "obvious" at all that Trump will be elected. I's say the probability is overwhelmingly in the opposite.

2. Trump is not an "Isolationist." He is a Fascist.

3. As to dumping the deaths of "large numbers of foreigners" on the feet of America. Forget that. They killed each other and it wasn't America's fault.

As a matter of fact, America has been a force for good in the world since World War II. We have abolished global war, fought against poverty, rebuilt countries devastated by natural disasters, and reigned in evil dictators across the planet. Our science is second to none, as is our technology and our medicine. Our economy drives the entire world. America has led the world into the brightest day it has ever had and is the premiere civilization of mankind of all history.

Forget Rome, forget England, The United States is mankind's greatest society ever.

Don't believe me? Type your answer using an American computer, running American software, while wearing your American fashions and shoes and watching American movies. Then send the message across the American designed internet while calling your friends using an American satellite to decry how the Americans are such worldwide bullies and are responsible for everything bad in the world.

But for Pete's sake, pray that your country isn't hit by a tsunami or earthquake, because then you'll feel pretty hypocritical when the Americans arrive to help you out.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:55 pm

Or you could just Google "Why America is the Greatest Country Ever." Wait...Google is American.

Well just look it up on Wikipedia then. Wait...That's American too... =^..^=

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:32 pm

Saint..............it's the way you tell em, had me rolling on the floor, that was a joke......right ?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:02 pm

Trump should ask Bernie. Bernie is an independent and probably isn't working as hard as every regular republican out there to block Trumps run.

I'm telling you they could take this thing.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:14 am

flopstock;1494039 wrote: Trump should ask Bernie. Bernie is an independent and probably isn't working as hard as every regular republican out there to block Trumps run.

I'm telling you they could take this thing.flop, could you rephrase that? Ask Bernie what? Take what thing?

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:17 am

Mark Aspam;1494058 wrote: flop, could you rephrase that? Ask Bernie what? Take what thing?

Invite "Bernie" onto his ticket, I'd assumed. And take the 2016 White House.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:24 am

spot;1494060 wrote: Invite "Bernie" onto his ticket, I'd assumed. And take the 2016 White House.That's ridiculous! What part of Mars is he posting from?

Added later: But while we're on the subject of vice-presidential candidates, has anyone heard Trump mention any names? It would probably be one of his fellow yay-hoos, but it's a moot point, he's not likely to get the nomination, and if he does, he will lose badly to Hillary.

Bernie would very likely accept the nomination as VP to Hillary if offered (and she'd be a fool not to), that would keep him in the Senate but as its president.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:14 am

Mark Aspam;1494058 wrote: flop, could you rephrase that? Ask Bernie what? Take what thing?

I thought the original question was who would/should trump have as VP?

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:37 am

flopstock;1494063 wrote: I thought the original question was who would/should trump have as VP?Well, yes and no. The original post claimed, or at least assumed, that Trump has the presidency locked up, which is in fact very unlikely.

Frankly, I doubt that most of Trump's admirers are even intelligent enough to find their way to the polling station.

So it seems to me that opening up the thread to other possibilities is probably fair game, which is what I've tried to do, and I look forward to other opinions.

Or maybe starting a new thread would be better. In any case, it's a long way to November.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:57 pm

Mark Aspam;1494065 wrote: The original post claimed, or at least assumed, that Trump has the presidency locked up, which is in fact very unlikely.

I would merely note that we have each expressed an opinion which by its nature cannot be verified until the election. If you have a legitimate relevant poll result I'd be interested to see it but, failing that, "in fact" seems inappropriate.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:16 pm

This election is a long way off, and I would not rule anything out, this year, including the Vogons showing up to build that wall.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:43 pm

The betting market shows where people are putting their money. 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Betting Odds - Odds On Next President shows all the main contenders.

If Hillary wins you get $100 for every $190 you stake at the moment, if it's Trump you get $200 for staking $100. I think that makes Hillary around 4 times as likely to win if they're the contenders, in the present opinion of the public putting their money where their mouth is. Neither result is a foregone conclusion.

I had to look up what -190 and +200 meant.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:51 pm

spot: "I think that makes Hillary around 4 times as likely to win...."

Hillary? But, in OP YOU said:

"Now that it's become unavoidably obvious that Donald Trump will be elected President..."

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:57 pm

So, were he a betting man, he would put his money on The Donald.

What's the line on Bernie?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:12 pm

There's no line on Bernie.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:16 pm

AnneBoleyn;1494071 wrote: spot: "I think that makes Hillary around 4 times as likely to win...."

Hillary? But, in OP YOU said:

"Now that it's become unavoidably obvious that Donald Trump will be elected President..."

I disagree with the partisan American betting public. I can foresee more clearly than they can.

LarsMac;1494073 wrote:

What's the line on Bernie?
You get $1,000 for every $100 you stake on him.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:09 pm

spot;1494070 wrote: The betting market shows where people are putting their money. 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Betting Odds - Odds On Next President shows all the main contenders.

If Hillary wins you get $100 for every $190 you stake at the moment, if it's Trump you get $200 for staking $100. I think that makes Hillary around 4 times as likely to win if they're the contenders, in the present opinion of the public putting their money where their mouth is. Neither result is a foregone conclusion.

I had to look up what -190 and +200 meant.I know NOTHING about British wagering, and I thank you for that info - it sounds about right to me.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:17 pm

Mark Aspam;1494065 wrote: Well, yes and no. The original post claimed, or at least assumed, that Trump has the presidency locked up, which is in fact very unlikely.

Frankly, I doubt that most of Trump's admirers are even intelligent enough to find their way to the polling station.

So it seems to me that opening up the thread to other possibilities is probably fair game, which is what I've tried to do, and I look forward to other opinions.

Or maybe starting a new thread would be better. In any case, it's a long way to November.
My original thought was that Trump was running to make Cruz more palatable to the voting public... admit it, who among us named Cruz as the salvation of the republican party a year ago? He was a joke and his own party couldn't stand to work with him. Now yesterday Jeb Bush endorsed him... go figure.

My second thought was that he was a spoiler for Hillary. Run a shock and awe maneuver against the republicans, splinter them and leave the carcasses on the field to Hillary.

Now I think he is in this to win it. What was once a joke to him now has his ego pushing him to say and do whatever it takes.

No one thought he had a chance at the nomination last year. he was an annoyance. Now he is a real threat.

.. and I bet that Joe biden is kicking himself for not jumping in on the democratic side.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:59 pm

No matter how odious it may be, Trump does, at least, have a public face personality. His face is always on the Front Page. To be honest, I wouldn't even know any of the other candidates if I met them on the street. Trump, however looks like a mirror image of Boris & is instantly recognisable.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:06 pm

FourPart;1494082 wrote: Trump, however looks like a mirror image of Boris & is instantly recognisable.

Comparing Boris and Trump is the only way I can imagine Boris being hailed as the New Messiah.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:40 pm

spot;1494078 wrote: I disagree with the partisan American betting public. I can foresee more clearly than they can.

You get $1,000 for every $100 you stake on him.

Well, then. With odds like that, I'm calling my bookie. 10 Gs on the Bern!!!

Maybe I CAN retire before I'm dead.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:00 am

I see trump is now calling for his supporters to riot if he doesn't get the nomination. He's a loiud mouthed bully.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:59 am

gmc;1494099 wrote: I see trump is now calling for his supporters to riot if he doesn't get the nomination.That is untrue, what is your source?

He said that there would be riots if his nomination were BLOCKED by the convention, that is, if he were somehow ruled ineligible and that he would not "call for", but rather discourage his followers from so doing.

Never thought that I would be defending the a******, but let's get our facts straight.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:51 am

LarsMac;1494092 wrote: Well, then. With odds like that, I'm calling my bookie. 10 Gs on the Bern!!!

Maybe I CAN retire before I'm dead.

Last call for the poverty train...........

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:27 pm

I wonder what the odds are for Kasich.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:43 am

Wandrin;1494146 wrote: I wonder what the odds are for Kasich.

You get $2,000 for every $100 you stake on him. There's a link earlier - 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Betting Odds - Odds On Next President

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:16 pm

I do so hope Trump gets elected, I really do.

Mr Trump said he would consider pulling out troops from Japan and South Korea if they did not pay the US more.

US Election 2016: Trump laments 'ripped off' America - BBC News

The idea that Japan might finally get the US Army of Occupation to go home must be setting off cheers from Tokyo to Okinawa.

Korea might finally get re-unification once the US Army of Occupation is withdrawn.

There's some airfields in England you could evacuate too, Mr President.

Are you sure you need foreign embassies?

He also cited Nato, saying it was "obsolete" as the main international threat now was terrorism. "Nato is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed". The US, he added, bore "far too much of the cost of Nato".

[...] "Without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn't exist for very long. It would be, you know, a catastrophic failure without our protection. They're a money machine... and yet they don't reimburse us the way we should be reimbursed."

[...] Mr Trump expressed a similar view about the US funding of the United Nations. He said: "We get nothing out of the United Nations. They don't respect us, they don't do what we want, and yet we fund them disproportionately again."

Amen, Mr President. Tell it like it is, stop the rot. Send the UN Headquarters to Switzerland, withdraw from NATO, erect trade barriers to stop cheap imports closing US factories.

I notice he didn't mention Israel even once.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 04, 2016 7:35 am

Am I now allowed to post this? I was stopped when the thread began:

"Now that it's become unavoidably obvious that Donald Trump will be elected President, who is he bringing with him to the party?"

US election: What will Clinton v Trump look like?

To update the thread, you can now get $48,000 for every $100 you stake on Mr Kasich. To be honest, that sounds like a good deal given the uncertainty of the Convention.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed May 04, 2016 8:01 am

Well, Kasich is the last one standing, basically. The Donald has single-handedly eliminated the entire field.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed May 04, 2016 8:26 am

Personally, I'm glad Trump is the only maroon left standing. First, because there is absolutely zero chance he will be elected, over 70 percent of women hate him and even if he's popular with right wing fanatics and hate groups, he is supremely unpopular with the entire rest of the country, and secondly because he has managed to take the entire Republican party down the drain with him. It'll be decades before they can reform and be in power again.

On a side note, if Mussolini does return from Hell in the form of Trump, everyone on this board should stock up on survival gear and supplies and head for the hills because it's nuclear war for sure.

(Ever see that clip from "The Dead Zone?!")

Post by **spot** » Wed May 04, 2016 8:57 am

I believe Trump when he describes isolationist policies and says he'll pursue them. What he does to America isn't on my list of priorities at all. I'm a Trump advocate.

Saint wrote: there is absolutely zero chance he will be electedStanding against a war criminal? I think he's guaranteed the job. Hillary Clinton stands or swims on her most famous quote: "We came, we saw, he died". What actually died during that CBS interview was all sense of moral responsibility - and competent decision-making - from the Obama administration.

it's nuclear war for sureGo on - say he's the Last Trump.

As for Kasich, he's holding out for the Convention to approve him as a compromise:Mr Kasich did not have a path to secure the nomination outright, but pledged to lobby for his candidacy during the Republican convention in July.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36201042

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed May 04, 2016 9:38 am

spot;1495359 wrote: I believe Trump when he describes isolationist policies and says he'll pursue them. What he does to America isn't on my list of priorities at all. I'm a Trump advocate.spot, sometimes half-way - well, OK, PART of the way around the world is not the best place to be with regard to politics.

Trump is unelectable against nearly ANYBODY. He has his cadre of moronic supporters, that's about it. Remember, his wins were against republicans who had lots of baggage of their own. Running against the Democrat nominee is a whole 'nother thing.

A Hillary-Bernie ticket would be unbeatable. Hillary alone would almost surely win, but she does have her shortcomings and Kasich just might edge her out if something unforseen happens to Trump.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed May 04, 2016 10:19 am

spot;1495350 wrote: Am I now allowed to post this? I was stopped when the thread began:

"Now that it's become unavoidably obvious that Donald Trump will be elected President, who is he bringing with him to the party?"

US election: What will Clinton v Trump look like?

To update the thread, you can now get $48,000 for every $100 you stake on Mr Kasich. To be honest, that sounds like a good deal given the uncertainty of the Convention.

Well, Kasich has now announced the suspension of his campaign.

The Republican party has been destroyed by The Donald.

Whatever rises from the smoking embers will not be pretty.

It is now up to Billary and Bernie to stop the StormTrumpers from bringing on the Zombie Apocalypse.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed May 04, 2016 11:18 am

spot;1495359 wrote:

Standing against a war criminal?

Oh, of course. Americans have no problems with war criminals, as long as they're our own. You know that, spot, you point it out often enough. But Trump is a con man. He stole people's money with his "Trump University" con. Americans do not forget about cheating poor people.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed May 04, 2016 12:02 pm

Saint_;1495382 wrote: Trump is a con man. He stole people's money with his "Trump University" con. Americans do not forget about cheating poor people.As far as I know, there are several outstanding warrants that will probably come to fruition between now and election time.

Can't help wondering if all the Donald supporters are expecting him to lead the nation from his prison cell!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 04, 2016 12:21 pm

American politics kind of makes Boris and Farage look normal.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 04, 2016 12:23 pm

Mark Aspam;1494107 wrote: That is untrue, what is your source?

He said that there would be riots if his nomination were BLOCKED by the convention, that is, if he were somehow ruled ineligible and that he would not "call for", but rather discourage his followers from so doing.

Never thought that I would be defending the a******, but let's get our facts straight.

OK maybe not in the exact words go aheade and riot but You're splitting hairs even saying tio his supporters please don't riot is tantamount to suggesting they should just as telling supporters he will pay for the defence for anyone charged with assaulting a heckler is as good as saying you shouldn';t but go ahead anyway.