Trump VP candidates

4,336 Views | 103 Replies | Last: 10 days ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:44p, 2/29/24
Thread to keep track of Trump's VP candidates

Reply Quote
1
BearN
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:40p, 3/1/24
Sounds like Tim Scott is at the top of the list
Reply Quote
2
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:53p, 3/1/24
who in their right prostitutional life would be VP for the clown?
Reply Quote
8
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:27p, 3/1/24
Is Vivek still a possible consideration? Have not heard much from him lately.
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:32p, 3/1/24
Reply Quote
1
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:50p, 3/1/24
I think a Tim Scott or Ron DeSantis pick for VP for Trump would assure a sizeable GOP victory.

I am fully expecting him to pick a potted plant or a wackadoodle. He loves the drama.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Reply Quote
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 8:08p, 3/1/24
J.R. said:
who in their right prostitutional life would be VP for the clown?

I dunno, prolly just some "nuts" who want to try to do their best to help clean up the disastrous mess your boy dementia Joe has inflicted on the country.
Reply Quote
10
2 edits
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:17a, 3/2/24
Reply Quote
1
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 7:20a, 3/2/24
boognish_bear said:
lets go!
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Reply Quote
1
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 9:30a, 3/2/24
4th and Inches said:
boognish_bear said:
lets go!

There are multiple good options. This is one of them.
Reply Quote
1
ABC BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:30a, 3/2/24
Since the GOP candidates who are on the list either hold or are campaigning for seats in the Senate, House or Governor's races, Tulsi would stand alone as someone who is available without upsetting the chances for Republicans to take back control of Congress or losing a governorship.
Reply Quote
BigGameBaylorBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:14p, 3/2/24
I would get a minority. Tim Scott or Marco Rubio?
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:51p, 3/2/24
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:53p, 3/2/24
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:51a, 3/15/24
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:12a, 3/19/24
Reply Quote
2
Bestweekeverr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 9:18a, 3/19/24
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 9:58a, 3/19/24
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
I think a Tim Scott or Ron DeSantis pick for VP for Trump would assure a sizeable GOP victory.

I am fully expecting him to pick a potted plant or a wackadoodle. He loves the drama.


DeSantis is not going to be VP. That would be a disaster for both, RDS sees self as #1 not #2.
Reply Quote
Bestweekeverr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bestweekeverr • 9:58a, 3/19/24
Reply Quote
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bestweekeverr • 9:59a, 3/19/24
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.


Need someone with Security or Defense background.
Reply Quote
2
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bestweekeverr • 10:00a, 3/19/24
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
The head of Homeland Security we have now was the head of HIAS(Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), which is the NGO that is orchestrating the migrant invasion of our country so Vivek would be a huge improvement.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bestweekeverr • 10:53a, 3/19/24
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Reply Quote
3
Bestweekeverr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 10:58a, 3/19/24
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Reply Quote
1
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bestweekeverr • 11:35a, 3/19/24
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 12:10p, 3/19/24
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
And how are we going to do that? How much of the budget do you think is open for that type of discretion? Know what was discretionary? 14% based in 2019 numbers. There is not as much there as you think.

To get more, you will need to cut defense, SS and Medicare. SS and Medicare are off the table, no party is going to touch them. So, let's cut Defense enough to balance the budget, you need to cut 70%. That is just to balance, not pay down debt faster than the payments being made.

Whether you like it or not. Whether you think it is a good economic policy or not. We are trapped in Keynsian Economics and the only way out is cash flowing through and look for more revenue.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:18p, 3/19/24
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
And how are we going to do that? How much of the budget do you think is open for that type of discretion? Know what was discretionary? 14% based in 2019 numbers. There is not as much there as you think.

To get more, you will need to cut defense, SS and Medicare. SS and Medicare are off the table, no party is going to touch them. So, let's cut Defense enough to balance the budget, you need to cut 70%. That is just to balance, not pay down debt faster than the payments being made.

Whether you like it or not. Whether you think it is a good economic policy or not. We are trapped in Keynsian Economics and the only way out is cash flowing through and look for more revenue.
End current contractors and get new ones...

If we're trapped in Keynesian economics then the American experiment will fail,
Reply Quote
Bestweekeverr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 12:19p, 3/19/24
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
Oh well duh, I didn't know we could just push the "get 10x the value for what we spend" button.
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bestweekeverr • 12:26p, 3/19/24
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
Oh well duh, I didn't know we could just push the "get 10x the value for what we spend" button.
This is what we're dealing with and why we overpay contractors:



Its why corporations can achieve much more than the government at a fraction of the government's budget.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 12:38p, 3/19/24
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
And how are we going to do that? How much of the budget do you think is open for that type of discretion? Know what was discretionary? 14% based in 2019 numbers. There is not as much there as you think.

To get more, you will need to cut defense, SS and Medicare. SS and Medicare are off the table, no party is going to touch them. So, let's cut Defense enough to balance the budget, you need to cut 70%. That is just to balance, not pay down debt faster than the payments being made.

Whether you like it or not. Whether you think it is a good economic policy or not. We are trapped in Keynsian Economics and the only way out is cash flowing through and look for more revenue.
End current contractors and get new ones...

If we're trapped in Keynesian economics then the American experiment will fail,
You think new ones will give different cost estimates? Or are you suggesting price fixing?

Yellin is a Keynsian from way back. The horse is out of the barn. There is no way back, the spending occurred. Look back through modern history:

Last balanced budget - Clinton
Last projected (key word) surplus - 2001
Last time paid off National Debt - 1835
Last President to reduce the debt - Coolidge

Going to be almost impossible to do what you want. New contractors will not be the answer, you will get the same answers. Also, weapons platforms are getting more expensive.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 12:40p, 3/19/24
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
Oh well duh, I didn't know we could just push the "get 10x the value for what we spend" button.
This is what we're dealing with and why we overpay contractors:



Its why corporations can achieve much more than the government at a fraction of the government's budget.
They can develop a prototype, but they have to recoup the development costs. Also, it is not the same to develop a prototype and manufacture at scale. Cutting 3 or 4% off the contractors is not going to get you where you want to go.
Reply Quote
1
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:43p, 3/19/24
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
And how are we going to do that? How much of the budget do you think is open for that type of discretion? Know what was discretionary? 14% based in 2019 numbers. There is not as much there as you think.

To get more, you will need to cut defense, SS and Medicare. SS and Medicare are off the table, no party is going to touch them. So, let's cut Defense enough to balance the budget, you need to cut 70%. That is just to balance, not pay down debt faster than the payments being made.

Whether you like it or not. Whether you think it is a good economic policy or not. We are trapped in Keynsian Economics and the only way out is cash flowing through and look for more revenue.
End current contractors and get new ones...

If we're trapped in Keynesian economics then the American experiment will fail,
You think new ones will give different cost estimates? Or are you suggesting price fixing?

Yellin is a Keynsian from way back. The horse is out of the barn. There is no way back, the spending occurred. Look back through modern history:

Last balanced budget - Clinton
Last projected (key word) surplus - 2001
Last time paid off National Debt - 1835
Last President to reduce the debt - Coolidge

Going to be almost impossible to do what you want. New contractors will not be the answer, you will get the same answers. Also, weapons platforms are getting more expensive.
So we just tax the middle class to death? Is that the answer?
Reply Quote
1
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:46p, 3/19/24
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
Doc Holliday said:
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.
You can't justify the current state of government spending.
Then put him in the EPA or somewhere else that Trump/GOP doesn't care about. I think the border and homeland security is universally agreed upon as where you definitely don't want to cut spending.
Its not about cutting the budget, it's about allocation.

It's about being frugal and paying money for things that actually improve the situation versus allowing our out of control bureaucracy spend like idiots.

Let's stop overpaying ten or a hundred fold and our money will go further. Get the same things done at 10x less than what we currently pay.
Oh well duh, I didn't know we could just push the "get 10x the value for what we spend" button.
This is what we're dealing with and why we overpay contractors:



It's why corporations can achieve much more than the government at a fraction of the government's budget.
They can develop a prototype, but they have to recoup the development costs. Also, it is not the same to develop a prototype and manufacture at scale. Cutting 3 or 4% off the contractors is not going to get you where you want to go.
We could double their budget and they still won't do a good job.

So what's even the point?
Reply Quote
1
Forest Bueller_bf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 1:31p, 3/19/24
J.R. said:
who in their right prostitutional life would be VP for the clown?
Tulsi said she would be the other day. Said she would be honored.

I actually like her, and not just because she is smoking hot.
Reply Quote
Forest Bueller_bf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigGameBaylorBear • 1:38p, 3/19/24
BigGameBaylorBear said:
I would get a minority. Tim Scott or Marco Rubio?
Tulsi is a minority and a woman, double the intersectionality points.
Now if she will come out as bisexual he would be hitting the intersectionally
oppressed jackpot for a running mate.

Also a veteran, so she would score points with the badass crowd.

Also, super hot, that can't hurt.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bestweekeverr • 2:14p, 3/19/24
Bestweekeverr said:
boognish_bear said:
Appointing the guy who's only policy is to cut government spending at random to the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea.

It would give Trump a HSD he can trust, and Vivek a portfolio that he needs experience with.

Not arguing it's necessarily highest & best use. Just noting it does have merits
Reply Quote
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.