President of the US of A

I think if Trump is to succeed in any way. His first test of his so called deal making abilities, is going to be what political talent he can get to support and rally around his push for the white house. I think courting favorable VP and cabinet prospects will play a huge role. There is much damage control with the party he is representing to be done. I don't believe he even has a chance if his own party wont deal with him. This is the test, success and you show the American people that yes he can negotiate a favorable outcome.

So it seems we pretty much know who each party is going to select as their nominee, the next step is trying to decide who their running mates we be. PLEASE NOTE this is now into the what if territory. As elusive as winning the lottery. Here is a what if:

What if Trump does become the Republican nominee, who is his running mate. My thoughts, since at this point it is all fantasy, would be that he pick someone more despised than he is in case, just in case he should get elected and the Senators and Congressmen decide to impeach him. Could that be Palin, or should he go outside of the party and, if available, pick Bernie to try to avert that move? Would that be an assurance of keep the lesser of two evils or situations?

Remember, this is all fantasy on my part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razorfaust

I think if Trump is to succeed in any way. His first test of his so called deal making abilities, is going to be what political talent he can get to support and rally around his push for the white house. I think courting favorable VP and cabinet prospects will play a huge role. There is much damage control with the party he is representing to be done. I don't believe he even has a chance if his own party wont deal with him. This is the test, success and you show the American people that yes he can negotiate a favorable outcome.

---

See oddly I see a "Deal" with the GOP establishment as a major detriment to Trump

When Ryan basically said he offered an olive branch and that Trump needed to take it, and Trump's initial response was "I don't need him to get elected" that made me want to vote for Trump even more

Much like the Gotcha from Chris Matthews of "If Abortion was Illegal" I believe that was one of Trumps only mistakes...

His answer should have been "What part of the word "Illegal" is so difficult for you liberals to comprehend" and left Matthews to explain, but he got caught trying to answer a hypothetical :( and had to backtrack..

There is no doubt in my mind that the heavily edited version of that statement will be a Clinton Campaign ad..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kmcmichael

as a moderator you should block me now and use that advantage

---

I just lost any interest in continuing our conversation. Take care.

Much more emotion and feelings running the contest this time. 24 hours media headlines rather than facts are driving the train and I am pretty fed up with the whole process.

Have a great day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

See oddly I see a "Deal" with the GOP establishment as a major detriment to Trump

When Ryan basically said he offered an olive branch and that Trump needed to take it, and Trump's initial response was "I don't need him to get elected" that made me want to vote for Trump even more

---

Although what you say may be true. The man may not need any of them to win the election but if he did win would anyone want a Lame Duck president from day 1. Its bad enough that one party needs to recruit crossover votes and deal with the devil to make any legislation actually happen. If the American people are mad about gridlock now can you imagine how it would be if his own party was against him for the duration of his presidency. At some point hes got to make alliances.

But if he can't come to an agreement it isn't going to be the same party. Just like the 'Freedom Caucus', or Ted Cruz for that matter hasn't been part of the legislative agenda of the republican party in the past 6 years.

There is a good number of people who vastly prefer gridlock to 'compromising with the devil' if they don't have the strength to get their way.

Well it sure will be interesting what Pheonix arises from the ashes of the party blamed for that sort of obstructionist behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razorfeld

So it seems we pretty much know who each party is going to select as their nominee, the next step is trying to decide who their running mates we be. PLEASE NOTE this is now into the what if territory. As elusive as winning the lottery. Here is a what if:

What if Trump does become the Republican nominee, who is his running mate. My thoughts, since at this point it is all fantasy, would be that he pick someone more despised than he is in case, just in case he should get elected and the Senators and Congressmen decide to impeach him. Could that be Palin, or should he go outside of the party and, if available, pick Bernie to try to avert that move? Would that be an assurance of keep the lesser of two evils or situations?

Remember, this is all fantasy on my part.

---

Since Trump supporters seem intent on replacing the politics-as-usual Washington insiders, let's be consistent in choosing his running mate - Bill Rancic for VP!

I meant that right now there are two power centers, let's call them 'the faction of Paul Ryan' and 'the faction of Donald Trump' with different agendas and both claim legitimacy - Ryan from the history and traditions of the party, Trump from his popular support.

If they can't come to an agreement they can each pursue their own agendas, but they'll be the same party only nominally, and may not even have enough strength to win the elections. But if they both win we will likely have the executive controlled by the party of Trump and the legislature controlled by the party of Ryan in coalition with the party of Trump.

It seems that the biggest unifying factor between them right now is Hillary Clinton. I'm not all that versed in politics to appreciate how strong that may be, but time will tell. It certainly isn't strong enough for the former ideological core of conservatism as represented by National Review.