Phx-Suns.Net

Although Mr. Cruz decided to make a circus out of his selection, candidates usually wait until they have won the nomination before announcing their running mate. It is nearly impossible for anyone other than Trump and Clinton to be on the ballot in the fall, so I figured it was time to ask about running mates.

Are there any logical running mates for Trump to make him less hated by non-whites and non-men?

Are there any logical running mates for Hillary that make her look less like a career politician that says what she thinks people want to hear (regardless of her beliefs)?

Indy wrote: Are there any logical running mates for Trump to make him less hated by non-whites and non-men?

Are there any logical running mates for Hillary that make her look less like a career politician that says what she thinks people want to hear (regardless of her beliefs)?

None that he will choose or none that would accept.

I really wish Hillary would pick Elizabeth Warren as VP and not because I want her to double down on the female vote. I think she's brilliant and should be the person running instead of Hillary.

Btw, Indy. Did you see the video going around of Ted trying to hold Carly's hand? It's even more cringe inducing than the one where Ted tries to kiss his daughter who is having none of it. Both immediately set off red flags with me. Something is chillingly wrong with Ted Cruz.

I hadn't seen either of those but I just googled them. I feel sick.

No, not with people who already support Trump. And by that I mean that I can't imagine Trump doing anything to convince people who aren't already going to vote for him to vote for him.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Trump should go with Sarah Palin and she should be holding a shotgun at all times.

Superbone wrote:Trump should go with Sarah Palin and she should be holding a shotgun at all times.

So just be herself.

Ghost wrote:No, not with people who already support Trump. And by that I mean that I can't imagine Trump doing anything to convince people who aren't already going to vote for him to vote for him.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Do you think he picks up all of Cruz's primary votes?

Superbone wrote:Trump should go with Sarah Palin and she should be holding a shotgun at all times.

Nah. She's not a 10 anymore.

Christie seems like the logical choice for Trump right now, but I saw an article mentioning Joe Scarborough. Hillary...who knows.

Cruz needs to go away for good. He's just odd.

ShelC wrote:Christie seems like the logical choice for Trump right now, but I saw an article mentioning Joe Scarborough. Hillary...who knows.

Cruz needs to go away for good. He's just odd.

Trump needs Florida if he wants to win (and then it would still require turning quite a few states from blue to red), so Joe might make sense for him. I think Christie clearly wants the job, which is why he has been fluffing Trump every chance he gets. Just shows his lack of backbone...

I think Warren would make a lot of sense for Hillary too. I forget who it was, but I liked the response to the question of if she would pick a woman. The response was something like, "there is a strong precedent for the VP to be the same gender as POTUS." But she doesn't need any more women to vote for her. They, nearly categorically, hate Trump. That said, I doubt there is much of a middle ground to pull from for either candidate. I can't see someone on the fence between Hillary and Trump.

ShelC wrote:Christie seems like the logical choice for Trump right now, but I saw an article mentioning Joe Scarborough. Hillary...who knows.

Cruz needs to go away for good. He's just [one of the creepiest people I have ever seen running for public office].

Oh, and fixed that for you.

Indy wrote: Do you think he picks up all of Cruz's primary votes?

No. And I don't want to live in a world where he does. If Trump gets the Republican nomination, and it looks like he is going to, it will be one of the most schocking U.S. political events of my 40 years on Earth. This is a man who doesn't even believe half the stuff he says. A man who changes his mind as the wind blows. One who (according to former staff) doesn't actually want to be president. His entire campaign is a facade. Surreal is the only way I can describe it. I don't see how a rational human being could vote for him. I can't find a single policy of his I support. That is a first for me in regards to a presidential candidate.

carey wrote:

Indy wrote: Do you think he picks up all of Cruz's primary votes?

No. And I don't want to live in a world where he does. If Trump gets the Republican nomination, and it looks like he is going to, it will be one of the most schocking U.S. political events of my 40 years on Earth. This is a man who doesn't even believe half the stuff he says. A man who changes his mind as the wind blows. One who (according to former staff) doesn't actually want to be president. His entire campaign is a facade. Surreal is the only way I can describe it. I don't see how a rational human being could vote for him. I can't find a single policy of his I support. That is a first for me in regards to a presidential candidate.

But roughly 100-150 million Americans support him. So I would have to say that either half the country is irrational, or there are plenty of rational people wanting to vote for him. I guess it depends on how you define rational.

Indy wrote: But roughly 100-150 million Americans support him. So I would have to say that either half the country is irrational, or there are plenty of rational people wanting to vote for him. I guess it depends on how you define rational.

You bring up a good point. Have you ever seen the (now old) John Carpenter film "In the Mouth of Madness?" One of the central conceits of the film is what happens when sanity and insanity are reversed. Are the sane now insane? Are the insane now sane? Is sanity an objective concept or is sanity that which merely the vast majority experience. You have me wondering if I'm the irrational one.

My simplistic mind tells me that when I hear hate speech, I should act against it. Many times it isn't popular to do so, because hate speech, when directed at a populous that doesn't include you, can be very emboldening. It is how people get elected all the time. It is how a sane society elected Hitler. And I know people will say it is crazy to compare the two because Trump hasn't advocating murdering everyone not like him. Fair point. But Germany didn't start that way either. It starts with blaming the problems of the current-day society on "others" and saying that if we could just get those "others" out of here, things would be great again.

The really big difference is, this isn't the Weimar Republic. That was a nation that had had only a very brief experience with democracy, and it was not a pleasant one. Things were better for Germany before they lost a war and had democracy imposed on them by the victors. Nazi electoral success and the Enabling Act were possible because there was no cultural commitment to democracy.

I prefer to believe it can't happen here.

I prefer to believe that too. And again, I am not saying he is as bad. I am just saying that listening to hate speech should be a clear indicator to not vote for that person. He/she clearly can't advocate for the entire electorate, if they hate a part of it. And their job is to advocate for everyone.

Indy wrote:I prefer to believe that too. And again, I am not saying he is as bad. I am just saying that listening to hate speech should be a clear indicator to not vote for that person. He/she clearly can't advocate for the entire electorate, if they hate a part of it. And their job is to advocate for everyone.

Very few politicians feel that way. I feel most would say their job is to advocate for the majority. And the rest would say their job is to advocate for certain "interests." I.e. lobbyists, PACs, etc.

carey wrote:

Indy wrote:I prefer to believe that too. And again, I am not saying he is as bad. I am just saying that listening to hate speech should be a clear indicator to not vote for that person. He/she clearly can't advocate for the entire electorate, if they hate a part of it. And their job is to advocate for everyone.

Very few politicians feel that way. I feel most would say their job is to advocate for the majority. And the rest would say their job is to advocate for certain "interests." I.e. lobbyists, PACs, etc.

I don't think either would say that. They certainly do that (more the latter). But they say they represent the people.

Cruz just dropped out, officially.