View Full Version : tPF Welp, looks like Christie probably won't be the VP
Trump just punked Christie at an Arkansas rally yesterday. Hope this means that Christie will not be Trump's running mate.
Trump tells Christie: ‘Get on the plane and go home’Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) told Chris Christie to "go home" after the New Jersey governor introduced the billionaire at a campaign rally in Arkansas on Saturday.
“Get on the plane and go home,” Trump is heard saying to Christie. ...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271074-trump-tells-christie-get-in-the-plane-and-go-home?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
Peter1469
02-28-2016, 10:15 AM
That doesn't mean anything.
Christy wants to be Attorney General.
Christy wants to be Attorney General.
That might actually be worse. Maf wise guy as top cop? Shiver.
That might actually be worse. Maf wise guy as top cop? Shiver.
It would be worse, he would have power, nothing could be worse than that.
Of course it's a moot point, the idiot trump can't win the general.
Peter1469
02-28-2016, 10:47 AM
Trump is very likely going to win. Someone posted a thread already with a political scientists whose model has only been wrong once.
Look it up.
Adelaide
02-28-2016, 10:57 AM
From what I am seeing on the news, it wasn't meant maliciously.
Interesting thought brought up about whether he'd be picked for Attorney General.
Mac-7
02-28-2016, 11:07 AM
Gosh, the all-knowing libs sure move fast
It was only a few days ago they were floating the idea of a trump-Christie ticket
Now they are burying their own bullshit before we have barely had time to worry about it
Gosh, the all-knowing libs sure move fast
It was only a few days ago they were floating the idea of a trump-Christie ticket
Now they are burying their own bull$#@! before we have barely had time to worry about it
Wait, what? Who, exactly, has said that? Seriously, can you name one person, either here or nationally?
I know that I brought up the idea of a Trump-Christie ticket - but as a nightmare scenario regarding the War On Drugs. But that is quite a bit different from "floating the idea" (with the connotation of approval).
Mac, you really do excel at twisting information. It is rather weasel-like.
It would be worse, he would have power, nothing could be worse than that.
Of course it's a moot point, the idiot trump can't win the general.
What evidence do you have that he cannot?
With the Hillary Machine sinking Sanders, her baggage, and Trump's momentum, it sure looks like Trump is the only non-Establishment option in the room. And the voters, this year, are not in a mood to reward anything considered Establishment.
What countervailing forces do you see at work?
Trump is very likely going to win. Someone posted a thread already with a political scientists whose model has only been wrong once.
Look it up.
No.
He has no chance.
From what I am seeing on the news, it wasn't meant maliciously.
Interesting thought brought up about whether he'd be picked for Attorney General.
Where else would you put him, outside of prison that is?
Attorney General is the logical choice, he would have power, he could and would be bought cheaply, controlled easily and is just stupid enough to get away with it.
What evidence do you have that he cannot?
With the Hillary Machine sinking Sanders, her baggage, and Trump's momentum, it sure looks like Trump is the only non-Establishment option in the room. And the voters, this year, are not in a mood to reward anything considered Establishment.
What countervailing forces do you see at work?
The idiot trump only has momentum now, in the primary, running a general election campaign is a whole other kettle of fish and I don't think he has what it takes.
Look at his negative numbers, even among repukes his negs are in the high 50's.
Hillary has better numbers.
He can't win.
The idiot trump only has momentum now, in the primary, running a general election campaign is a whole other kettle of fish and I don't think he has what it takes.
Look at his negative numbers, even among repukes his negs are in the high 50's.
Hillary has better numbers.
He can't win.
You may very well be right. However, it is a bit early. We have not seen Trump's behavior post-nomination. If it runs true to form, you will see a yuuuge tack towards the center.
My personal opinion (which, with $2.10 will get you a small coffee at Starbucks)? I think that Trump will throw a large bone to the Far Right. That bone will be the whole illegal immigration thing... which a yuuge number of people in the center and on the Left are in secret agreement with the Right about. A big wall along the southern border is a cheap throwaway. And kicking out the illegals already here is fairly easy, if you attack it at the employment and public benefits levels.
MisterVeritis
02-28-2016, 12:19 PM
I think that Trump will throw a large bone to the Far Right. That bone will be the whole illegal immigration thing... which a yuuge number of people in the center and on the Left are in secret agreement with the Right about. A big wall along the southern border is a cheap throwaway. And kicking out the illegals already here is fairly easy, if you attack it at the employment and public benefits levels.
Building the wall, booting the illegals and the Muslims will be sufficient. The Unions love his stance on trade deals. That will win him the unions.
Mac-7
02-28-2016, 12:19 PM
Wait, what? Who, exactly, has said that? Seriously, can you name one person, either here or nationally?
I know that I brought up the idea of a Trump-Christie ticket - but as a nightmare scenario regarding the War On Drugs. But that is quite a bit different from "floating the idea" (with the connotation of approval).
Mac, you really do excel at twisting information. It is rather weasel-like.
I can't name the culprit but someone posted a thread suggesting Christie was endorsing trump because he wants to be vp
Building the wall, booting the illegals and the Muslims will be sufficient. The Unions love his stance on trade deals. That will win him the unions.
Finally, you stoop to reasonably suggesting things that may very well occur. Excellent points.
As for kicking out the Muslims, that has possible legal issues (I am SURE that the Constitution that you worship has no explicit rule that allows Trump to kick a specific minority out of the country. Perhaps that "general welfare" clause you are so fond of lecturintg on?)
And it does seem passing strange for you to change your tune about federal powers when they flow in a direction to your liking....
Based on his showing with Hispanics in Nevada, he will pick up the (legal) Hispanic vote (I have yet to see actual evidence, btw, that there is any illegal Hispanic vote of any consequence). Contrary to La Raza and left wing myth, most Hispanics who are here legally have an extreme dislike for the line-jumpers.
It remains to be seen whether he can capture a significant number of Black voters. It appears that these two ladies are having a certain impact on that: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCug1cL7vmUvYooOjXyHjsxQ/videos. Not a whole lot of views on any, but there are over 100 of them, with a good percentage of approvals. Query: does anyone here think that these ladies just might have a deal or prior relationship with Trump?
Now that you aren't throwing out ad homs, don't you feel a bit less stressed? Adult conversation and argument can be quite refreshing.
Gosh, the all-knowing libs sure move fast
It was only a few days ago they were floating the idea of a trump-Christie ticket
Now they are burying their own bull$#@! before we have barely had time to worry about it
Wait, what? Who, exactly, has said that? Seriously, can you name one person, either here or nationally?
I know that I brought up the idea of a Trump-Christie ticket - but as a nightmare scenario regarding the War On Drugs. But that is quite a bit different from "floating the idea" (with the connotation of approval).
Mac, you really do excel at twisting information. It is rather weasel-like.
I can't name the culprit but someone posted a thread suggesting Christie was endorsing trump because he wants to be vp
So... you cannot name the thread that "someone" started, but you know that this "someone" was a liberal?
You may very well be right. However, it is a bit early. We have not seen Trump's behavior post-nomination. If it runs true to form, you will see a yuuuge tack towards the center.
My personal opinion (which, with $2.10 will get you a small coffee at Starbucks)? I think that Trump will throw a large bone to the Far Right. That bone will be the whole illegal immigration thing... which a yuuge number of people in the center and on the Left are in secret agreement with the Right about. A big wall along the southern border is a cheap throwaway. And kicking out the illegals already here is fairly easy, if you attack it at the employment and public benefits levels.
He may very well try and swing to the middle, he has to, but can he pull it off?
I doubt he can.
I hope he keeps going with the this BS 'wall" stuff, it will be his undoing.
MisterVeritis
02-28-2016, 12:53 PM
Building the wall, booting the illegals and the Muslims will be sufficient. The Unions love his stance on trade deals. That will win him the unions.
Finally, you stoop to reasonably suggesting things that may very well occur. Excellent points.
As for kicking out the Muslims, that has possible legal issues (I am SURE that the Constitution that you worship has no explicit rule that allows Trump to kick a specific minority out of the country. Perhaps that "general welfare" clause you are so fond of lecturing on?)
The president already has broad authority based in long-ago passed law to toss no-citizens out of the country. Islamofascists do not belong in a western country.
And it does seem passing strange for you to change your tune about federal powers when they flow in a direction to your liking....
Do you see any of those powers that are unconstitutional? For example, President Trump's wall building is already public law and flows nicely from the Constitution's defense requirement. For that matter, the President's ability to have non-citizen aliens removed also logically flows from the Constitution's defense requirements.
The general welfare clause does nothing more than prohibit actions not included in Article 1 Section 8. It specifically prohibits the use to which it has been put by power-hungry federal politicians.
suds00
02-28-2016, 12:58 PM
wait until the democrats go negative.the republican challengers may have waited too long.perhaps you wish to elect a dictator.how can 100 republicans have won after capturing on the first ballot when there have been less than 12 republican presidents.(this is a response to a purported study claiming close to 100%accuracyof presidential electability for successful candidates)sorry for the confusion.maybe I should quit but these assumptions are mind-boggling to say the least
He may very well try and swing to the middle, he has to, but can he pull it off?
I doubt he can.
I hope he keeps going with the this BS 'wall" stuff, it will be his undoing.
All of the conservatives and most of the liberals I personally know have figured out that hordes of illegals who are not assimilating are not a good thing for the country, or for them personally. That "wall" stuff is a winner for him.
As for pulling it off, did you see that video I posted about Trump's mastery of the language and delivery?
https://youtu.be/_aFo_BV-UzI
Tahuyaman
02-28-2016, 01:08 PM
Trump is very likely going to win. Someone posted a thread already with a political scientists whose model has only been wrong once.
Look it up.
law of averages says he will be wrong again. Let's hope this is that time.
All of the conservatives and most of the liberals I personally know have figured out that hordes of illegals who are not assimilating are not a good thing for the country, or for them personally. That "wall" stuff is a winner for him.
As for pulling it off, did you see that video I posted about Trump's mastery of the language and delivery?
https://youtu.be/_aFo_BV-UzI
I did see that vid and it makes a lot of sense, he is good at it but in the general he is going to have to come up with something real, something tangible. Romney tired but he failed and I don't think the idiot trump can do it.
I also disagree about the wall thing, it's great red meat for the moron base, as we've seen, but in the general it's not going to fly.
Now if he can come up with a rational reality based solution to immigration, then maybe but if he does that even the moron base will turn on him.
He doesn't stand a chance.
I did see that vid and it makes a lot of sense, he is good at it but in the general he is going to have to come up with something real, something tangible. Romney tired but he failed and I don't think the idiot trump can do it.
I also disagree about the wall thing, it's great red meat for the moron base, as we've seen, but in the general it's not going to fly.
Now if he can come up with a rational reality based solution to immigration, then maybe but if he does that even the moron base will turn on him.
He doesn't stand a chance.
I keep reading what sounds like personal opinion without anything to back it up. But perhaps you are right.
"a rational reality based solution to immigration" - just out of curiosity, what is your specific solution?
I keep reading what sounds like personal opinion without anything to back it up. But perhaps you are right.
"a rational reality based solution to immigration" - just out of curiosity, what is your specific solution?
Of course it's a personal opinion, while they would be money ahead to consult me thus far no networks or news outlets have contracted me so I have no 'link' to back up my opinion.
I have no solution because I'm smart enough to know there is no more a problem today then there has been for the last 70 years when we invited migrate workers in to harvest the crops during the war.
The numbers of people crossing the southern border have remain fairly consistent, just because the right wing noise machine creates a 'problem' in no means dictates we do anything to 'solve' it.
My solution is the same we have employed for 70 years, do nothing.
Of course that will cause all sorts of hand wringing and name calling I'm sure......
Mac-7
02-28-2016, 04:27 PM
Of course it's a personal opinion, while they would be money ahead to consult me thus far no networks or news outlets have contracted me so I have no 'link' to back up my opinion.
I have no solution because I'm smart enough to know there is no more a problem today then there has been for the last 70 years when we invited migrate workers in to harvest the crops during the war.
The numbers of people crossing the southern border have remain fairly consistent, just because the right wing noise machine creates a 'problem' in no means dictates we do anything to 'solve' it.
My solution is the same we have employed for 70 years, do nothing.
Of course that will cause all sorts of hand wringing and name calling I'm sure......
No namecalling
But you won't find many people to agree with you
Of course it's a personal opinion, while they would be money ahead to consult me thus far no networks or news outlets have contracted me so I have no 'link' to back up my opinion.
I have no solution because I'm smart enough to know there is no more a problem today then there has been for the last 70 years when we invited migrate workers in to harvest the crops during the war.
The numbers of people crossing the southern border have remain fairly consistent, just because the right wing noise machine creates a 'problem' in no means dictates we do anything to 'solve' it.
My solution is the same we have employed for 70 years, do nothing.
Of course that will cause all sorts of hand wringing and name calling I'm sure......
Do you have any statistics to back up that claim? You've made the assertion; please back it up.
Peter1469
02-28-2016, 08:24 PM
No.
He has no chance.
lol
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.