Donald Trump selects Indiana Governor Mike Pence as VP

  • Thread starter Thread starter AFerri48
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good_Tidings said:
Really? Considering who the party nominee is and what he stands for (today and yesterday) I find that interesting.
Click to expand...
This wasn’t addressed to me but I’ll point out that there’s a difference between “abandoning our faith for party loyalty” and being realistic.

My own party’s candidate, Darrell Castle, would make an excellent president I believe, but I don’t know if he has any chance at all of winning.
 
Not saying they don’t exist, but I don’t know one person who’s voting for Trump because they believe he’s the lesser of two evils. Everyone I know believes if Trump loses we can expect more incidents like Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, etc.
 
Seamus_L said:
Not saying they don’t exist, but I don’t know one person who’s voting for Trump because they believe he’s the lesser of two evils. Everyone I know believes if Trump loses we can expect more incidents like Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, etc.
Click to expand...
Is that why all the republicans have rushed to endorse him?
 
Seamus_L said:
Not saying they don’t exist, but I don’t know one person who’s voting for Trump because they believe he’s the lesser of two evils. Everyone I know believes if Trump loses we can expect more incidents like Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, etc.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, if Trump wins we can expect more incidents like Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, etc. See my post above.
 
The Republican establishment is not embracing Trump too well, but his rallies have been the most enthusiastic of any candidate from either party. If Trump somehow wins in November, I expect there will be a certain amount of political turmoil in the urban areas of many cities where that sort of behaviour is expected.
 
Al_Moritz said:
He is the most divisive candidate we have had in decades (George Wallace 1968 was maybe comparable to some extent). Hillary and Obama are polarizing (no surprise given the political climate), but not divisive in their ideas and attitude.
Click to expand...
I get it: so when Clinton/Obama do it it’s polarizing but when Trump does it it’s divisive?
 
Al_Moritz said:
On the contrary, if Trump wins we can expect more incidents like Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, etc. See my post above.
Click to expand...
Unrelated to your comments about Trump, but that quote in your signature is offensive.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I’m going to inquire to the moderator about that quote in your signature.
Click to expand...
I have had that signature for quite a while and nobody has complained.

There have been many things said on this board by Catholics that severely offend my Catholic sensibilities, and I have not complained about these things to the moderators either. Freedom of opinion.
 
Al_Moritz said:
I have had that signature for quite a while and nobody has complained.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what your signature is or know what anybody else’s signature is. I turned off view signatures years ago. In fact I don’t even know what my signature is
 
_Abyssinia said:
Unrelated to your comments about Trump, but that quote in your signature is offensive.
Click to expand...
I, for one, appreciate him having put it there. When a partisan (whether on the left or the right) clearly states up front that they are coming into this with an agenda rather than an intent to genuinely dialogue, then I know right away I can put them on Ignore since they won’t say anything that’s edifying to me 😃

I’m glad estesbob mentioned the ability to turn signatures off, because I didn’t realize we could. I can’t stand them in general: they just take up space with the same repeated text over and over (tens of thousands of times for some of our regulars). Thanks, Bob!
 
Wampa said:
I, for one, appreciate him having put it there. When a partisan (whether on the left or the right) clearly states up front that they are coming into this with an agenda rather than an intent to genuinely dialogue, then I know right away I can put them on Ignore since they won’t say anything that’s edifying to me 😃

I’m glad estesbob mentioned the ability to turn signatures off, because I didn’t realize we could. I can’t stand them in general: they just take up space with the same repeated text over and over (tens of thousands of times for some of our regulars). Thanks, Bob!
Click to expand...
You can turn off the Avatars too.
 
estesbob said:
You can turn off the Avatars too.
Click to expand...
I saw that when I went into Edit Options just now. I actually like the avatars. It adds a memory aid to the usernames, especially some of the usernames that are very similar to each other. After 12 years here, perhaps I should consider an avatar…

Since I’ve helped this thread get off-track, I’ll add my 2 cents about the thread topic. I think this was a smart choice for Trump. Trump’s campaign is very Trump-focused (which is obvious based on how little the campaign has used Pence since selecting him). Because Trump elicits very strong reactions, I think there are very few people who might have voted for Trump and now won’t due to Pence’s presence. With a possible exception of LGBT voters, who Trump has made a play for, but I highly doubt they were seriously considering him anyway.

While turning few potential votes away, Pence solidifies a large group of Republicans who were very hesitant to vote for Trump either due to his lack of standard conservatism or his lack of experience and love for incendiary comments. Pence is a good counterweight for both concerns.

Of the few choices available to him, Pence was the best choice IMO.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Unrelated to your comments about Trump, but that quote in your signature is offensive.
Click to expand...
I think our political discussions would be better if people had thicker skins. While I don’t think most conservatives are selfish, there is a strain of conservatism that promotes selfishness. On can argue that some in the University of Chicago economics department promote selfishness. It is debatable of course, but well within the realm of debate. People getting offended does not help that debate.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I think our political discussions would be better if people had thicker skins. While I don’t think most conservatives are selfish, there is a strain of conservatism that promotes selfishness. On can argue that some in the University of Chicago economics department promote selfishness. It is debatable of course, but well within the realm of debate. People getting offended does not help that debate.
Click to expand...
If that quote by that economist had the word “conservative” exchanged with “liberal”, I wouldn’t think that’s fair either. I don’t think making blanket statements about conservatives or liberals does good for civil discourse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top