ChrisWeigant.com

Trump Veep Speculation

[ Posted Monday, March 21st, 2016 – 17:19 UTC ]

No matter what the next primary election results show tomorrow night, one thing seems to be certain: we are in for a long slog of delegate-counting before either party's nominee is crowned. On the Republican side, this is leading to more and more desperation from the party's bigwigs, as they clutch at the thin straw of somehow yanking the nomination away from Donald Trump at their convention. All of this is going to take time to play out, but we're just going to leapfrog over it all for now and assume for the purpose of this conversation that Trump does emerge victorious as the Republican Party presidential nominee. Whether a third-party conservative challenge emerges or not, this means the next big question has to be who Trump is going to pick as his running mate. So buckle your seatbelts, because this is likely going to be just as bumpy a ride as the rest of the GOP nomination process has so far been.

Traditionally, the game of speculation over the vice-presidential slot on the ticket (the "veepstakes") has been a lot easier to play. However, after John McCain rocked the Republican world with his choice of Sarah Palin, the old assumptions don't always work. Even before the rise of Trump, wild cards have previously been chosen, to put it another way. But Trump is the wildest wild card on his own, so the possibilities of who would get Trump's nod are almost limitless. "Nah, that's too crazy" might not apply to the veep choice, to put it another way, just as it hasn't applied to the nominee himself. Especially when you take into account how much of Trump's political persona has been centered around sticking a big thumb in the collective eye of the Republican establishment all along.

We can start speculating using the normal assumptions, though, because we've got to begin somewhere. The normal rules may not apply, but then again they may -- a Trump spokesman was heard a few weeks ago indicating that Trump would likely make a traditional "shore up his weaknesses" type of choice, so it's not completely out of the question that his pick would be a conventional one.

Traditionally, of course, the first people considered are those who ran a close race to the eventual winner. This would put Ted Cruz highest on the list. Cruz, like Trump, immensely enjoys confounding the party's establishment, in his own way. Trump could probably go a long way towards unifying the party's base by naming his closest rival to the ticket. Cruz would guarantee a win in the crucial state of Texas, but that's not saying a whole lot (it's hard to imagine Texas going blue this year, even with Trump on the ballot). But somehow, I just can't see Trump burying the hatchet with Cruz, even if Ted did bend over backwards for months not to badmouth Trump in any way (in the early months of the campaign). Since they started sparring in earnest, however, Trump has clearly shown his naked disdain for Cruz, so I doubt he would make this particular choice. Especially after all that "Lying Ted" stuff, on the campaign trail.

Second on the list would be John Kasich. Kasich's geographical asset would be much more valuable, because unlike Texas, Ohio could actually be the key to winning the White House. The general rule is that Republican candidates don't win the presidency without winning Ohio, and Kasich has shown how popular he is in his home state. Kasich has always been very high on every GOP contender's veep list, for this very reason. The pundits are now speculating that if Trump has a shot at winning in November, it will be because he'll flip the Rust Belt states, and Kasich could certainly help this effort out. Also, Kasich and Trump haven't gone after each other with as much personal bile as the other Republican-on-Republican campaign fights, so there's not much of a hatchet to bury between the two. However, Kasich has sounded pretty adamant about not being anyone's running mate in recent interviews, so there's a possibility he'd turn Trump down.

Marco Rubio is probably out of the running, because it doesn't look like he'd add much of anything, geographically. Florida is always one of the biggest battleground states, but Marco couldn't even beat Trump on his home turf, so it's hard to see what political asset he'd bring to the campaign (other than Latino voter outreach, perhaps). It'd be hard to see Trump naming "Little Marco" as his running mate, at this point.

There are others waiting in the wings, but only one of them looks like a real contender. Scott Walker might also help in the Midwest, but he showed his weakness by being the second one to drop out of the race, and Trump isn't fond of "losers." Chris Christie is probably a non-starter, both because he hails from the same region as Trump and because he doesn't add much to broaden Trump's appeal with the electorate (Christie was supposed to be the bombastic bully of the race, before Trump entered the scene and did it so much more entertainingly). The smartest pick Trump could make would be South Carolina's Nikki Haley, of course, since she would open up demographics that Trump hasn't been doing so well with (women voters and minorities, in particular). But somehow I think Haley's smarter than that, and would decline a veep slot if offered.

Still keeping within the bounds of traditional veepstakes speculation, Trump might reach beyond the world of professional politicians to shore up his weakness on one particular issue. Trump is arguably weakest on foreign policy and military matters, so it would make perfect sense for him to pick someone a lot stronger in this regard. Foreign policy experts in Congress would be the first place you'd normally look, however the two most well-known of these are not likely to be asked -- because Trump would likely find both John McCain and Lindsey Graham unacceptable. McCain likely wouldn't even consider running for veep after running for president, and Graham has thrown his lot in with Cruz. There could be others Trump might find more acceptable, but I think a more likely option would be choosing a retired general. While this could be anyone (there are a lot of retired generals who would jump at the opportunity), one name certainly suggests itself: David Petraeus. Petraeus is well-loved by conservatives, even after his problems with the law. But what got Petraeus into trouble pales in comparison to Donald Trump's colorful romantic history, so Trump likely wouldn't rule Petraeus out on that accord. Whether Petraeus would accept the invitation or not is anyone's guess, but it certainly would boost Trump's perceived weakness on foreign policy and military matters. Petraeus (or any other successful ex-military figure) would bring heft and gravitas to the ticket that Trump has so far found elusive.

This is where we have to depart from the traditional "this will help the candidate because..." rules of the veepstakes game, though. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has certainly proved that he is his own man who charts his own course through the American political scene. This is a polite way of saying none of the other rules of politics have applied to Trump in any way, so why should he keep within them for his veep pick? Perhaps Trump will reach out not to the political world or the military world, but instead to the world of celebrities.

Once you get past this mind-blowing basic concept, it certainly would be appropriate. Trump himself is a television celebrity, after all. So would it be so far-fetched to imagine him choosing, say, Omarosa to run with him? I mean, he probably wouldn't give the nod to Gary Busey (even Trump's not that foolish), but I could see him flirt with the idea of Ted Nugent as a running mate. Just imagine the excitement of a Trump/Nugent rally for one tiny instant -- you think you've seen fired-up crowds so far? The Motor City Madman would certainly dial things up by a very large notch. He might even bring Michigan into play, in November.

A couple other possibilities are easily dismissed. Much as he'd really like to, Trump probably wouldn't decide to put one of his children on the ticket, because nepotism isn't all that popular with most American voters. Arnold Schwarzenegger is beyond consideration, not for his own sexual dalliances but because he was clearly born in Austria and thus isn't eligible for the presidency (as all vice presidents must be).

Of course, then there's a very obvious choice: Sarah Palin. Hey, if the entire Republican Party could pretend (with a straight face) that she was presidential material in 2008, they'd be hard-pressed to now say she's not qualified to run with Trump, right? However, I don't think Trump would pick Palin, because she might just overshadow his own popularity with the fervent base. And that's something I don't think his ego would allow. Also, she's a "loser" by Trump's estimation, which might be the deciding factor in passing over a Trump/Palin ticket.

Trump could make a surprise pick from the world of right-wing media. I doubt he'd go with Rush Limbaugh, but someone like Sean Hannity or Joe Scarborough could appear on a Trump shortlist. The only thing for certain in this arena is that Trump is definitely not going to choose Megyn Kelly. But all the others at Fox might merit a hard look. Trump/O'Reilly, perhaps? It's not as far-fetched as it sounds, really.

I'll end this smorgasbord of speculation with one name that keeps coming back to me. Whenever I bring this up in political conversation, people laugh -- at first. Then they nervously want to change the subject, because of how plausible it seems after that first guffaw. Trump is weak on political experience. He might need help winning a race with three major candidates running. He could use someone with some military experience to bolster his foreign policy credibility. And he loves outspoken, off-the-cuff celebrities -- especially those who are either conservative or independent in their thinking.

So how about a former state governor who is also a former movie actor (who acted in more than one film with Schwarzenegger)? How about someone who actually won a three-way race -- in a Midwestern state? How about someone who is not shy in front of the microphones and cameras, and who already built his own political reputation as a straight-talking guy who took on the establishment of both parties? How about an ex-Navy underwater demolitions expert, to boot?

Go ahead and laugh if you will, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Trump stuns the political world (once again) at the Republican National Convention by announcing that his running mate will be none other than Jesse Ventura. By doing so, Trump would actually be making good on a promise he gave 12 years ago. Consider this gem from Ventura's Wikipedia page (from when Ventura was covering "WrestleMania XX"), where "he approached the ring to interview Donald Trump, who had a front row seat at the event. Trump affirmed that Ventura would receive his moral and financial support were he to ever re-enter the world of politics." Ventura has more than once expressed an interest in running for president, so he might actually be interested in a veep slot on Trump's ticket.

Sure, it's funny -- when you first consider it. But then the more you think about it, the more sense it actually makes. After all, is "Trump/Ventura 2016" really that much more outlandish than "Donald Trump, Republican presidential nominee" first sounded?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

77 Comments on “Trump Veep Speculation”

  1. [1] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Snark follows:
    The Prez and VP choice can't be from the same state, but Trump can claim both FL and NY as homes. Would he select himself as his VP choice {hehe}?

  2. [2] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    More seriously, McCain's choice of Palin was not quite the "hail Mary" everyone describes it as.

    She was very popular as a governor (according to polls at the time, she was the most popular GOP governor on the country). She is a she. And, in April 2008, a large group of Republican bigwigs attended an Alaskan cruise where she was one of the headliners. According to reports, she knocked it out of the park. She really had an "on" week.

    Because it's Alaska, the vetting process was not as thorough as it should have been (duh), but she shone when she needed to; such is life. McCain is a gambler and many other things, but he isn't stupid, after all.

  3. [3] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    "The general rule is that Republican candidates don't win the presidency without winning Ohio"

    It's not a general rule (which have exceptions that prove the rule or something), let's go further: No Republican has ever been elected President without winning Ohio. Ohio is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a GOP President to happen according to history (there are Dems who were elected, despite losing Ohio).

  4. [4] 
    dsws wrote:

    Trump will decide that the best way to stick a finger in the eye of the Establishment is by naming Justin Bieber as his running mate, so that's what he'll do. The media will mention once that Bieber is under 35 and Canadian, but after that they will consider it "not news any more", and go back to their round-the-clock coverage of the most recent Trump quidnunckery.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    Petraeus is probably out because it will make it difficult for Republicans and Trump to run a Benghazi 2 - The Email Server Atrocity when they have their very own VP really guilty of basically the same crimes they want to trump* up for Hillary.

    * Sorry.

    Ventura is a fun thought, but Trump probably doesn't want competition for attention anywhere near the podium.

    Kasich is the smart choice, as you say, but there are two problems: (i) Trump isn't very clever, and (ii) Kasich isn't very stupid.

    Darrell Issa would be a good choice, but he has been having some fun at Trump's expense (four more all gold glass stories on the White House plus 'hundreds of room for rent' - 'it's going to be huge!')

    I think you might be missing one name from the list, Boris Johnson. He is basically Trump's stunt double, and was born in the U.S. (check it out).

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Excellent run thru the options. None the usual rules apply. Nothing to be gained by balancing the ticket, as a certain flying squirrel was known to say "that trick never works." Kasich could help take Ohio, but Kasich has an ego and is obviouly smarter than Trump and equally apt to say exactly what he thinks. Two kings won't work. Not throwing a shadow on Trump's celebrity is the prime directive. That eliminates Nugent..
    Ventura is too buff, would make Trump look too small.

    I really see only two options. One, a 35 yo + sack of white potatoes that does what it's tolld, a butler sort, and Trump has one of those. If the Trump butler can't be spared, a general would do. Preferably an old one from a popular war. Stormin' Norm?

    The only other viable approach is fawning acolyte. But for her own considerable celebrity, Palin would be ideal, if she stayed scripted and focused her light on Trump. Risky, go for Haley and a parabolic mirror.

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I could see Trump burying a hatchet in Cruz if Cruz bent over bacwards!

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    My favorite part of Drumpf's Klan rallies is the part where he mocks the faithers and pretends to be one of them, so I was appalled to hear him say: we have more christians than we have men and women in our country and we don't have a lobby. I suppose that bizarre, incoherent lies like those sound good to poorly-educated TrumpThugSS with persecution fantasies and I'm afraid he'll pick a hater like Franklin Graham or Jerry Falwell to signal to the sheeple that they'll get to do the persecuting.

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    It does strike me that Trump would NOT want anyone who might steal his thunder. I could see him possibly choosing a woman, seeing her as a natural subordinate, versus someone like Ventura. But probably not Palin.

    I can't imagine a former heavyweight military type taking Trump seriously although a loony military crank might.

    He's already picked 4 or 5 loons/crumbs for his foreign-policy team. I'm thinking people who value their career-longevity would stay far, far away from him, so he probably had to scrape the barrel to get names of people for advisors. I would think he'll go shopping in the wingnut welfare bazaar.

  10. [10] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Trump reiterated a few weeks ago what he would look for in a VP:

    The main quality that you want, is somebody that could be a great president if something happens to you, that's gotta be number one.

    And then I would want somebody that could help me with government, so most likely that would be a political person, because I'm business and I'm very good at what I do, and all of that... But the most important thing is you have to have someone who can be a great president, but after that, you want somebody that can help you with legislation, getting it through, and all that. I would say, and it's too early, I'm not thinking about it a lot, I'm thinking about getting the ball over the line, get this thing done... But I do want somebody who is political, because I want to get lots of great legislation that we all want passed, just sitting there for years and years and years, we have things sitting there that would be so good. Including proper health care and other things, so we're going to choose somebody who is somewhat political.

    I would look for a well thought of deal maker insider from the House or Senate that is not too conservative...

  11. [11] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Looks like the FBI is pulling a tactical retreat on the iphone investigation. A little too much push back to risk a legal precedent against them using the All Writs Act...

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    too bad for trump that jerry springer came out against him. he'd be the perfect celeb running mate.

    JL

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    % Non-Hillary (i.e. Sanders) voters who would vote for Hillary = 80% (Historically at the high end of average)

    % Non-Trump voters who would vote for Trump = 49% (historically very low)

    Source: 538 podcast, 3/21/16

    Time to start letting the air out of the Trumpeppilin.

    Sorry. I know you guys are really angry, but Trump is just like a faith healer to a desperate cancer patient. Better that you get real science-based medicine sooner rather than later.

    Demand real answers from your politicians - you have proved that you can make them listen to you, now find one who is really on your side.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speak2,

    More seriously, McCain's choice of Palin was not quite the "hail Mary" everyone describes it as.

    She was very popular as a governor (according to polls at the time, she was the most popular GOP governor on the country). She is a she. And, in April 2008, a large group of Republican bigwigs attended an Alaskan cruise where she was one of the headliners. According to reports, she knocked it out of the park. She really had an "on" week.

    THANK YOU, Speak2!!

    I have been saying the exact same thing since Palin was nominated... But the political bigotry against Palin was just too strong...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Petraeus is probably out because it will make it difficult for Republicans and Trump to run a Benghazi 2 - The Email Server Atrocity when they have their very own VP really guilty of basically the same crimes they want to trump* up for Hillary.

    But Patreaus has been punished and paid his debt to society... He will be cleansed..

    But it's nice to see you admit that you want Hillary to skate for the "basically same crimes" that Patreaus committed...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the FBI is pulling a tactical retreat on the iphone investigation. A little too much push back to risk a legal precedent against them using the All Writs Act...

    OR.... The FBI has a method that will gain them access to the phone and don't need Apple's help..

    Which proves that it has ALWAYS been about just this one phone and not the GOVERNMENT STORMTROOPERS that ya'all have been fear-mongering about for months..

    Earlier Monday, however, Apple CEO Tim Cook affirmed his company’s intent to fight this and other cases where the government seeks greater access to digital data. As he unveiled his company’s latest iPhone, Cook pledged on stage in San Francisco that Apple would not “shirk from [its] responsibility” to protect its users.

    Even if they be terrorists or child molesters..

    One has to wonder how Tim Cook sleeps at night...

    Considering the kinds of business that Cook does with China and the slave labor that Apple uses in his factories, I am guessing that helping terrorists and child molesters is no big deal to him at all..

    What scum...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I hope that Drumpf reads the name of his VP Pick off a Teleprompter, but I'm probably going to be disappointed because he says he doesn't use them and he says he's truthful to a fault.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Say what ya'all want about Trump..

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/20/charles-hurt-donald-trump-may-be-flawed-but-washin/

    But he is a shining beacon of propriety compare to what the government is now...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope that Drumpf reads the name of his VP Pick off a Teleprompter, but I'm probably going to be disappointed because he says he doesn't use them and he says he's truthful to a fault.

    Neil?? Fact check?? :D heh

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I would like Trump to pick Ben Carson and the Democratic nominee to pick Lincoln Chafee.
    Then at the end of the first VP debate the moderator would thank the audience for being so quiet and well behaved and the camera would pan to the audience to discover they all died from boredom.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Credit where credit is due.

    THAT was funny!!! :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Credit where credit is due.

    THAT was funny!!! :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    You don't get it, do you??

    Your argument and Apple's argument has just be PROVEN to be total and complete BS...

    How do we know this??

    Simple..

    Ya'all's argument has been to keep technology out of the hands of the government that would allow the government to break the encryption of any iPhone w/o having to worry about the phone self-destructing...

    The HILARIOUS thing is, if Apple would have acquiesced to the court order, then they would have ACCOMPLISHED that...

    But, because Apple fought the LEGAL and LEGITIMATE court order, the FBI was able to develop the capability ALL ON THEIR OWN...

    Apple's actions have BROUGHT ABOUT the *VERY* thing that they claimed they wanted to prevent. Government ownership of technology to safely crack iPhone encryption!! :D

    HOISTED BY THEIR OWN PICARD!!!

    You can't see me now, but I am laughing my ass off!! :D

    Face reality... This was NEVER about protecting the privacy of the consumer or preventing technology to get into the government's hands..

    This is, and ALWAYS has been, about protecting the Marketable reputation of Apple...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is, and ALWAYS has been, about protecting the Marketable reputation of Apple...

    And it doesn't matter HOW many innocent men women and children have to pay for that with their lives...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is, and ALWAYS has been, about protecting the Marketable reputation of Apple...

    And it doesn't matter HOW many innocent men women and children have to pay for that with their lives...

    A bit hysterical, n'est pas?* Can you point to one innocent person killed because of this situation?

    * only slightly poor taste, or very?

    Also, it was clear from the start that there are fairly simple ways to get around the self-destruct switch (I posted how to do it last week). Then it is a sophisticated number crunching game.

    My biggest concern is that the FBI didn't know this from the start and now have broadcast to the world that they can break iPhones - anybody wanting to encrypt data will now use some of the more difficult to break services (mostly because of access to the data rather than the encryption strength).

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    A bit hysterical, n'est pas?* Can you point to one innocent person killed because of this situation?

    Ahhhhh Only Left Wingery are allowed to extrapolate likely events from actions that THEY deem are dangerous...

    Gotcha.. Forgive me..

    Also, it was clear from the start that there are fairly simple ways to get around the self-destruct switch (I posted how to do it last week).

    I must have missed that. Care to elaborate?? If you could do it, you should have brought it to the FBI and made millions.. :D

    Regardless of all that, my point is this. Despite all the posturing and fear-mongering this entire issue was nothing more than a corporate entity protecting it's marketing...

    That's all it was about...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fact checking Trump/Teleprompter:

    1. Did Trump say he never uses teleprompters? Yes
    "I don't use teleprompters," he said in January, criticizing Hillary Clinton for using one. "Wouldn't that be easy, teleprompters? I watched Hillary the other day and she has the biggest teleprompters I've ever seen.

    2. Has Trump ever used a teleprompter? Yes. Yesterday in fact.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273830-trump-uses-teleprompter-in-foreign-policy-speech

    3. Is Trump a liar?
    Does anybody need to fact check that? I mean, apart from the teleprompter incident above, Trump's statements were awarded PolitiFact's 2015 Lie of the Year.

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm going on vacation next week. While I'm out of the country, don't let Trump close the borders for everybody until he figures out what is going on.

    He is 69 years old and he doesn't have a clue about anything so I can't wait that long to come home.

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ahhhhh Only Left Wingery are allowed to extrapolate likely events from actions that THEY deem are dangerous...

    So you can't point to one innocent person killed because the FBI didn't have access to the contents of the phone. This sort of fear mongering is going to be rife for the next few days because of Belgium, the nervous 'feelies', and Trump et al playing his fear act for them. This is exactly how we ended up with the Patriot Act and its assault on the fourth amendment.

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If he picked Cruz, I have no doubt that Cruz would lead the charge to have Trump impeached at every possible turn! Trump will say anything to get elected, but Cruz will do anything to get elected...and actions speak louder than words! The idea of a President Cruz is much scarier to me than the possibility of a President Trump.

  31. [31] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    OR.... The FBI has a method that will gain them access to the phone and don't need Apple's help..

    The NSA almost certainly has had that method already. An ex-NSA director has pretty much admitted that.

    Which proves that it has ALWAYS been about just this one phone and not the GOVERNMENT STORMTROOPERS that ya'all have been fear-mongering about for months..

    Adding "proves" to your list of misused words? Ya, one phone and a couple of hundred others that either Comey knew about or is totally incompetent.

    Even if they be terrorists or child molesters..

    Just how much freedom must we give up before you feel safe?

    Considering the kinds of business that Cook does with China and the slave labor that Apple uses in his factories, I am guessing that helping terrorists and child molesters is no big deal to him at all..

    And probably just about every device you sell or work on in your shop. Oh, wait, Apple does more extensive checks on it's factories to try and root out slave labor and other problems than most other companies. How about the companies of the electronics you sell? How do you sleep at night?

    You don't get it, do you??

    Actually I do get it. You are the one that seems to missing a good chunk of the story.

    Your argument and Apple's argument has just be PROVEN to be total and complete BS...

    Not by you.

    Ya'all's argument has been to keep technology out of the hands of the government that would allow the government to break the encryption of any iPhone w/o having to worry about the phone self-destructing...

    Ah, no. Not even Apple is arguing that. They don't want to be forced to custom build GovtOS then have to keep an office open 24/7 unlocking every phone that any lawyer can convince a judge to issue an order for.

    Apple's actions have BROUGHT ABOUT the *VERY* thing that they claimed they wanted to prevent. Government ownership of technology to safely crack iPhone encryption!! :D

    Unless you actually know what you are talking about. All phones after the 5C have a secure enclave on the cpu die that prevents this method...

    You can't see me now, but I am laughing my ass off!! :D

    The laugh of ignorance, ya we get that...

  32. [32] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    CW,
    You said early on that you don't think Texas has a real chance of being flipped to the Democrats even without Cruz on the ticket, but would your opinion change if Hillary Clinton were to select Julian Castro as her running mate? He's a native Texan, was a very popular mayor in San Antonio, and is currently serving as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. On top of that, he is Hispanic which could boost turnout in that increasingly large voting block in Texas, and would provide some youthful energy to help shore up Clinton's relative weakness with younger voters.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does anybody need to fact check that? I mean, apart from the teleprompter incident above, Trump's statements were awarded PolitiFact's 2015 Lie of the Year.

    And Obama was awarded CW's LIE OF THE YEAR for 2012, I think..

    So that makes Obama a liar too...

    Right?? :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, no. Not even Apple is arguing that. They don't want to be forced to custom build GovtOS then have to keep an office open 24/7 unlocking every phone that any lawyer can convince a judge to issue an order for.

    Ahhhh So you are protecting corporate profits.. :D

    BASHI.... CORPORATIST PROTECTOR OF THE BOTTOM LINE

    Well, it's nice to have you out of the closet.. :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So you can't point to one innocent person killed because the FBI didn't have access to the contents of the phone.

    And you can't point to ONE problem that was caused by President Trump..

    Of course that doesn't stop you from fear-mongering to hell and back about what *MIGHT* happen if Trump were elected President..

    Don't tell me. Let me guess.. "That's different"...

    It always is with you Left Wingers... :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So you can't point to one innocent person killed because the FBI didn't have access to the contents of the phone. This sort of fear mongering is going to be rife for the next few days because of Belgium, the nervous 'feelies', and Trump et al playing his fear act for them. This is exactly how we ended up with the Patriot Act and its assault on the fourth amendment.

    Yer absolutely right, Neil.. We SHOULD wait until AFTER dozens or even hundreds of people are killed before considering the possibilities..

    That's SOOO much more logical and rational..

    Let's just hope that someone you know is not amongst the dead, eh?? :^/

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh I know!!!

    Why don't we ask the families of those killed in Brussels or Paris or San Bernardino if we should PROTECT the privacy rights of terrorists...

    Let's see what THEY have to say about the issue..

    I have seen first hand the kind of carnage and death wrought in San Bernardino and Paris and Brussels...

    The idea that someone could actually advocate PROTECTING the privacy of those who commit such barbarity??

    Mind-boggling...

    Simply mind-boggling...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Ad hominems, appeals to emotion and hysteria. Yawn...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ad hominems, appeals to emotion and hysteria. Yawn...

    TRANSLATION: I have no logical or rational response and must, therefore resort to childish personal attacks...

    Figures..

    But I have always found such an attitude totally perplexing.. That someone would be SOO self-centered and egotistical that they would prefer that someone DIE rather than give up their personal privacy...

    It USED to be that the Hysterical Left Wingery was SOMEWHAT (barely) reasonable about it..

    "Get a warrant and you can have access.."

    But NOW, not even a WARRANT is good enough..

    NOW there is nothing reasonable or logical about the attitude.. It's PURE selfishness..

    "What??? Hundreds of people may die!?? Eh, so what.. My Aunt Matilda's Cookie Recipe is staying away from prying eyes!! I don't care if THOUSANDS of innocent men women and children die!!"

    "What!?? There is a child molester preying on children and you need to tap the line block of my apartment?? Got a warrant? Doesn't matter! You can't do it!! My personal privacy is sacrosanct.. I don't care if a DOZEN kids are brutally murdered.. NOTHING supercedes my personal privacy!!

    As I said.. The attitude is MIND-BOGGLING..

    Sickening and perverse to be sure. But mind-boggling...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The idea that someone could actually advocate PROTECTING the privacy of those who commit such barbarity??

    Mind-boggling...

    Simply mind-boggling..."

    NOT really Michale. Since no one, in reality, is actually arguing in favor of protecting THEM. What the point is, really, is not giving the government, sweeping, blanket, power which can be used against US. ALL civil liberties protections are not there to protect the guilty. They are there to protect the innocent from abuse of government power. The fact that they also sometimes protect the most heinous criminals, is only incidental to their true purpose of being. The power you give the government to violate the privacy of a terrorist, for example, can also be used by an unsavory politician to go on a witch hunt against a political opponent, or carry out a vendetta against someone you don't like because they are Jewish, or whatever. Very law and order types, like you included Michale, I think tend to forget that. Like when people condemn the ACLU. Defending a principle, that protects US, does not mean they are supporting THEM, though it may confusingly seem that way to some people. The same thing applies when you defend all true free speech. Like defending the right of the KKK to hold a march, and also the right of people to hold a counter demonstration against them. I think this is also what Trump is forgetting about his rallies too. Not only does he have a right to hold them and be heard, but people also have a right to protest against him and be heard also. Notice I did not say shut down, but be heard, by BOTH sides.

  41. [41] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    TRANSLATION: I have no logical or rational response and must, therefore resort to childish personal attacks...

    Yup, that describes posts [34] through [37] pretty accurately...

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    I should add too that such protections are also there to protect the "presumed guilty" since many presumed guilty people are often innocent until the real guilty are discovered. Mistakes are often made, false leads are not unknown, etc.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    NOT really Michale. Since no one, in reality, is actually arguing in favor of protecting THEM.

    Actually, that EXACTLY what is being argued.. You are only looking at the ONE aspect of the argument that supports your agenda..

    But when you say that PERSONAL PRIVACY is the SOLE consideration, you ARE arguing for the personal privacy of terrorists and child molesters...

    I am not going to let ya'all hide behind semantics and misdirection..

    When you argue against the FBI in this case you are arguing FOR the privacy protections of terrorists.. You are saying that dead innocent men, women and children are LESS important than the privacy of a dead terrorist..

    Or you are arguing that dead innocent men, women and children are LESS important that a corporation's Marketing or bottom line..

    Either way.. It's a heinous and perverse argument..

    Bashi,

    Really?? The I know you are but what am I!?? rebuttal???

    I dunno why, but I actually expected something better from you... :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Imagine that there was information on that iPhone that could have stopped the Brussels terrorist attacks..

    How would you feel about your argument then??

    Of course, you won't even CONSIDER that because it proves how wrong ya'all are...

    When it comes to saving the lives of innocent men, women and children, I place my personal privacy way WAY lower..

    Apparently, ya'all place ya'all's personal privacy HIGHER...

    As I said.. It's mind-boggling...

    Michale

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Really?? The I know you are but what am I!?? rebuttal???

    Yawn. Reread your comments and see if any of my arguments were addressed...

    I dunno why, but I actually expected something better from you... :D

    Yet it was exactly what I expected from you...

  46. [46] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Imagine that there was information on that iPhone that could have stopped the Brussels terrorist attacks..

    The Brussels terrorists used a long trail of burner phones...

    When it comes to saving the lives of innocent men, women and children, I place my personal privacy way WAY lower..

    But not your gun rights... Interesting that...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yawn. Reread your comments and see if any of my arguments were addressed...

    Actually I addressed all your points..

    But you seem to be yawning so much, you probably missed them because you were so tired.. :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Actually I addressed all your points..

    With ad hominems, appeals to emotion and hysteria, but no actual arguments...

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have seen first hand the kind of carnage and death wrought in San Bernardino and Paris and Brussels...

    The idea that someone could actually advocate PROTECTING the privacy of those who commit such barbarity??

    Mind-boggling...

    Yet you look at kids lying dead in elementary schools and still don't want to do anything about gun control?

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    With ad hominems, appeals to emotion and hysteria, but no actual arguments...

    Says the guy who has NOTHING but emotional and hysterical arguments with NO facts whatsoever..

    Your arguments consist of "Oh My GODS, think of the privacy!!!" and "Oh my gods, think of the corporate profits!!!!"...

    Where my arguments are a calm and rational assessment of the very real threats that this country faces...

    Your arguments are Sept 10th 2001 arguments...

    Your arguments are March 21 2016 arguments..

    Completely clueless and totally devoid of any reality..

    Well, I'll be dipped in sheet!! That IS what I have come to expect from ya!!! :D I stand corrected... heh

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet you look at kids lying dead in elementary schools and still don't want to do anything about gun control?

    Who said I don't want to do anything about gun control???

    The problem is, what the Democrats propose is NOT "gun control"... NONE of the proposals would have ANY affect on the crimes that prompted the proposals...

    They are nothing but "WOULDN'T IT BE NICE" laws that, once again, have nothing to do with the reality on the ground..

    You want to do something about dead kids at elementary schools??? Put people in there that can stop it... Duh...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    Basically personal privacy and gun rights are complex issues that can't be solved by bumper sticker arguments.

    We have been subject to a fifteen years of weaker gun control so gun manufacturers can sell more weapons (to fewer and fewer people), and at the same time our privacy rights have been weakened by e.g. the Patriot Act.

    This will seem like left wing whining to Michale, so let's balance it up. We also have seen a spectacular cultural change in gay rights and acceptance, and it is a lot easier to smoke weed not that 15 years ago.

    You win some, you lose some. Personally, given that guns are involved in 30,000 U.S. deaths per year, and terrorism is involved in less than 30, I think the urgency to stop nuts from killing school kids is more important than letting the FBI look at my phone.

    So Michale, the next time you insist that I put myself in the place of the family of people killed in a terrorist attack, tell me how you feel after you have put yourself in the place of 1,000 families killed by firearms. Otherwise let's agree to stop the convenient guilt argument.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Actually, that is EXACTLY what is being argued.. You are only looking at the ONE aspect of the argument that supports your agenda..

    Does everyone here have an "agenda"?

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    A key factor is gaining the trust of local communities. Where they have efficient and trusting relations with police, intelligence can be strikingly effective at preventing attacks. In Britain, for example, officials suggest that many would-be terrorist incidents have been foiled in the past couple of years because of information passed from minority communities to officials. The problem in Belgium appears to be that the police and other authorities are simply unable to gather enough information. This is especially true in areas of Brussels such as Molenbeek which are heavily populated by migrants from north Africa and the Middle East. - The Economist 3/22/16

    We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized. - Ted Cruz 3/22/16

    Ted is determined to build barriers between the Muslim community so he can pretend he is doing something, even though it is the exact opposite of what we know works best. Why is this fool running second in the Republican presidential race?

    Heaven only knows what Trump's suggestion will be - nuke Dearborn, MI?

  55. [55] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Says the guy who has NOTHING but emotional and hysterical arguments with NO facts whatsoever..

    Forget how to read? Quite a few facts in there if you put on your reading cap...

    Your arguments consist of "Oh My GODS, think of the privacy!!!" and "Oh my gods, think of the corporate profits!!!!"...

    And yet the only time the words: privacy, corporate or profits appear in my posts are when I have quoted you.

    Where my arguments are a calm and rational assessment of the very real threats that this country faces...

    Doublethink?

    Completely clueless and totally devoid of any reality..

    Yawn...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically personal privacy and gun rights are complex issues that can't be solved by bumper sticker arguments.

    Perhaps.. For those that want to push an agenda..

    For a knuckle-dragging ground pounder like me, the argument is simple..

    Is MY personal privacy is not worth a thousand innocent lives, a hundred innocent lives or even ONE SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE..

    How hard is that??

    This will seem like left wing whining to Michale, so let's balance it up. We also have seen a spectacular cultural change in gay rights and acceptance, and it is a lot easier to smoke weed not that 15 years ago.

    Shows the difference in our outlook.. You think the fact that it's easier to do drugs is a GOOD thing.. :^/

    I don't...

    So Michale, the next time you insist that I put myself in the place of the family of people killed in a terrorist attack, tell me how you feel after you have put yourself in the place of 1,000 families killed by firearms. Otherwise let's agree to stop the convenient guilt argument.

    You are comparing apples and oranguatans...

    In the case of terrorist attacks, MY suggestions WILL save lives..

    In the case of gun control, the laws suggested by the Left Wingery in response will have absolutely NO EFFECT on gun violence and amount to nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws..

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does everyone here have an "agenda"?

    Considering we are in an election year... I would say the answer is self-evident... :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    You win some, you lose some. Personally, given that guns are involved in 30,000 U.S. deaths per year,

    But less than 10,000 of those deaths are actual gun violence.. The bulk of your quote are suicides that have little to do with guns....

    I am all for sensible gun control laws that ACTUALLY address the issue of gun violence..

    The problem is that ANYTHING the Democrats have come up with, short of a gun ban, are nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that have absolutely NOTHING to do with combating the problem..

    The ONLY thing ya'all have that will actually have an impact is a gun ban...

    Good luck with that...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is MY personal privacy is not worth a thousand innocent lives, a hundred innocent lives or even ONE SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE..

    How hard is that??

    Apparently it was hard to be grammatically correct.. :)

    MY personal privacy is not worth a thousand innocent lives, a hundred innocent lives or even ONE SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE..

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is MY personal privacy is not worth a thousand innocent lives, a hundred innocent lives or even ONE SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE..

    How valuable are your gun rights? Australia has proven that strong gun laws eliminate multi-death shootings and has a positive effect on suicides as well.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    How valuable are your gun rights? Australia has proven that strong gun laws eliminate multi-death shootings and has a positive effect on suicides as well.

    Then get rid of the 2nd Amendment and you can have your gun ban in the US... :D

    The comparison falls short however... Letting people in on my Aunt Matilda's Cookie Recipe doesn't threaten my life..

    Me going about unarmed does...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    neilm,

    "I don't use teleprompters," he said in January, criticizing Hillary Clinton for using one.

    Actually, I think he criticized her for that just yesterday. I can't be sure because I'm really not fluent in Palinese and when cancervatives say teleprompter it seems a lot like they're saying Benghazi!™, utterly meaningless and hypocritical gibberish that signifies membership in the poorly-educated, low-info tribe.

    Here's what he said:

    here's a woman that's talk she's just reading it of a teleprompter all she does believe me they write that for her look at the job she probably in history although I think that John Kerry may be even worse I'm not sure after the Iran deal but look at what she's done

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's do a deal - we'll get rid of the 2nd and 4th amendments, then see which we actually miss.

  64. [64] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Does everyone here have an "agenda"?

    I used to have one...but then i switched to using the calendar on my smart phone...

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    here's a woman that's talk she's just reading it of a teleprompter all she does believe me they write that for her look at the job she probably in history although I think that John Kerry may be even worse I'm not sure after the Iran deal but look at what she's done

    Want a good laugh?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-most-baffling-moments-from-donald-trumps-washington-post-ed-board-interview/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na

    Talk about a delicate ego? Trump just can't let the 'hands' thing go. You start to wonder, doth the small handed vulgarian protest too much?

  66. [66] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump just can't let the 'hands' thing go.

    Drumpf is all about his brand. I think he knows that his groupies are size queens.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Let's do a deal - we'll get rid of the 2nd and 4th amendments, then see which we actually miss.

    "Officer-level thinking, Lieutenant."
    -Captain James T. Kirk

    Good luck.. Let me know how that works out for you.. :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good article on the authoritarian tendencies that Trump is playing to (probably unconsciously).

    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good article on the authoritarian tendencies that Trump is playing to (probably unconsciously).

    I just love watching ya'all go batshit hysterical crazy over Trump...

    Ya'all remind me of those batshit hysterical crazy LEFT Wingers who pounced on ANYTHING that was detrimental, no matter HOW far-fetched and crazy it is..

    I get it. Ya'all WANT to believe.. :D

    It's funny... :D

    "That's real funny to me... Heh But ya'all ain't laughin'.."
    -James Edwards, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just love watching ya'all go batshit hysterical crazy over Trump...

    Ya'all remind me of those batshit hysterical crazy LEFT Wingers who pounced on ANYTHING that was detrimental, no matter HOW far-fetched and crazy it is..

    I get it. Ya'all WANT to believe.. :D

    It's funny... :D

    Wow.. I musta been tired last night..

    Let me try again...

    =================
    I just love watching ya'all go batshit hysterical crazy over Trump...

    Ya'all remind me of those batshit hysterical crazy RIGHT Wingers who pounced on ANYTHING about Obama that was even slightly detrimental, no matter HOW far-fetched and crazy it is..

    I get it. Ya'all WANT to believe that Trump is Hitler reincarnated.... :D

    It's funny... :D
    =============

    There.. Makes much more sense now..

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    PIERS MORGAN: When it comes to terror, isn’t it time we started listening seriously to Trump?

    How many more?
    That’s all I could think this morning as news broke of yet another ISIS terror attack, this time in Brussels.
    How many more innocent men, women and children are going to be blown to pieces by these murderous bastards?
    How many more airports, train stations, sports stadiums, restaurants or concert halls will be obliterated in a hail of suicide bombs and bullets?
    How many more world leaders will wring their hands on national television afterwards and spout pointless platitudes about the ‘poor brave victims’ and ‘heroic emergency services’?
    How many taunting, gleeful claims of responsibility will the despicable perpetrators of these evil crimes be able to issue?
    I’m sick of this, aren’t you?
    Sick of feeling sick about such endless, senseless barbarism.
    And the worst thing about it is that I see no end.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3504893/PIERS-MORGAN-comes-terror-isn-t-time-started-listening-seriously-Trump.html

    He may be a moron on Gun Control but he sure gets responding to terrorism..

    Newsflash for the Left Wingery... TALKING to terrorists NEVER works and invites more terrorism...

    Trump is the ONLY candidate with an actual PLAN for dealing with ISIS.. Hillary's "plan" is nothing more than a continuation of Obama's so-called plan...

    A plan that has REALLY worked so far.. :^/ As San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels how well.. :^/

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump is the ONLY candidate with an actual PLAN for dealing with ISIS..

    Trumps PLAN is to have our military act as terrorists, which doesn't stop terrorism! No one has a working plan on what we should do to stop terrorism....if they did we would not still be dealing with ISIS. The fact is that there will never be a way to end extremists from committing these acts that will come from any military body. It will only come when people feel that they are a part of their society. Republicans' call to bar Muslims from entering our country and to patrol Muslim neighborhoods only serves to fuel people's disdain for their community. Their reaction to these acts won't protect us from terrorism, it only serves to cause more acts of terrorism.

  73. [73] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump is the ONLY candidate with an actual PLAN for dealing with ISIS..

    Trumps PLAN is to have our military act as terrorists, which doesn't stop terrorism! No one has a working plan on what we should do to stop terrorism....if they did we would not still be dealing with ISIS. The fact is that there will never be a way to end extremists from committing these acts that will come from any military body. It will only come when people feel that they are a part of their society. Republicans' call to bar Muslims from entering our country and to patrol Muslim neighborhoods only serves to fuel people's disdain for their community. Their reaction to these acts won't protect us from terrorism, it only serves to cause more acts of terrorism.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Trumps PLAN is to have our military act as terrorists,

    For example??

    Please include with your answer your definition of 'terrorism'...

    ! No one has a working plan on what we should do to stop terrorism....

    I completely agree.. Obama's plan is NOT WORKING...

    We are in complete agreement..

    The fact is that there will never be a way to end extremists from committing these acts that will come from any military body. It will only come when people feel that they are a part of their society.

    Ahhhh.. So we should HUG them and welcome them with open arms.. THAT is your way to stop terrorism??? REALLY???

    Republicans' call to bar Muslims from entering our country and to patrol Muslim neighborhoods only serves to fuel people's disdain for their community.

    There is no Republican call to bar muslims from entering our country..

    But why let FACTS intrude on a good hysterical rant...

    Their reaction to these acts won't protect us from terrorism, it only serves to cause more acts of terrorism.

    So, you think their terrorism is justified because some people are mean to muslims...

    Gotcha.... :^/

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    I bet people in Brussels support screening muslims before they enter the country..

    I bet people in San Bernardino and Paris ALSO support screen muslims before they enter the country..

    I also bet that if anyone here had lost loved ones to muslim terrorism, you would ALSO support screening muslims before they enter the country...

    Am I wrong??

    Of course I am not wrong...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72] ListenWhenYouHear: yep.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    [72] ListenWhenYouHear: yep.

    72?? Or 73?? :D heh

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.