Posted on 05/20/2016 7:00:52 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Donald Trump has hired hundreds of people throughout his career and soared to national fame as the star of a reality TV show dubbed the "ultimate job interview."
Now, as the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Trump is beginning the most consequential interview process of his lifetime: choosing a vice president.
While Trump has never before had to pick a political partner, he has had plenty of practice sifting through resumes and hand-picking executives to help run his real estate empire. Four current and past senior managers at the Trump Organization who agreed to speak with CNN -- including the general managers of the Trump golf course in Los Angeles and the Trump International Hotel in New York -- shed light on how Trump deliberates over his corporate hires -- and what kind of qualities Trump likes in a No. 2.
"Many of the same qualities that he would look for for someone to work closely with him within his organization are going to apply to his search for a VP," said Jill Martin, vice president and assistant general counsel for the Trump Organization.
Deeply loyal
Martin and others describe a boss who demands deep loyalty, both to him and his franchise. He is drawn to conventional markers of prestige, such as Ivy League degrees or past employment at well-known firms. He can be somewhat of a micromanager, at times involved in even the minutiae of decorating decisions throughout his numerous properties. Despite exerting this level of control, he also takes to employees who push back and speak their minds -- as long as they remember he is u
(Excerpt) Read more at wgal.com ...
I am sure you are able to discern the differences. Many of our FRiends here are also able to discern the differences. At least those who are 'average adult conservatives'. But that was not the point of my post. And it was not just about Carter...had a lot more to do with Mittens, the POS who ran in 2012 - ran away from O'Dumbo so O'Dumbo could have a 2nd term.
Mittens is not, nor ever has been a conservative. From some posts I read on this forum it is apparent that we have among us those who are not conservative. Some even thought Mittens was a fine 'conservative' candidate...discernment lacking in my not so humble opinion.
Two times now I have had to hold my nose, voting in 2008 and 2012. Now I get to vote for a candidate I whole heartedly support, Donald J Trump. This time I will not be voting against a candidate. I will be voting for my candidate!
Thank you for your reply. Romney is of less concern to me in this discussion than Carter simply because Carter had four years as POTUS and Romney didn’t. However, I agree with you one hundred percent that Romney was and is a liberal to his core, and that it took great intestinal fortitude, coupled with a dread of what Obama could do with four more years, to vote for Mitt.
[Btw, I am all in for Trump, voted for him in the primary and, if God gives me life, will VERY enthusiastically vote for him in the General. :) ]
Now, GGpa, please let me ask you another question. (Bear with me, if you will; it takes a bit of setup.)
Suppose you came across the following in the forum:
“Trump will not reduce the size of government. He may try to bend it to his purposes but that’s as far as he will get. The idea that Trump will bring in some sort of revolution is a fanatasy.”
Now, bearing in mind that the government bureaucracy is a monstrous, gargantuan, vast, inefficient, corrupt, bloated, money-sucking, economy-killing nightmare, and that such waste, fraud and abusive is anathema to good businessmen/corporate execs, let’s suppose you respond that the poster knows nothing either about business or good execs.
To make a long story shorter, the discussion comes to focus on Carter. The claim is made that since he was a businessman and Trump is a businessman, and Carter didn’t reduce the size of government, neither will Trump.
Now here is my question. Isn’t it reasonable to posit that Carter and Trump are polar opposites? So to what purpose would a *conservative* use Carter’s example to demonstrate that Trump will leave the government bureaucracy just as massive, unwieldy, bloated, inefficient and corrupt as he found it? Can you honestly picture any conservative doing that in good faith?
abusive = abuse
(Must have been auto correct.)
The 'penny for your thoughts' answer is Carter was a Leftist Democrat, chosen by David Rockefeller. Neither Carter nor David R had any wish to see anything other than a massive, unwieldy, bloated, inefficient, corrupt gov't bureaucracy.
Trump built his success on coming in under budget and ahead of schedule, time after time. He has said he will balance the budget and reduce/eliminate the debt and rebuild the military without raising taxes. To do all that requires taking the bloat, inefficiencies, corruption out of gov't.
I believe Trump. And I think a Gingrich as Chief of Staff will help him accomplish what he says he will do.
If loyalty is the first priority then it won’t be Gingrich.
I agree absolutely with everything you wrote. It is all but inconceivable that Trump will be unable to reduce the worst of the grotesquely oversized bureaucracy. I would also vastly prefer Gingrich as chief of staff to veep,
We’re sympatico!
What does Trump want in a VP? His top execs take a guess (some interesting intel)
May 21, 2016 at 1:43:18 PM EDT · 76 of 106
Fantasywriter to FreedomNotSafety
You said yourself you dislike Trump. Shall I dig back in your posting history to discover whether you had anything good to say about Cruz?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies
You just destroyed your case. An offer to to look back and see whether or not you praised Cruz is NOT the same as saying you support him. It’s the opposite, inasmuch as it’s stating the facts, as yet, are unknown.
And how can you object to a search for facts anyway? Between your “Trumpnuts” comment and the never-ending high-horse you’ve been on since the merest *suggestion* that you might be a Cruz supporter, how can you object to clarification? If you’re going to insult all Trump supporters and have a cow at the barest implication that you *might* support Cruz, who’s left? Sanders?
Are you sticking with your assertion that Trump will cut 100,000s of government jobs? Do you still assert that he will do this because he is a successful businessman unlike any other to hold office?
I don’t object.. You derided my dislike for Trump and then said you would go looking in my posts for mine supposed support of Cruz. You found no such support did you? You linked my dislike for Trump with an imagined, by you, support for Cruz.
All this was done because I challenged your statement that Trump Would cut 100,000s of government jobs. Your reply to my challenge was that I knew squat about how a businessman or exec operates. i replied that Trumps success in business would not necessarily be the reason he would be successful as president.
You also said you were done discussing this with me but obviously you don’t mean what you say.
In my posts did you happen to notice that I say mostly good things about Trump? Unlike you I have never been a Cruz supporter.
I did not realize the term Trumpnut was a trigger word amongst some of his supporters. But so far you have not supported your claim that Trump will fire 100,000s of government workers.
I’ve met a very wonderful, singular Christian who urged me to stop bickering with you. I’m taking his advice. I do suggest, however, that you double check your facts. I’ve only asserted that Trump will cut government jobs; I never estimated how many.
You in fact did not make the orginal assertion. I did not even make my original post on this thread to you but to freeper yefragetuwrabrumuy. That feeeper did indeed use those numbers and you saw fit to way in on my post to the contrary. So you now agree with me that his assertion that Trump will cut 100,000s of government jobs will not happen? I agree with tou that Trump will cut some jobs. I will also venture out on a limb and say he will also create some government jobs.
In fairness to that freeper i was hyperbolic in my repsonse to his use of, by my perception, hyperbolic numbers.
I consider myself to be a singular Christian as well. So you have now met two. Maybe not wonderful but definetly singular.
My thoughts are similar. Rand Paul is the perfect VP candidate for a Trump-led ticket to pull landslide numbers among independents, bring many disaffected Republicans back into the fold, and to attract crossover votes from disaffected Democrats.
I also think that Trump picking Paul as the first opponent to knock off the stage was because Trump perceived him to be the strongest of his 16 competitors, and the one most necessary to remove from the contest for Trump to win.
Rand "Audit the Fed" Paul fits that requirement perfectly. He'd also be a more than willing and able partner to help in the cleanup efforts with Trump.
A good unconventional choice for what will be a decidedly unconventional President.
Excellent point. A party unifier ( Bush 1 ) to keep the E-GOP happy ain't gonna work, for Trump or us, A figure head to go to funerals is just so yesterday, we don't need that either. I forgot about the audit the Fed angle. Paul is enough of an iconoclast to make many in the beltway to use Savage lingo unnnncomfortable...
I honestly have no input one way or the other re the number of jobs a President Trump would eliminate. I have only the conviction that he would downsize, both as a function of his successful businessman’s revulsion toward obscene bureaucratic bloat, and in keeping with his promise to reduce the deficit and work toward a balanced budget.
Blessings to you and yours, FreedomNotSafety, now and forever.
My twenty-something children who emphatically state they exercise their voting rights by NOT voting, may actually consider participating in the election process if Rand Paul were on the ticket. They are huge Ron Paul supporters... What can I say.
Rand picked himself to get knocked out early. It wasn’t 30 seconds into the first debate when Rand attacked Trump for not being a “real Republican.”
It was pathetic. Ron Paul was so popular because he wasn’t a partisan hack, he was an outsider. Rand thought it would be a good idea to repudiate all that and position himself as a party hack and tell everyone that Trump was the maverick.
Mind-bogglingly stupid move by Rand.
There’s quite a bit about how things went down with the Rand Paul campaign I’m still waiting on answers for... such as why he didn’t leverage the support of the liberty movement, and why he was so quick to fold up shop after Iowa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.