Posted on 01/20/2016 10:37:47 AM PST by presidio9
Donald Trump said he doesn't think Sarah Palin would be interested in becoming his running mate and trying for a second time to become vice president.
"I don't think she'd want to do it," Trump said, although he added that he isn't thinking that far ahead.
Appearing on NBC's "Today" show on Wednesday morning after Palin's high-profile endorsement of his White House bid, Trump deflected repeated questions about the 2008 vice presidential candidate as a potential 2016 running mate.
Palin has not raised the matter with the GOP frontrunner.
"As far as Sarah is concerned, never asked me about that, never asked me about anything else, just wanted to support," Trump said.
"You know, I really don't get into it right now. That question is always asked to me, who do you have in mind, and I don't even think about VP right now," he said. "I just want to win. I've always been a closer."
But Trump said Palin could certainly be a part of his administration.
"Certainly there would be a role somewhere in the administration, if she wanted -- and I'm not sure that she does want that -- but there would certainly be a role."
Palin told CNN's Jake Tapper last September she might be interested in becoming energy secretary.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Watching it now, people should be booing this traitor why aren't they?
Why do you think Palin is a traitor?
Palin is trying to raise a mentally challenged child so I don’t see her wanting to work and travel constantly. Energy Sec would be a good job for her.
A: No, Idaho
A: Alaska has been a state for 59 years.
A: Idaho was definitely a state when Palin was born in 1964.
&&&
Now my question: Why do you ask such dumb questions?
My girlfriend(not politically astute or well read) assured me last night as I was watching Trump’s announcement that of course she got the nod.
Rubio immediately, without hesitation, stabbed the United States in the back the first chance he got. I think I know what you’re talking about with Trump, but, so far, there’s no contest. I would vote for Hillary before I voted for Rubio. That guy is scum.
I'm disagreeing with you yet, but I'm not sure what, specifically, you are talking about.
His pursuit of amnesty with the “gang of 8.” Down to playing the race card on those who didn’t like what he was doing.
Rubio just the other day admitted that he is for amnesty. He was part of Gang of 8 and has supported admitting Syrian “refugees”.
I'm not a Rubio fan, but this is as good as any example of a problem I see more and more of here on FR: Hyperbole for no purpose.
Rubio joined the Senate in 2011. Comprehensive Immigration wasn't debated until 2013. So this was hardly "the first chance he got."
Comprehensive Immigration failed. So Rubio did not stab his country in the back, even if (as you suggest) he intended to.
More crap thrown on the wall by the MSM to both divide and feed the party most prone to eating their own.........
This incorrectly states Rubio's position on Syrian refugees, which is, I believe, that he doesn't support admitting anyone we cannot vet -and that it will be very difficult to vet anyone.
Essentially this is the same position that Donald Trump has, except for the fact that it is not purposelessly belligerent. And I'm a Trump fan saying this.
My mistake. His second or third chance. All is forgiven. I guess I am a racist.
oh she’s a young’un.
thanx
Good Lord I left off the </s>
You just can't help yourself I guess.
With the amplification and hyperbole that is, not racism.
Look the original point was not "Marco Rubio would be a great president."
The point was that Trump has clearly given Rubio some thought. If you have a problem with that, it is likely because you are not being objective.
The follow-up to that was that Rubio does actually make some sense as a VP candidate (where he would be in a position to do precisely nothing to oppose the immigration policies that Trump has proposed).
On a personal level, to me immigration is not the most important issue for our next president to solve. To me it will always be the sanctity of human life and the protection of those who are unable to protect themselves.
On that issue, Donald Trump is, by far, the least convincing of the three remaining viable candidates.
Spare me the lectures. Rubio has no integrity. He’s tried to sell us down the river before, there’s no reason to believe he won’t again. You have your pet issue, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t make Rubio’s treachery OK.
Which is exactly the sort of thing this NYer could say about Donald Trump. With more conviction actually. A year ago he endorsed Bill DeBlasio.
Yeah, he might, but I’m willing to take the chance if we can burn the GOPe to the ground.
OK. Just so I understand: Your most important issue in this election is not preventing Hillary Clinton for becoming president, but destroying the GOP Establishment -which I assume you identify as any politician who disagrees with Donald Trump.
I'm not criticizing you here, mind you. I'm genuinely interested in how you answer this.
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.