Posted on 07/09/2016 11:04:55 AM PDT by conservative98
Edited on 07/09/2016 11:52:16 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Flynn, 57, a registered Democrat but fierce critic of President Obama, previously ran the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The persons, who spoke with The Washington Post on Saturday, requested anonymity to discuss their private conversations in recent days with Trump
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What have the Republicans done to earn it?
Ask a few of them how they feel about Black separatists shooting cops, or "Free" Everything. Not interested in being their dubious allies.
I think the candidate fulfills one aspect on Trump’s wish list of a candidate with some military experience. But how does naming a registered Democrat retired general with no traditional political experience mesh with Trump’s prior statements that he would like to have someone with traditional political experience who knows the Congressional and DC ropes to offset his light experience in this area? I think the political experience aspect is more important. After all he can name a retired general as his Sec of Defense
and get as much input as if he were his VP.
The last two military VP candidates, altho ones with great credentials, proved to be poor candidates. This is not their battlefield.
People get hung up on labels. Today, JFK would probably be to the right of anyone currently considered.
And yet, he is stunningly wrong about his history with regards to the Democrat Party in 1860.
That is not a plus.
It’s good to know that you have the inside track of how a billionaire, international business tycoon is considering the skills and attributes of his VP.
Strictly speaking he’s also considering Chris Christie and Joanie Ernst. But they aren’t expected to make the cut either.
Uh oh. Water board the bastard!
Let’s remember that that paragon of virtue and integrity James Comey WAS a registered Republican.
The fact that Trump is not a conservative has driven his supporters to the brink of insanity in defending his dubious positions on a number of past -- and current -- issues. He's getting my vote because Hillary is worse. A lot worse. Period. He is not better, in any sense, than real conservative Republicans, who DO exist, and who are FAR preferable. And if he picks a Democrat as a running mate, I'll have to reconsider whether he really is a superior alternative to Grandma Nixon.
Ok but what happened to that “has to be able to help me pass my agenda in congress” stuff? I’m sure the general is great and this would send a certain message, but Trump should be reassuring independents. fence-sitter, Berniebots. This feels like a Stockdale move. (Nothing against Stockdale, he just didn’t position Perot as a serious candidate)
I don’t like Jim Webb too much, but if trump picked him for a running mate it will be the biggest landslide in history.
No Democrats. NoFW.
OK. Fine with me. Can't happen too soon.
Members of the tribalist party, the party of identity politics, the party of "free" everything, the party of corruption, the party of let every third world savage on the planet into the country to freeload, the party of envy, slander and greed ... don't belong on the ticket of a conservative Party.
I've been listening to Trump supporters claim that his is a "real" and "authentic" form of conservatism. Not if he has someone from that party as his running mate, he isn't.
No Democrats. NoFW.
Sadly too true.
Well, you must just know people better than I do.
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.