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 ...
You’ve not asked me before what my most important issue is. It’s illegal aliens/immigration/the border.
Rubio won’t do anything about it, nor will Bush. Cruz might give it a weak stab, but that’s it. I support Trump b/c we haven’t tried anyone like him before. We’ve tried Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Christie, etc before (at least many like them). Maybe he’s bamboozling us? My clairvoyance is on the fritz so I really don’t know, but neither do you.
Burning the GOPe to the ground is just a fringe benefit.
This is simply not true. We know that Cruz and Rubio have advocated for a border wall. I believe Bush has too.
Trump has suggested that he will deport all illegals (which may or may not be practical), but he has also said that they can return -which is still amnesty.
On the other hand, Trump talks tough, won't be pushed around, and is good at getting things done. But there is nothing to suggest that he will be any better at solving our immigration or national security problems than either of his other two main competitors.
To me, all of this finger pointing and demonization of individual candidates seems a lot like tribalism.
But yes, we do know from Trump's life history that he lies all the time. It's not because he is immoral though. It's because he is a businessman. He feels like due diligence is the obligation of the counterparty, and that anything legal done in the interest of bringing a deal to closure is acceptable.
They said it. Do you actually believe Rubio and Bush would do it? Governor "Act of Love" and Senator "Support Amnesty or You're a Racist"? I sure as hell don't.
he has also said that they can return -which is still amnesty.
Depends on how he lets them in. If there's no screening whatsoever and we rubber stamp anyone/everyone who floods through his big, beautiful wall, then, yes. Does that sound like the likely course of action?
But there is nothing to suggest that he will be any better at solving our immigration or national security problems than either of his other two main competitors.
No, but there's nothing to suggest that he'd be any worse than the clown show running the place for the last few decades either.
To me, all of this finger pointing and demonization of individual candidates seems a lot like tribalism.
In some cases. Some folks have genuine reasons for disliking particular candidates. Is it tribalism to understand who and what Lindsey Graham is and call him as such? Bush and Rubio have shown us who they are on numerous occasions; they are known quantities, and I don't believe they're worth the effort to stand in line and vote. Cruz is OK, but he's basically the right-wing Obama. He has very little experience, he's hell on wheels when he speaks (especially in debates, his true medium), and he thinks tactically rather than strategically which is why he has no influence left in the Senate. I don't buy the "birther" thing, but I've seen that issue hotly debated here for years, so I don't care if people raise it in public.
Trump is very much a flawed man, but he's a fascinating candidate with a hell of a lot of practical experience running a massive organization and doing it well.
They said it. Do you actually believe Rubio and Bush would do it? Governor "Act of Love" and Senator "Support Amnesty or You're a Racist"? I sure as hell don't.
he has also said that they can return -which is still amnesty.
Depends on how he lets them in. If there's no screening whatsoever and we rubber stamp anyone/everyone who floods through his big, beautiful wall, then, yes. Does that sound like the likely course of action?
But there is nothing to suggest that he will be any better at solving our immigration or national security problems than either of his other two main competitors.
No, but there's nothing to suggest that he'd be any worse than the clown show running the place for the last few decades either.
To me, all of this finger pointing and demonization of individual candidates seems a lot like tribalism.
In some cases. Some folks have genuine reasons for disliking particular candidates. Is it tribalism to understand who and what Lindsey Graham is and call him as such? Bush and Rubio have shown us who they are on numerous occasions; they are known quantities, and I don't believe they're worth the effort to stand in line and vote. Cruz is OK, but he's basically the right-wing Obama. He has very little experience, he's hell on wheels when he speaks (especially in debates, his true medium), and he thinks tactically rather than strategically which is why he has no influence left in the Senate. I don't buy the "birther" thing, but I've seen that issue hotly debated here for years, so I don't care if people raise it in public.
Trump is very much a flawed man, but he's a fascinating candidate with a hell of a lot of practical experience running a massive organization and doing it well.
Look, I'm not telling you not to vote for Trump. I still might vote for him myself. On a selfish level, he is easily the candidate who would be most useful to me personally in the White House.
But that's what interests me about this this conversation. What I want to know from you is if your main interest is the destruction of the GOP Establishment (a term that does not accurately apply to either of Trump's two main challengers -no matter how much you would like it to) or the insurance that Hillary Clinton not be our next president. None of the useful arguments that you have made for Trump thus far seem to be both unique to him and definitely based on fact.
Nevertheless, I am enjoying this conversation and I am learning from it. I hope you don't think I am trying to pick a fight with you. As I said, it is entirely likely that I will end up voting for Trump (though for very different reasons from you, I think), but it is still not clear to me what motivates the rabid Trump supporter.
Thanks.
I couldn’t tell you as I’m not a “rabid Trump supporter.” I find him to be the most interesting candidate, the others bore me to tears or have openly cursed the conservative base. I’m willing to give Trump a shot due to the legion of failures that we’ve been presented as “real candidates” by the establishment.
So perhaps "rabid Trump supporter" is the wrong term. A better description of your sentiment might be that you are "rabidly opposed" to anyone who calls him or herself a Republican?
Believe me, I'm not trying to talk you or anyone else out of voting for Trump, but this entire rationale seems a bit illogical to me: "I am a conservative who has given up on the Republicans, so to make a point, I am going to vote for a guy who claimed to be a liberal a year ago, but now says he is a conservative."
I do think Trump is telling the truth when he says that he wants to address traditionally conservative concerns like immigration, and I have watched him for long enough to respect the ability he has to cut through bullshit and get a job done. And, as I said, I think all politicians lie, so I'm less concerned about Trump's honesty. But it still seems to me that your primary interest in this election is not beating Hillary Clinton but in teaching the GOP Establishment a lesson. Do I have that right?
I say that because it sounds to me like you are discounting the DNC and the Clinton's ability to win elections they shouldn't win.
Rabidly opposed to status quo leadership, maybe?
I think it was in the 2008 debates when Gingrich spoke on how many politicians are not interested in fixing anything, they just want to "manage the decay." I thought he was absolutely right, and with the exception of Trump, Carson, and probably Cruz, that's exactly what this current crop is looking to do.
I find that notion unacceptable.
It is interesting that you mention Gingrich, because I favored him in 2012. I am convinced to this day that he would have won.
Unfortunately, he got destroyed in forums like this website for not passing the conservative purity test. Now, four years later, Trump is the antithesis of the conservative purity test. By most standards, he fails on every level. But I see many of the people who could not tolerate the mention of the name Gingrich are now all-in for Trump. Believe it or not, some of these same FReepers even talked about Gingrich's marital infidelities. It's bizarre to say the least.
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.