Per the link: "When asked by ABC News whether he would have a woman or minority as his vice president, Trump did not rule it out. 'I think it's likely we would have somebody, but we don't do it for any specific reason. We're looking for absolute competence.' " What is the proper response from a Republican when asked if he will have a woman or minority as a running mate? I mean, if saying "I'm not going to pick a woman or minority just because they're a woman or minority; I'm going to pick the best person" isn't good enough, what more should he have said that wouldn't simply be chalked up to "political correctness"?
So, basically he's saying we might have a woman or minority on the ticket, but we are looking for someone that is competent so no...
Again, where did he say "no", or even imply it? The question was specifically "Will you have a woman or minority?" He said "Possibly, but I won't pick someone specifically for that reason." It's amazing that saying that a selection will be made solely on merit, without regard to color or gender, is somehow considered to be discriminatory.
What's fascinating to me is this all stemmed from the campaign manager saying that they're unlikely to pick a female or minority for fear of it being perceived as pandering. Shockingly, when a quote from Trump is provided suggesting that he is more willing to select a female or minority than his campaign manager suggested, the response is that it is solely for the sake of political correctness. Essentially, the Trump critics are proving the campaign manager correct based on their unwillingness to take Trump's own words at face value. Which means that their presumptions of discrimination are exactly what led to the campaign manager's comments in the first place.
Warren, and Sanders to some degree, have lost pretty much any and all credibility and trust by capitulating to Hillary and her evil empire of banks and insurance companies raping Real Americans, and Arab nations murdering women and gays. She is the sworn enemy they built their fame on and now they are her fawning lap dogs. So pathetic. The DNC is circling the drain as we post.
Ah yes, of course the woman is the one raping "Real Americans" (I guess I'm not real) and the candidate who supports gay rights is murdering us. I doubt if Sanders or Warren ever had credibility with Maris. So nothing for them to lose. They may as well do what they want, as will I, as will the rest of the "not-Real Americans". The thread was NOT intended to be a candidate debate or (sigh) yet another opportunity for white dudes to say "but it's all about me"!!!! However...
Sorry for ruining your thread by calling out your inaccurate statement. I'll leave you to return it to its former glory.
Well, from my perspective there are several things going on here simultaneously: 1) The left jumps on the right just as the right jumps on the left. So with regards to your thinking, it mostly comes from this issue. 2) The campaign manager is traditionally thought of as an extension of the candidate. 3) the timing in this situation leads to Trump looking iffy on the topic. First the campaign manager says what he says, then there is a blow up in the news, then Trump clarifies. It appears to many (myself including) that Trump realized he was in a firestorm and was trying to fix it. leading me to believe that his quotes were to get out of the flame, not a true representation of his beliefs. I do not know if I am correct, this is just what we as people do, assess and judge based on our own experiences and biases.
Geez! What is really unpresidential, is to claim you are something just to get a step up in preference ranking for a position, even though you can't back it up.
Ya, I don't give a shit about that. First, I don't disbelieve her, second, even if she did do that, it would have been the 100th least objectionable thing that this years candidates (including Hillary and especially Trump) have done. In context, it's just tiny and inconsequential to me. That was your original question, do I care about this? And my answer is a resounding "not in the fucking least!"
To go back on topic to VP picks, my guess is Trump is gonna land Condi. Not because of her ethnicity or gender, but because she is a very qualified person.
That would be a great choice for him, but I wonder if she would want to be Trumps VP. Is she campaigning for him?
Idk, but I bet if he officially offers it to her, she'd accept. It'd be like Ryan and the speaker of the house situation... Probably say they're uninterested until offered.
For Hillary, I was kind of intrigued when I read that Eric Garcetti, mayor of LA, was being considered. Don't know much about him, although I remember his dad. For Trump, I know who the VP pick is going to be. It's going to be Ivanka. barfo
Most people in contention are those who have made comments in support of the candidate even if they say they aren't interested in the job. I just did a quick search and couldn't find any from condi, although I may have missed some.
