It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How important is the V.P. selection going to be in the election?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

So important.




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Not to mention she lost the election for John McCain.
I hope he does pick her. Guaranteed loss.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Several good candidates out of Virginia are on her short list. Tim Kain or Mark Warner.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Bernie would never join trump. Have you heard what he says about the man? Never gonna happen. Give Bernie some credit please.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Then she can quit when she thinks it's too hard.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Again real important. God almighty really?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

"Hillary's VP will be a non-issue as her supporters won't be swayed whatsoever. She could pick one of the dead Benghazi victims and her sychophants will still pull the lever for her. "

I started to laugh at this until I realized how accurate a statement it is.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Perot lost because he referred to African-Americans as "You people" and then claimed he was being targeted by the black Panthers.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I miss Perot. I learned how to do a pretty spot on impression of him, but of course, he's irrelevant now, so kind of a waste now, hehe...

I think he lost because he was an independent candidate. Simple as that. He didn't have the backing of any major party, and got press only when he did something out there. Not to mention, social media wasn't what it is now. Had it been, you'd have seen him probably surge as much as Bernie did, and for the same reasons.
edit on 17-5-2016 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gazrok
I miss Perot. I learned how to do a pretty spot on impression of him, but of course, he's irrelevant now, so kind of a waste now, hehe...

I think he lost because he was an independent candidate. Simple as that. He didn't have the backing of any major party, and got press only when he did something out there. Not to mention, social media wasn't what it is now. Had it been, you'd have seen him probably surge as much as Bernie did, and for the same reasons.


Could you explain that last sentence? I miss the connection.
edit on 17-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: amazing

Perot lost because he referred to African-Americans as "You people" and then claimed he was being targeted by the black Panthers.


That's just one part of it. It all started going down hill when his VP couldn't articulate a sentence and seemed older than Moses.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: nwtrucker

Here's a very good description of the position from someone that's made the shortlist (apparently)

“Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.”


CAMERON: One of the things you talked about last night was the flexibility the vice president has.

PALIN: Yeah.

CAMERON: Uh. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: Uh. That thankfully our founders were wise enough to say we have this position and it’s constitutional — vice president will be able to be not only the position flexible, but it’s gonna be those other duties as assigned by the president. A simple thing.


“Aw, that’s something that Piper would ask me, as a second grader, also. That’s a great question, Brandon, and a vice president has a really great job, because not only are they there to support the President agenda, they’re like a team member, the teammate to that President. But also, they’re in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it’s a great job and I look forward to having that job.” [Emphasis added]

The vice president isn’t “in charge of” the Senate. Not in any way. (Incidentally, we included all three quotes to prove that her debate answer wasn’t a one-off gaffe. She clearly didn’t know, nor was she interested in learning the correct answer.)

So, Vice President is a very important position - just ask Dick Cheney. I hope our winner will have chosen wisely



Job Interview:
HR Recruiter: So, Mr. Smith, what what you think you'd be a good department manager here at XYZ Company?
Mr. Smith: What is it with you hiring people and your 'gotcha' questions?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Bernie would never join trump. Have you heard what he says about the man? Never gonna happen. Give Bernie some credit please.


Then Bernie is not as smart as he ought to be or Bernie supporters pretend. A Trump-Bernie ticket would annihilate Hillary and bring cohesion between the parties or effectively destroy both parties. It would be a new and awesome paradigm shift.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   


Could you explain that last sentence? I miss the connection.


Back in '92, social media simply wasn't really there. It took off in the late 90's.

Had it existed back then, we would have seen Ross Perot with a LOT more popularity, pretty much on par with the name recognition and youth support of Bernie Sanders.

Not sure I can be any clearer, as I'm not sure what you're looking for, so hope that helps!



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok


It flummoxed me for a bit. One an avowed socialist the other a Billionaire capitalist....



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join