What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Unofficial Trump running mate thread. (1 Viewer)

I really though we would never hear from Trump again.  Biden is failing so bad only 8 months in he might springboard Trump back into the White House on his own.
Why exactly?  It seems pretty obvious he's not going anywhere any time soon and will be part of the GOP as long as they'll have him.  He are witnessing a major example of the cult of personality.  

 
Why exactly?  It seems pretty obvious he's not going anywhere any time soon and will be part of the GOP as long as they'll have him.
He would burn the GOP to the ground so long as he could be king of the ashes.  That’s why I laugh when people said Trump would play kingmaker.  Malignant narcissists, which Trump clearly is, don’t play kingmaker.  They play King.  

The scary part is what would happen if he actually won the election.  Democracy would be in big trouble because Trump would unquestionably abuse the office more than he did the first time to not only benefit himself, but also to settle scores.  

The saving grace is that I think most rational Americans see him for what he is and are not prepared to overlook it simply because the policies that come with the carnage might benefit them financially in some real or perceived way.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Went to Bovada to examine odds and there's really nothing new to report.  At least with regards to the US election.....Trump the fave for GOP and Biden or Harris the fave for DEM with the DEMs holding the pole position to win in 2024.  :yawn:

But then something caught my eye at the bottom of the page!  Odds To Win 2022 Presidential Election In The Philippines

Manny Pacquiao +110 to be the next president?  Wow......

But that not why we here!   

At +1200 is a candidate called BongBong Marcus and if we can't get behind BongBong what exactly are we doing here, folks?  
Bongbong is now +130 and Manny is up to +400

 
I actually think it will be Pompeo. He brings experience and a sense of "calm" to Trumps outlandish behavior.

Eta: if Trump is the nominee, I think he hurts the Republicans chance to win back the White House. 


Running the hypothetical, Trump would ask a woman to be VP. I don't see Nikki Haley running lame duck when she would be the current presumptive favorite for 2024. That leaves Kristi Noem. Who might take it if offered but it's actually a massive step down in power. The reality of the situation is that age timelines operate as critical junctures for women in the public eye. Noem is outside her practical window at this point. Candace Owens has no political experience and would not survive a true hard vetting into her life. I'll leave that there.

Kayleigh McEnany. She is already beloved by the MAGA base and would do much better to appeal to suburban women. As a bonus, lots of CNN analysts would refuse to attack her. They just wouldn't do it as she has a personal relationship with many of them. While she was embattled and attacked by the press corps almost non stop, she is still widely respected in that industry. She would destroy anyone in a debate. Reading the tealeaves, she understands she would need to go full Bulworth here.  Trump already has assessed her loyalty.

The failures of Jen Psaki will only raise McEnany's profile. It's unfortunate that because she's linked to the Trump administration that many will underestimate her. Give her access to the national daily media cycle as a candidate and she'll start lining up people in body bags. She would end political careers up and down the ticket against the Democratic Party.

For her relative experience level, her sense of timing and pace is uncanny. That only happens if it's purely innate. She instinctively knows how to set up, ambush, engage spin and take the kill shot in media optics.

Noem has the better resume. McEnany will just better produce on the field of play.  Heath Schuler's college pedigree versus Gus Frerotte and his Pro Bowl appearance.

 
Running the hypothetical, Trump would ask a woman to be VP. I don't see Nikki Haley running lame duck when she would be the current presumptive favorite for 2024. That leaves Kristi Noem. Who might take it if offered but it's actually a massive step down in power. The reality of the situation is that age timelines operate as critical junctures for women in the public eye. Noem is outside her practical window at this point. Candace Owens has no political experience and would not survive a true hard vetting into her life. I'll leave that there.

Kayleigh McEnany. She is already beloved by the MAGA base and would do much better to appeal to suburban women. As a bonus, lots of CNN analysts would refuse to attack her. They just wouldn't do it as she has a personal relationship with many of them. While she was embattled and attacked by the press corps almost non stop, she is still widely respected in that industry. She would destroy anyone in a debate. Reading the tealeaves, she understands she would need to go full Bulworth here.  Trump already has assessed her loyalty.

The failures of Jen Psaki will only raise McEnany's profile. It's unfortunate that because she's linked to the Trump administration that many will underestimate her. Give her access to the national daily media cycle as a candidate and she'll start lining up people in body bags. She would end political careers up and down the ticket against the Democratic Party.

For her relative experience level, her sense of timing and pace is uncanny. That only happens if it's purely innate. She instinctively knows how to set up, ambush, engage spin and take the kill shot in media optics.

Noem has the better resume. McEnany will just better produce on the field of play.  Heath Schuler's college pedigree versus Gus Frerotte and his Pro Bowl appearance.
Where do you get this stuff?  Chris Wallace just identified Jen as one of the best press secretaries (he may have said best).  

 
Where do you get this stuff?  Chris Wallace just identified Jen as one of the best press secretaries (he may have said best).  


And Jeff Ireland raved about Pat White being a secret cheat code to unlock the NFL after taking him in the 2nd round in 2009.

In this scenario, Susan Rice is Jeff Ireland. Jen Psaki is Pat White. And by default, you are Tony Sparano's bizarre fist pump on the sideline.

The way to sell McEnany to the public is that she was a riser who just made the most out of the opportunity presented in front of her. You can blame her for working for a controversial POTUS, but she was just trying to carve out a career for herself and pull herself up by her bootstraps. You can sell that to suburban women. McEnany would take half the ticket from Trump because if he wins ( Considering this current Biden administration is such a failure that they've shockingly dragged Trump back into some kind of contention. How pathetic does your stay in office have to be to make lots of moderates miss Trump?) , she's now VPOTUS and if Trump loses, her profile is raised to the point where she's a contender for Governor in a transitional Red stronghold.

McEnany is still a name brand Republican and she has no previous term in office where a COVID19 narrative can be used against her. Her linkage to Trump cuts off lots of roads for her so quadrupling down with Trump isn't such a bad move for her. If Kamala Harris walks onto the debate stage with McEnany, then the savagery inflicted would put the former Press Secretary into the media spotlight as a legitimate media killshot threat. The leftist media will try to paint her as a "cult like dumb blonde" but they will ignore the fact that she's a high conflict personality type. She wants a fight. She wants people to tell her to her face what she can't do nor achieve. She wants you to doubt her. Then she wants to punch you in the mouth.

The current political environment does not reward someone like Jen Psaki.  Because Psaki can only angle a lecturing/condescending tone to try to hold onto single issue voters, zealots, liberal "Karen" archtypes and a declining number of low information voters ( Big surprise. People start caring and researching about politics and their elected officials when they see their day to day lives being ruined)

Your limp wristed attempt at derailing and laying a sacrifice at the altar of political tribalism has reduced you to a Tony Sparano fist pump.

Your kick returner made a fair catch. Fist pump. You got that blocking tight end in the 7th round just like you were dreaming about. Fist pump. The new restaurant you tried out was not run by pure heathens, they had Coke and not Pepsi. Fist pump. The fifth dentist is wavering and now they all might recommend Trident. Fist pump.

Your arm tired yet?

 
I think Trump was what this nation needed, an outsider with no political alignments, and I think that is a big part of why both Republicans and Democrats really disliked him. 

I submit that there are better options on the horizon to run for president, Trump could run and would likely win, but I think, we have better candidates, more capable of handling the criminality of the political system.

I think Ron Desantis is a better option, by way of example. 

 
And Jeff Ireland raved about Pat White being a secret cheat code to unlock the NFL after taking him in the 2nd round in 2009.

In this scenario, Susan Rice is Jeff Ireland. Jen Psaki is Pat White. And by default, you are Tony Sparano's bizarre fist pump on the sideline.

The way to sell McEnany to the public is that she was a riser who just made the most out of the opportunity presented in front of her. You can blame her for working for a controversial POTUS, but she was just trying to carve out a career for herself and pull herself up by her bootstraps. You can sell that to suburban women. McEnany would take half the ticket from Trump because if he wins ( Considering this current Biden administration is such a failure that they've shockingly dragged Trump back into some kind of contention. How pathetic does your stay in office have to be to make lots of moderates miss Trump?) , she's now VPOTUS and if Trump loses, her profile is raised to the point where she's a contender for Governor in a transitional Red stronghold.

McEnany is still a name brand Republican and she has no previous term in office where a COVID19 narrative can be used against her. Her linkage to Trump cuts off lots of roads for her so quadrupling down with Trump isn't such a bad move for her. If Kamala Harris walks onto the debate stage with McEnany, then the savagery inflicted would put the former Press Secretary into the media spotlight as a legitimate media killshot threat. The leftist media will try to paint her as a "cult like dumb blonde" but they will ignore the fact that she's a high conflict personality type. She wants a fight. She wants people to tell her to her face what she can't do nor achieve. She wants you to doubt her. Then she wants to punch you in the mouth.

The current political environment does not reward someone like Jen Psaki.  Because Psaki can only angle a lecturing/condescending tone to try to hold onto single issue voters, zealots, liberal "Karen" archtypes and a declining number of low information voters ( Big surprise. People start caring and researching about politics and their elected officials when they see their day to day lives being ruined)

Your limp wristed attempt at derailing and laying a sacrifice at the altar of political tribalism has reduced you to a Tony Sparano fist pump.

Your kick returner made a fair catch. Fist pump. You got that blocking tight end in the 7th round just like you were dreaming about. Fist pump. The new restaurant you tried out was not run by pure heathens, they had Coke and not Pepsi. Fist pump. The fifth dentist is wavering and now they all might recommend Trident. Fist pump.

Your arm tired yet?


I get it - you know better than Chris Wallace who used to work directly with press secretaries.

I think your unwarranted pompousness has crossed over to warranted delusion

99 out of 100 posters agree 🤣

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Trump was what this nation needed, an outsider with no political alignments, and I think that is a big part of why both Republicans and Democrats really disliked him. 

I submit that there are better options on the horizon to run for president, Trump could run and would likely win, but I think, we have better candidates, more capable of handling the criminality of the political system.

I think Ron Desantis is a better option, by way of example. 
I disliked Trump because he was a serial liar, sexist, sexual assaulter, probable rapist, conman malignant narcissist that masqueraded as a wildly successful business man.  But that's just me. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I disliked Trump because he was a serial liar, sexist, sexual assaulter, probable rapist, conman malignant narcissist that masqueraded as a wildly successful business man.  But that's just me. 
He left a little better impression with you than he did me...I would add dangerous, irrational and unhinged. 

 
I disliked Trump because he was a serial liar, sexist, sexual assaulter, probable rapist, conman malignant narcissist that masqueraded as a wildly successful business man.  But that's just me. 


I felt the same about Clinton, Bush and Obama;  each was a liar IMHO, Clinton may have been some of the other stuff, who knows about Obama....fortunately none of that mattered since outcomes are the only thing that matters.

 
I felt the same about Clinton, Bush and Obama;  each was a liar IMHO, Clinton may have been some of the other stuff, who knows about Obama....fortunately none of that mattered since outcomes are the only thing that matters.
You equating Trump to Obama (especially in response to the list of traits I just listed out) could be one of the most disingenuous things you have posted here in the last few weeks.  And that is really saying something.

 
You equating Trump to Obama (especially in response to the list of traits I just listed out) could be one of the most disingenuous things you have posted here in the last few weeks.  And that is really saying something.


No I am not, nor to the others I mentioned. I did not care as it pertained to those persons, why would I decide to care now?

 
At this point, the better question is, who would want the job?


Pragmatically? If it was not a female candidate?

Ben Carson

Certain politicians line up and make a choice eventually to hitch their wagon somewhere to make them distinctive to the American public.

Jim Jordan, Doug Collins, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ben Carson, Kayleigh McEnany, Josh Hawley and others have already taken hits for supporting Trump. They've already chosen a path and they can't turn back now.

There are Pete Buttigieg fans here. Mayor Pete hitched his wagon to this administration by accepting DOT. And they railroaded him predictably. Susan Rice, Gretchen Whitmer, Eric Holder and others made their choice as well.  As soon as Buttigieg advocated for Medicare-For-All-Who-Want-It as an ACA patch over, it was clear he already chose to bend the knee to this current regime.

Could Jim Jordan enter the national daily media cycle without aligning with Trump? No. He could not. But aligning with Trump gave him "brand name" value which can be immense political capital and leverage in it's own right.

The problem with the tribalists treating Trump loyalists like some blind Zerg like mindless cult induced zealots is because it removes practical personal individual political motive. The smear job happens to dehumanize certain political ideologies because it makes them easier to attack and rationalize corruption and criminal behavior towards them.

Taylor Greene is an older Caucasian heterosexual woman with no functional career pathway otherwise. There is close to no real value anymore in just being a straight white woman in politics. It does not offer the same advantage that it did for Pelosi or Feinstein. Aligning with Trump and hedging on tiresome shock marketing is basically a good retirement plan for her. Just calling her a mindless zealot is easy. Looking at the deeper context to motive however would require seeing her as a three dimensional person that is driven by certain incentives over others like any other human being on the planet.

Blanket labeling/virtue signaling to avoid the reality on the ground doesn't remove functional political strategy. This is part of the massive mistake the Clinton regime made in 2016.  Clinton was too arrogant to play the game as it lay on the table, so the game played her instead.

Seeing those politically aligned with Trump as some kind of cartoon characters is just cheap and lazy.  Cheap and lazy is the bread and butter zone of low information voters. Most low information voters are easily triggered. For most American citizens, social media has become their own personal Sugar Daddy. The best way to weaponize low information voters is to just plain pimp them out. The methodology is which one gets "pimped" and the methodology in which one is indoctrinated into being a zealot is not that much different at all.

 
young black conservative woman

that's what Trump needs ... and he'll gain a lot of black votes and women votes and he'll win easily

 
I too have been musing lately about the unexplored complexities of Congresswoman Greene and would appreciate hearing her thoughts on some of the critical issues of our time.

 
I too have been musing lately about the unexplored complexities of Congresswoman Greene and would appreciate hearing her thoughts on some of the critical issues of our time.


Ilhan Omar runs her district like an open cartel because she can. She has a power base built upon locked in ethnicity and culture that find insulation from the modern pull towards identity politics. Her fund raising is also insulated from the conflicts and perils facing most Democrats down the ticket. She's a "name brand" politician who is financially independent from the main Party apparatus. That's exceedingly rare. Being part of The Squad raises her profile as AOC's consigliere but she could still survive long term politically without that linkage. That's not true for Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, who are both political zeros.

The first priority of anyone in Congress is to defend their personal individual leverage in their own district. If you get voted out, nothing else you do matters.

Someone like Ilhan Omar doesn't need to hitch her wagon to another politician to ensure that personal leverage in her own district. She proves that every single time she spouts out something purely Anti-Semetic without any fear of being voted out.

Anyone who Trump picks as a running mate and they'd be willing to do it needs to hitch their wagon to his platform to survive politically. Some of you see it as some kind of political  suicide to do so, without realizing that Jim Jordan is a name most of you recognize. Matt Gaetz is a name most of you recognize. MTG is a name your recognize. That you and others will recognize that name from the countless of other nameless and faceless elected officials out there is tremendous leverage. Maybe not leverage with you but leverage with big money donors, local politicians, law enforcement, the legal system, other business owners and heads of corporations, leaders in Big Education, power hitters in the MSM and on and on and on.

This kind of discussion isn't actually possible if you just want to smear people as mindless cult like evil zealots.

Ilhan Omar can operate in free space like prime Jerome Bettis. But that's extremely rare. Nearly every other elected official needs to hitch themselves to a big bad monster sized fullback to find a path to the endzone.

Do you recognize Marjorie Taylor Greene's name out of a crowd? Then she got exactly what she wanted out of you. If you call her a loser but you are giving her exactly what she wants, then who exactly is getting pimped out here?

 
This statement may need some additional reflection and explanation.  Pretty sure you don't really mean this...


I do mean this.  You see I have been around bad leadership and good leadership, all my life.

I know that all leaders are flawed, and that does not stop them from being a good leader.  And it is folly to discard someone because of their flaws when their ability to deliver outcomes is tangible.

Outcomes matter.  I will happily support a flawed leader who delivers positive outcomes.  The nicest guy who harms us, is not what we want; in this case Biden.

I stand by this.

 
Sparky Big Time said:
I do mean this.  You see I have been around bad leadership and good leadership, all my life.

I know that all leaders are flawed, and that does not stop them from being a good leader.  And it is folly to discard someone because of their flaws when their ability to deliver outcomes is tangible.

Outcomes matter.  I will happily support a flawed leader who delivers positive outcomes.  The nicest guy who harms us, is not what we want; in this case Biden.

I stand by this.
"I will happily support a flawed leader who delivers positive outcomes." (Even if he and his followers possibly engaged in a coup to overturn the legitimate results of a democratic election, so he could stay in power)

 
Sparky Big Time said:
I do mean this.  You see I have been around bad leadership and good leadership, all my life.

I know that all leaders are flawed, and that does not stop them from being a good leader.  And it is folly to discard someone because of their flaws when their ability to deliver outcomes is tangible.

Outcomes matter.  I will happily support a flawed leader who delivers positive outcomes.  The nicest guy who harms us, is not what we want; in this case Biden.

I stand by this.
I think perhaps the volume and deleterious effects of the flaws should be taken into account, no? All flaws are not equal, but you are not acknowledging that.

 
I think perhaps the volume and deleterious effects of the flaws should be taken into account, no? All flaws are not equal, but you are not acknowledging that.


What are the outcomes of the leadership? I do not consider time spent debating the person as contributing to outcomes.

Whether the person is "good" or "bad" will vary depending on the bias of the individual making that assessment.

It is what happens that matters, not how we feel about the person making it happen.

 
What are the outcomes of the leadership? I do not consider time spent debating the person as contributing to outcomes.

Whether the person is "good" or "bad" will vary depending on the bias of the individual making that assessment.

It is what happens that matters, not how we feel about the person making it happen.
I'm not talking about how we 'feel' about the 'leadership.' As @lazyike pointed out, the Jan. 6th incident was a direct, highly undesirable outcome made possible by flawed leadership. I will gladly take some policy-driven poor outcomes over that.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top