Running for the VP slot on the ticket I'd say, which I think he'll get as long as he doesn't say something stupid (admittedly tougher than it sounds in Republican Primary season).
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Ohio Governor.
He'd make a formidable VP for whoever gets the nomination. Much better than the last two.
Is he a non-crazy?
Yep. Comparatively speaking, he's normal.
What about on the gay and evolution thing?
The middle of the road Republicans will just try to avoid talking about them, whereas the clown posse of Cruz and his friends will vociferously speak out against it.
Could he deliver Ohio for the GOP candidate? Without winning Ohio the GOP surely can't win the presidency realistically speaking.
I think he could. Ohio is already a close state and having a neutral Ohio politician on the VP ticket would probably help the GOP pick it up. So let's say Bush and Kasich were to run together, it would probably help the Republicans pick up FL and OH, which would be massive, although far from enough to win the Gen.
Couple of Ohio polls last month put Kasich 7 points ahead of Hillary in hypothetical general election matchups which was miles ahead of the rest of the GOP field. Obviously only of limited value so far before the campaigns and with Kasich far more likely to be second on the ticket than top billing, but it still shows how popular he is there and could get them over the line. But as @Raoul says, they're defending on so many fronts now that Ohio's only a starting point for them rather than the clincher it used to be.
Also limited in that it's his home state, so he is bound to poll well there. Realistically, i see this as Bush's nomination to lose. Once a few debates are out of the way, the stragglers will begin to drop out due to most of the establishment money gravitating to one or two candidates, which I'm assuming here will be Bush and Walker. I think the GOP may sneak Ohio in either case. Its traditionally pro-GOP and Obama's success was more so the exception than the norm. I think the Dem strategy will involve winning Virginia and retaining the three western swing states (NM, CO, and NV). If she chooses Webb, she will more or less lock VA up. If she chooses Bayh, she will be competitive in Indiana, although far from a favorite to win it. Obviously, if Hillary wins Florida its over. Early days, but Hillary is definitely holding her own against Jeb in FL, which is ominous for the GOP.
Three weeks till the first debate...cling on Donald, cling!
Florida is a bit like VA....though it is trending Democrat by a smaller margin. Each presidential election the Dems look stronger. perhaps it is just a reflection of the country as a whole which is slowly but surely moving in their direction. Just a lot more democrats being registered.
When you mentioned the Supreme Court...just as important as campaign reform is how voting rights laws by states are viewed. The caging that most Southern states do will be dismantled by a more liberal court.
I was reading about FL recently and apparently the problem there is that the dems have been running too many centrist candidates to try to appeal to repubs. The problem being that they don't fire up the base and thus dems lose close races every time. Now they might run Alan Grayson and he would really fire them up and attract independents too, while making repub heads explode.
I hope he is their senate nominee for Rubio's vacated seat.
I hope he is their senate nominee for Rubio's vacated seat.
Is CO definitely a swing state now? I know Obama carried it twice but prior to that it was firmly a red state.
Its Dem leaning but by no means a lock. If stable GOP candidate comes through, they would definitely have a chance.
I heard he had 24% in the latest nation wide reb poll. It was taken by abc news and washington post over several dayts which included one bad day after the latest comments. Will be interesting to see if his numbers hold.
its possible the tea party people see McCain and Bush as too far left.
What would be interesting is when Rand Paul really gets going. He has a lot of boxes the tea party can tick off.
What would be interesting is when Rand Paul really gets going. He has a lot of boxes the tea party can tick off.
Trump is deffo trolling at this point. On McCain:
"He's a war hero because he was captured," Trump said during an appearance at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, on Saturday. "I like people who weren't captured."
Much as I would empathise with the imprisonment and torture of John McCain, I do think it is time to review our idea of what a hero is. Is it really heroic to be a willing participant and gung ho part of one the most devastating, genocidal bombing campaigns the human race has ever witnessed. Is it really heroic to come from the comforts of the most powerful nation ever and drop bombs indiscriminately on a primitive third world nation halfway around the globe that your country has never declared war on and who have done anything to you or your people.
Is that heroic? Is that what a hero does? Vietnam didn´t even have an air force. Have you ever seen what a bomb does to innocent people and families. Would make ISIS treatment seem sort of tame. Were these heroes in American airplanes, or much closer to sick bastards mindlessly towing the line for a bunch of psychopaths, much like Nazi Germany. It´s this exact fecked up thinking that makes the 9/11 hijackers "heroes" as well.
And boy has John McCain milked that "hero" schtick to the extreme. And then there´s this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/06/13/mcnasty/
Also so ironic to listen to Republicans having a conniption over Trump not kissing McCain´s ass over his Vietnam service and veteran´s status when just ten years ago they were wildly having a go at John Kerry´s medal of valor and purple heart in their Swiftboating glee. The doucheiness of these people is mind boggling.
Although many may disagree on the definition of heroism, I'd venture to guess being a tortured prisoner of war for 5 years will generally yield hero status in that person's country of origin. Accordingly, i'd imagine the Taliban members who were released from Gitmo last year, will be received as heroes among their brethren.
And what would be a good definition of a soul who willingly and without repentence drops bombs indiscriminately on third world peasants who have done you no wrong, knowing exactly that they may land on children and families and innocents? What kind of monster does that. A hero would refuse, imo.
Heroism in this context is generally viewed within nationalistic terms. Of course anyone could poke holes in the lives of most heroes, especially those who were involved in wars.
A hero and a psychopathic, moral-less killer. I guess we should be easier on these ISIS folks. Just chalk it up to nationalism and religion
Pretty much - it's usually related to an identity construct within a particular group or nationality.
So really John McCain dropping bombs knowingly on innocents is no better than a car bomber in a crowded market.
Should a man capable of this be trusted with so much power in nations such as the USA? A Republican nomination for President of the US.
Should a man capable of this be trusted with so much power in nations such as the USA? A Republican nomination for President of the US.
Only if that's the moral lens you look at it through. If you look at it through a patriotic/nationalistic lens of a US citizen, then he's obviously quite a hero for having endured incredible torture and imprisonment on behalf of his nation's cause. I thought this would be quite obvious.
I thought the moral lens of the car bomber is very valid in your logic, obviously.
It is if the act of heroism is being defined by the group (or nation) that he belongs to.
I'm no expert on this so might be wrong
I understood that after they discovered his dad was a navy admiral they offered to release him (from the rather notorious Hanoi Hilton) but he refused as they would not release the other detainees and he did not want special treatment.
Heroic?...Well it's debatable
More heroic than getting 4 enlistment deferments... Well yes
I think that's correct on his release. My broader point was that the concept of heroism is completely relative to the group/nation that is defining the act of heroism. As in, the general consensus inside the US is that McCain is admired for his service, whereas your average left wing anti war socialist may disagree.
Now that we´ve discussed heroes, can we discuss the kind of disgusting human beings who drop bombs on others. Those who have the ability to refuse on moral grounds, but decide to do it anyway, repeatedly, on people they don´t even know, indiscriminately.
Can we all agree that these people are pretty much down there with as evil as you can get. We must put John McCain and many other all American young men in there too. I don´t think there´s much relativity here. A bomb is a bomb. Innocent people are innocent people.
Can we all agree that these people are pretty much down there with as evil as you can get. We must put John McCain and many other all American young men in there too. I don´t think there´s much relativity here. A bomb is a bomb. Innocent people are innocent people.
What does "socialist" have to do with anything? You sound like a tea partier. I´d use the word "decent human being." I can find no moral relativity for dropping bombs on innocents halfway around the world who have never done anything to you or your country. Maybe you can. I´m an actual American (well, half) born and raised there, a capitalist, and I find McCain´s bombing actions indefensible.
I´m sure the Charleston bomber is a real hero to many right wing capitalists. This relativism stuff is bollocks. I´m sorry.
There's lots of things we do in the west that are morally reprehensible but we do anyway. God knows what conditions the people who made my clothes were working in, or how much they were paid. Or even the monitor I'm watching these words be written on, which I bought because it was cheap. We don't run the risk of getting tortured for doing them though.
It suggests the person making the judgement will be anti-war and anti-US policy, and thus against the idea that McCain is a hero. We all have different ideas of what heroism is, and since the McCain/Trump debacle is happening within the US, its American society that gets to write the narrative on whether or not McCain is a hero, and in this case they obviously believe he was.
Vietnam had a decent Air Force, well supplied and trained by the USSR and China. Even had some soviet and Chinese pilots helping them out. They were effective enough to force the U.S. to reconsider arming its fighters with only missiles and to open up training schools to teach better air to air combat tactics. One of the schools became famous in a Tom Cruise movie in the 80's.
Should be pointed also that many Air Force pilots believe the are targeting military targets and any other casualties are unintentional. OtherS may not give a shit either way. Same with those in artillery units. Or even infantry units firing at a village from which they are receiving Fire but also may still contain civilians.
the country was at war. He did his duty. Of course he is a hero. Should never have been brought into question. But then Trump is a douche.
The Onion chimes in...... 
http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895
http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895
There just seems to be such a massive double standard. When American pilots bomb a primitive third world country in a totally unjust invasion in an undeclared war practically into the stone age, and done illegally in Cambodia´s and Laos´case . . . wow, what heroic flyboys. Pin medals on them. Let´s honor them in parades etc etc. Let´s almost vote them as president. They are the good guys! Who declared this "war" anyway?
Did John McCain or any of these other heroes ever walk among the dead and mutilated that they bombed? Or deeply question what they were doing? Did they have a moral choice to refuse to drop bombs on Vietnamese? I think they did. Was this really a duty? Was their carpet bombing with B52s a duty?
I´m sure all you English and your grandparents and parents will agree what heroes those in the Luftwaffen were and "how the country was at war and they did their duty and how of course they are heroes (sic)." And how all of Germany should be still honoring those brave young red blooded German flyboys.
And America wonders why they got their asses kicked in Vietnam (by real heroes in any objective sense of the definition) and their towers knocked down by the other guys´heroes. I´m sure all you McCain supporters will all agree what heroes those Vietnamese were and those hijackers were who gave up their lives for their cause and for doing their "duty."
Did John McCain or any of these other heroes ever walk among the dead and mutilated that they bombed? Or deeply question what they were doing? Did they have a moral choice to refuse to drop bombs on Vietnamese? I think they did. Was this really a duty? Was their carpet bombing with B52s a duty?
I´m sure all you English and your grandparents and parents will agree what heroes those in the Luftwaffen were and "how the country was at war and they did their duty and how of course they are heroes (sic)." And how all of Germany should be still honoring those brave young red blooded German flyboys.
And America wonders why they got their asses kicked in Vietnam (by real heroes in any objective sense of the definition) and their towers knocked down by the other guys´heroes. I´m sure all you McCain supporters will all agree what heroes those Vietnamese were and those hijackers were who gave up their lives for their cause and for doing their "duty."
Last edited:
- Status