Trump Asked About Naming a Socialist Running Mate; His Answer is Shocking, Disturbing #DonaldTrump #BernieSanders

[ABX]

On Friday, Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, was asked whether he would consider wild-eyed socialist Bernie Sanders, 74, who is running as a Democrat presidential candidate and is in second place behind corrupt liar Hillary Clinton, as his VP running mate in the general election.

Trump, who masquerades as a conservative after living the life of a NY liberal for the first 68-years of his life, gave a stunning answer......

http://politistick.com/trump-asked-about-naming-a-socialist-running-mate-his-answer-is-shocking-disturbing/

[sitetest]

The Uniparty comes out of the closet.

[truth_seeker]

There is no "shocking, disturbing" answer at the end of popups, at this click-bail site.

[txradioguy]

There is no "shocking, disturbing" answer at the end of popups, at this click-bail site.

For someone who's screen name is "truth seeker" you sure seem to do your best to avoid the truth whenever possible when it comes to Trump.

Funny how that works.

[sitetest]

There is no "shocking, disturbing" answer at the end of popups, at this click-bail site.

It's not shocling to stumpy cultists that he wouldn't say "no" to an avowed socialist running mate, but to real, actual conservatives, it's mind-blowing.

[Henry Noel]

There's method to his madness. He has no intention of winning the Presidency, and he's out to divide the electorate to ensure it won't happen.

[txradioguy]

It's not shocling to stumpy cultists that he wouldn't say "no" to an avowed socialist running mate, but to real, actual conservatives, it's mind-blowing.

He's also been quoted (obvious media dirty trick) as saying that he feels he can get a lot of the Sanders supporters to vote for him in the General Election.

I guess we know now how he'd do that.

[sitetest]

He's also been quoted (obvious media dirty trick) as saying that he feels he can get a lot of the Sanders supporters to vote for him in the General Election.

I guess we know now how he'd do that.

I'm tellin' you, stumpy/sanders will win in a landslide!  Birds of a feather...

[libertybele]

Trump also publicly stated that he feels Bernie should run 3rd party.  Who knows what Trump's actual intentions are.  I think his intentions all along have been to hijack the GOP and pave the way for Hillary.  Problem right now is the scandals haven't gone away as she has planned.  The Benghazi emails are one issue and it appears that the issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the Fast and Furious are resurfacing.  So what happens if she steps down?  Bernie v. Trump??

[verga]

  So what happens if she steps down?  Bernie v. Trump??

@libertybele Well there would be a clear conflict of interest. Legally I don't think Bernie can be both the Democrat candidate and Trump's running mate.

[Norm Lenhart]

The Uniparty comes out of the closet.

I said a year ago that it wouldn't be remotely shocking if the uniparty ran a unity ticket. They have governed as a uniparty and the education system has been hard at work for decades creating unthinking drones that follow blindly. This may be the election that they come together 'for the good of the country".

What? You arent opposed to the good of America are you?

UNPERSON!!!!! WE GOT AN UMPERSON HERE!!!!!

Goldstein sent you didn't he...

[austingirl]

He's also been quoted (obvious media dirty trick) as saying that he feels he can get a lot of the Sanders supporters to vote for him in the General Election.

I guess we know now how he'd do that.

On the Journal Editorial Report today, WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz made an excellent observation: Sanders and Trump supporters have  this in common, they don't question their leader and their candidates don't question their behavior.

She is so right!

[austingirl]

I said a year ago that it wouldn't be remotely shocking if the uniparty ran a unity ticket. They have governed as a uniparty and the education system has been hard at work for decades creating unthinking drones that follow blindly. This may be the election that they come together 'for the good of the country".

What? You arent opposed to the good of America are you?

UNPERSON!!!!! WE GOT AN UMPERSON HERE!!!!!

Goldstein sent you didn't he...

1984 got here a little late -but it is here.

[Norm Lenhart]

1984 got here a little late -but it is here.

Generally yes. I think we finally crossed that line with the media and Bill Clinton's deification but one way or another, regardless of the details, we are there indeed.

[RedHead]

“The difference between Bernie and myself is I know how to make those trade deals fantastic and he doesn’t. He has no clue,” Trump added.

And just how is he going to make the trade deals fantastic?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There is no "shocking, disturbing" answer at the end of popups, at this click-bail site.

You're right - it's pure click-bait.

If you just read the article, you'd assume he must have said something like "sure, Bernie would be a great running mate."  Or just a flat "yes.". Or even just "maybe, I'll have to think about it....."

But no.  The "shocking, disturbing" answer is that he said "great question" before saying "no" he wouldn't want Bernie as a running mate.  So a complete non-story.

It's a pretty sad commentary on where we are that people latch so quickly on to headlines without even reading the article, simply because the headline confirms their biases.

And I say that as a "maybe" Trumper leaning towards "never".

[sitetest]

You're right - it's pure click-bait.

If you just read the article, you'd assume he must have said something like "sure, Bernie would be a great running mate."  Or just a flat "yes.". Or even just "maybe, I'll have to think about it....."

But no.  The "shocking, disturbing" answer is that he said "great question" before saying "no" he wouldn't want Bernie as a running mate.  So a complete non-story.

It's a pretty sad commentary on where we are that people latch so quickly on to headlines without even reading the article, simply because the headline confirms their biases.

And I say that as a "maybe" Trumper leaning towards "never".

I read the original article, in the Hill, and nowhere does stumpy say something like, "no, I couldn't select him as my running mate."  He calls it, "a great question," says he gets bigger crowds than sanders, says, "he's got too many things in the bag," but doesn't quite come out and say, "no."  I may have missed the direct quote where he says, "no."  Perhaps you can link to it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I read the original article, in the Hill, and nowhere does stumpy say something like, "no, I couldn't select him as my running mate."  He calls it, "a great question," says he gets bigger crowds than sanders, says, "he's got too many things in the bag," but doesn't quite come out and say, "no."  I may have missed the direct quote where he says, "no."  Perhaps you can link to it.

Here's the exact exchange:

“The difference between Bernie and myself is I know how to make those trade deals fantastic and he doesn’t. He has no clue,” Trump added.

“But as your number two, he could watch and learn from you ,” panelist Nicolle Wallace said.

“He’s got too many things in the bag,” Trump replied.

Fairly read, isn't the bolded language functionally equivalent to a "no?".

Or better still, is his answer really the "shocking, disturbing" answer promised by the headline?

[NavyCanDo]

Here's the exact exchange:

“The difference between Bernie and myself is I know how to make those trade deals fantastic and he doesn’t. He has no clue,” Trump added.

“But as your number two, he could watch and learn from you ,” panelist Nicolle Wallace said.

“He’s got too many things in the bag,” Trump replied.

Fairly read, isn't the bolded language functionally equivalent to a "no?".

Or better still, is his answer really the "shocking, disturbing" answer promised by the headline?

“He’s got too many things in the bag” would have been an acceptable answer if the question was about Chris Christie, Rick Perry, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, George Pataki, or about any other also-ran Republican. But about Sanders the only acceptable answer would be, “Are you kidding me? Hell No. He’s a socialist and a hard-core progressive, and as far from me politically as one could get.”

[Norm Lenhart]

“The difference between Bernie and myself is I know how to make those trade deals fantastic and he doesn’t. He has no clue,” Trump added.

And just how is he going to make the trade deals fantastic?

By making America great again, DUH!

Brawndo has electrolytes. It makes plants grow.

[Norm Lenhart]

I read the original article, in the Hill, and nowhere does stumpy say something like, "no, I couldn't select him as my running mate."  He calls it, "a great question," says he gets bigger crowds than sanders, says, "he's got too many things in the bag," but doesn't quite come out and say, "no."  I may have missed the direct quote where he says, "no."  Perhaps you can link to it.

The more nebulous the things he says, the easier it is to manipulate later. I'd read that as a 'no' personally if anyone trustworthy said it but not a hard no from Trump. Because he says it himself. Everything he says is negotiable. His supporters will eventually be faced with a lot of 'negotiable' in the months ahead. We'll see how many are willing to negotiate away their country for a TV show has been.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm not sure what that means.  Does he mean Sanders has too much baggage?  Because that is different from having things "in the bag," which is not necessarily a negative.  Having something "in the bag" means you have it cinched up, or as good as done, doesn't it?

In the context of the entire conversation, he clearly meant "too much baggage" or something equivalent.

The first thing that happens is that he's asked about Bernie, and says they have "two things" in common.  Not a whole bunch of things -- Trump just says "two".  He says the two things are 1) that they both draw big crowds, and 2) that they both think the country got screwed on trade deals. But he then says that Bernie has absolutely no idea how to negotiate good trade deals.  So Trump immediate undercut the only area of policy agreement he identified. 

The questioner keeps pushing though, and is then obviously trying to get him to sign on to the Bernie.  He responds to Trump's point that Bernie doesn't have a clue by saying "But he could learn from you as your number two, right?"  So the questioner is trying to overcome Trump's objection, and that's when Trump responds by saying that Bernie has "too many things in the bag". It's an odd phrasing for
"too much baggage", and perhaps it's a New York or New Jersey thing, but the meaning in context seems pretty clear -- he's rejecting the idea that the possibility that Bernie could learn how to negotiate trade deals on the job could make him an acceptable VP, which is consistent with him identifying previously only two commonalities.

I don't like Trump -- I think that he's unworthy of being considered for support unless he apologizes for his conduct towards other candidates in the primary, and he's not going to do that.  I just don't think it does us any good to try to manufacture specific controversies when there are so many far more clear areas where he's deserving of condemnation.

Also, the reality is this -- the President does not have the authority to select the VP.  The Convention itself must approve the VP the same as it must approve the President, and there's no way the GOP would ever accept Sanders as VP.  So this article is someone trying to manufacture a controversy where none really exists.

[Hoodat]

Why is this shocking?

[Cyber Liberty]

You're right - it's pure click-bait.
...
It's a pretty sad commentary on where we are that people latch so quickly on to headlines without even reading the article, simply because the headline confirms their biases.

It's said when people latch onto click-bait headlines.  It's especially a problem when all the headlines look like click bait.

[L9teen]