Turncoat Mike Pence Melts Down at Dinner – Says President Trump “Endangered My Family” and “History

[corbe]

   Which Master is that?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If he knows them all now, then why did he just endorse GOP Establishment darling Ronna McDaniel over a grass roots challenger?

Trump had the four years during his Presidency to get to know people, yet his appointments didn't really improve over time.   He is still constantly adding new names onto his list of RINO's, globalists, and traitors, which means he really hasn't figured it out.  People he thinks are trustworthy right now could well end up on his list next week.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

My understanding of Pence's pre-January 6th position on certification was that he would be willing to do something if a state court or state legislature decertified or otherwise attempted to change its slate of electors.

But that didn't happen. As of January 6, not a single state legislature had changed its slate of electors, and Trump hadn't won a single case. So, on January 6, Pence stated his belief he had no legal justification to stop certification, and I believe he was correct.

I think a lot of folks got caught up in the hype of "the Kraken", and a bunch of the claims being made by Giuliani and others that just didn't pan out legally.  There's a big difference between "I believe the election was stolen", and "I can prove in a court of law that it was stolen".  There's also a big difference between "I can prove there was fraud", and "I can prove that there was fraud sufficient to overturn the election."  Accusations and assumptions that may seem logical or reasonable aren't going to get you over the evidentiary hump.

I don't think it is either fair or reasonable to have expected Pence to derail the January 6 vote based just on his own belief -- unsupported by court decisions or the actions of state legislatures -- that the election was fraudulent or stolen.  And expecting the VP to have a sufficient level of personal knowledge regarding the detailed facts at issue in each of those cases also is unreasonable.  He had to rely on the states, and they did not come through.

[massadvj]

How so?

I think one of his primary motivations for running is to get even with the deep staters who he feels betrayed him.  I think he knows Sessions was a mistake, Barr was a mistake, Fauci was a mistake, Wray was a mistake. and on and on.  He also made some good appointments.  His press secretaries were very good. Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Mnuchin, Pompeo and Pence all did well (even though some have a nasty taste in their mouths from the experience).

I don't believe Trump would be a bad president. I don't think he was bad the first time. He has great instincts, but he trusted some people he should not have, and there were wolves  throughout the justice and intelligence community out to get him. I am pretty sure he knows that now and has ideas in his mind as to how he would do things differently the next time.

That said, I will not be voting for him in the primary.  But we could do a lot worse.

[massadvj]

My understanding of Pence's pre-January 6th position on certification was that he would be willing to do something if a state court or state legislature decertified or otherwise attempted to change its slate of electors.

But that didn't happen. As of January 6, not a single state legislature had changed its slate of electors, and Trump hadn't won a single case. So, on January 6, Pence stated his belief he had no legal justification to stop certification, and I believe he was correct.

I think a lot of folks got caught up in the hype of "the Kraken", and a bunch of the claims being made by Giuliani and others that just didn't pan out legally.  There's a big difference between "I believe the election was stolen", and "I can prove in a court of law that it was stolen".  There's also a big difference between "I can prove there was fraud", and "I can prove that there was fraud sufficient to overturn the election."  Accusations and assumptions that may seem logical or reasonable aren't going to get you over the evidentiary hump.

I don't think it is either fair or reasonable to have expected Pence to derail the January 6 vote based just on his own belief -- unsupported by court decisions or the actions of state legislatures -- that the election was fraudulent or stolen.  And expecting the VP to have a sufficient level of personal knowledge regarding the detailed facts at issue in each of those cases also is unreasonable.  He had to rely on the states, and they did not come through.

 

[massadvj]

@massadvj

"When I went there I didn’t know a lot of people…. but I know them all now” (Video)

https://mobile.twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1635439287553388552

I don't disagree. And this is Trump's biggest selling point.

[Kamaji]

I think one of his primary motivations for running is to get even with the deep staters who he feels betrayed him.  I think he knows Sessions was a mistake, Barr was a mistake, Fauci was a mistake, Wray was a mistake. and on and on.  He also made some good appointments.  His press secretaries were very good. Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Mnuchin, Pompeo and Pence all did well (even though some have a nasty taste in their mouths from the experience).

I don't believe Trump would be a bad president. I don't think he was bad the first time. He has great instincts, but he trusted some people he should not have, and there were wolves  throughout the justice and intelligence community out to get him. I am pretty sure he knows that now and has ideas in his mind as to how he would do things differently the next time.

That said, I will not be voting for him in the primary.  But we could do a lot worse.

Getting even is not a good basis for leadership.  It simply means that, if elected, Trump will just make the same sort of bone-headed mistakes he made the first time, just in the opposite direction.  His paranoia will feed itself to the point where Nixon will appear to have been the epitome of unverified trust.

And that simplistic motivation will simply be arbitraged by those who want to use him to get something for themselves, sort of like the last time around.

Finally, I find the "I didn't know them" excuse to be a rather sad, pathetic excuse for failure.  Trump has been around politicians and politics for decades, and as a major real estate developer in New York and the Northeast generally, he would certainly have known exactly what motivated most politicians, and that one should always look behind the curtains to find their true motivation.

"I didn't know" coming from Trump rings very hollow.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"I didn't know" coming from Trump rings very hollow.

My question to him would be "so when did you find out?"

Because he didn't show any improvement in judging people during his four years in office, when he was closest to all those people.  And if he was somehow magically able to acquire that knowledge after leaving office, why couldn't he have acquired it before?

It sounds to me like Trump is aware of the criticism regarding his subordinates/appointees, and is tossing out some words to deflect that criticism.  But I don't see any actual evidence that it is true, and in fact just see evidence to the contrary.

[massadvj]

Getting even is not a good basis for leadership.  It simply means that, if elected, Trump will just make the same sort of bone-headed mistakes he made the first time, just in the opposite direction.  His paranoia will feed itself to the point where Nixon will appear to have been the epitome of unverified trust.

And that simplistic motivation will simply be arbitraged by those who want to use him to get something for themselves, sort of like the last time around.

Finally, I find the "I didn't know them" excuse to be a rather sad, pathetic excuse for failure.  Trump has been around politicians and politics for decades, and as a major real estate developer in New York and the Northeast generally, he would certainly have known exactly what motivated most politicians, and that one should always look behind the curtains to find their true motivation.

"I didn't know" coming from Trump rings very hollow.

I don't really care what motivates the leader, so long as he is strongly motivated to disrupt the power of the federal government. Trump is flawed in many ways, but he is far preferable to any Democrat alternative I can think of. As I said in a different post, I will not be voting for Trump in the primary.  But that doesn't mean I am going to get all tribal on him and his supporters.

Trump is not going to be defeated with his own tactics. 

[sneakypete]

Getting even is not a good basis for leadership.  It simply means that, if elected, Trump will just make the same sort of bone-headed mistakes he made the first time, just in the opposite direction.  His paranoia will feed itself to the point where Nixon will appear to have been the epitome of unverified trust.

And that simplistic motivation will simply be arbitraged by those who want to use him to get something for themselves, sort of like the last time around.

Finally, I find the "I didn't know them" excuse to be a rather sad, pathetic excuse for failure.  Trump has been around politicians and politics for decades, and as a major real estate developer in New York and the Northeast generally, he would certainly have known exactly what motivated most politicians, and that one should always look behind the curtains to find their true motivation.

"I didn't know" coming from Trump rings very hollow.

@Kamaji

You forgot to mention he is also Orange,and rude to the establishment politicans.

[Kamaji]

@Kamaji

You forgot to mention he is also Orange,and rude to the establishment politicans.

Why would I care two figs about stupidity like that?  I care about policies, about being able to lead, and on both counts Trump is rather deficient.

[catfish1957]

@Kamaji

You forgot to mention he is also Orange,and rude to the establishment politicans.

Rude and orange....  There's those words again....

You know there are more words in the English Language when engaging in political arguments to further your POV don't you?

[christian]

We watched in real time the election being stolen, do they believe we have the clintons amnesia!  Trying to re-write history now is like trying to polish a turd until it turns to gold.  The wicked have attempted far worse and failed, as well they should now.

[sneakypete]

Rude and orange....  There's those words again....

You know there are more words in the English Language when engaging in political arguments to further your POV don't you?

@catfish1957

I am not the one that cares about him being rude,rich,and orange,bubba.

[Kamaji]

@catfish1957

I am not the one that cares about him being rude,rich,and orange,bubba.

You're about the only person here who cares about Trump's rudeness, richness, and orangeness, and one of the few who thinks that those attributes, standing alone, make for a preeminent politician.

The rest of us are more interested in policies and demonstrated (in)ability to lead.

[sneakypete]

We watched in real time the election being stolen, do they believe we have the clintons amnesia!  Trying to re-write history now is like trying to polish a turd until it turns to gold. The wicked have attempted far worse and failed, as well they should now.

@christian

I am not so sure they failed. The results of the next presidential and congressional election will tell that tale,although it will be ignorned by many people who hate to see bad news and have to admit they were wrong.

[corbe]

   Usually, 3 Strikes and you're OUT.
   Republicans lost in 18, 20 and 22.

[sneakypete]

   Usually, 3 Strikes and you're OUT.
   Republicans lost in 18, 20 and 22.

@corbe

And they are going to lose again if they continue to try to destroy Trump so they can put a "business  as usual" alleged Republican in the WH.

[LMAO]

You're about the only person here who cares about Trump's rudeness, richness, and orangeness, and one of the few who thinks that those attributes, standing alone, make for a preeminent politician.

The rest of us are more interested in policies and demonstrated (in)ability to lead.

Excellent post

And true

[Sighlass]

My question to him would be "so when did you find out?"

Because he didn't show any improvement in judging people during his four years in office, when he was closest to all those people.  And if he was somehow magically able to acquire that knowledge after leaving office, why couldn't he have acquired it before?

It sounds to me like Trump is aware of the criticism regarding his subordinates/appointees, and is tossing out some words to deflect that criticism.  But I don't see any actual evidence that it is true, and in fact just see evidence to the contrary.

Agree, he picked a lady (in Alabama) that worked to get Roy Moore thrown under the bus, she worked for Shelby that turned full Rino his last years in office... Trump also worked against Mo Brooks and arguable he was one of the most conservative candidates we had in office. Judging just via my state, Trump is the swamp.

[Sighlass]

You're about the only person here who cares about Trump's rudeness, richness, and orangeness, and one of the few who thinks that those attributes, standing alone, make for a preeminent politician.

The rest of us are more interested in policies and demonstrated (in)ability to lead.

BINGO.... just like threads that point out how ugly or pretty a first lady is, I freaking don't care.... I don't care if you are rich, poor, or ugly... I care about the heart you carry in office. I have always heard that taller men tend to garner more votes just via looks, but never could understand why... The argument that Trump will not take a salary to me was a non-issue, he could do as he pleased, but that didn't make him better than someone that perhaps needed that salary that wasn't "give a dang rich". If some of TBR folks ran for office, they perhaps would need to take a salary (I would), if not just to have a coffer to run for office again. Gimmicks like that ticked me off. Give me a conservative that can't be persuaded otherwise, with a history (fruits) that prove they have been right wing for more than 10 minutes.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The argument that Trump will not take a salary to me was a non-issue, he could do as he pleased, but that didn't make him better than someone that perhaps needed that salary that wasn't "give a dang rich". If some of TBR folks ran for office, they perhaps would need to take a salary (I would), if not just to have a coffer to run for office again. Gimmicks like that ticked me off. Give me a conservative that can't be persuaded otherwise, with a history (fruits) that prove they have been right wing for more than 10 minutes.

Couldn't agree more.  The idea that we should only be governed by billionaires because nobody else can be trusted is foolish, offensive, and wrong.  People in life are motivated by all sorts of things, money being only one of the things that can corrupt them.  So to can desires for power, prestige, acceptance, adulation, etc..  And even billionaires generally want more money, else they'd have stopped at a few hundred million or so.

I see no reason to have faith in billionaires than in anyone else.

[christian]

Pence is pizzed that after betraying Trump, Pences sheeps skin he was wearing slipped off momentarily and exposed him for who he really is.  A determined modern day WOKE Judas.