Of the three, IMO, Burgum is most likely and also the worst. The reason I say that is because he is so skilled at spin. He's got to have a graduate degree from Spin University.

The other scary one, for a different reason is Vance. IMO, he's totally unqualified, very incompetent and corrupt. But maybe that's what the GOPer elites want is someone easy to control and manipulate.

=============================================

WaPo

Trump’s VP choice may be down to 3. Here’s what each brings.
Breaking down the advantages of having Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance or Doug Burgum on the ticket — and what they lack.


Analysis by Aaron Blake
Staff writer
July 9, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

https://wapo.st/3LjkocA

(lead paragraphs)

As Democrats reconsider their presidential ticket amid growing questions about whether President Biden can win in November and serve a second term, the other major presidential ticket is set to take shape shortly.

Former president Donald Trump’s pick for his running mate is due by July 15, when the Republican National Convention kicks off in Milwaukee. Former vice president Mike Pence is out — excommunicated from the MAGA movement for the sin of not trying to overturn the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021 — and someone else will soon be in.

While things can always shift in the final days, particularly with the mercurial Trump, it appears as though his list has winnowed.

Why would anyone take that job?
Someone for whom one horrible example isn't enough?
That alone should be a disqualification...

Burgum delivers nothing to the ticket. Can’t see it. Rubio would be the smart choice. Vance is too strong of a personality for trump to have on the ticket. Little Marco.

I agree out of those 3…Rubio makes the most political sense.

I still think Youngkin is on the table.

Burgum does seem the most likely from what we read though and he is a solid pick.

The reason why someone would want the position is that they stand a very good chance of being the 48th.

The question is, will Trump's ego allow "little Marco" to move beyond his small hands comment?

I doubt it.

I agree Lane, good chance that obese ass Trump would die in office if he were to be elected.

I didn't know, until I read up, that Burgum is a billionaire. His wealth is mostly from the sale to Microsoft an accounting software package he developed, or at least owned.

From what else I've seen or read of him, he seems savvy, shrewd, skillful at spin and probably lies too, malleable for the sake pf power. IOW, the near perfect GOPer choice.

Of course, the big question is would either of them do what Pence refused - violate the constitution if Trump said so?

I figure Vance would, intuitively, in advance of being asked. He's the perfect fall guy - plausible denial for Trump. Just imagine the damage control mode for Trump. Well on second thought, probably Trump wouldn't care and after all, any damage Vance could do pales in comparison to what Trump will do.

quote:

I agree Lane, good chance that obese ass Trump would die in office if he were to be elected.

A snowball’s chance in hell you mean.

If he gets elected…want to bet a bottle of whatever you like to drink?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I didn't know, until I read up, that Burgum is a billionaire. His wealth is mostly from the sale to Microsoft an accounting software package he developed, or at least owned.

From what else I've seen or read of him, he seems savvy, shrewd, skillful at spin and probably lies too, malleable for the sake pf power. IOW, the near perfect GOPer choice.

Of course, the big question is would either of them do what Pence refused - violate the constitution if Trump said so?

I figure Vance would, intuitively, in advance of being asked. He's the perfect fall guy - plausible denial for Trump. Just imagine the damage control mode for Trump. Well on second thought, probably Trump wouldn't care and after all, any damage Vance could do pales in comparison to what Trump will do.

Damage!? The damage has been done!

I just hope he would be able to begin to raise the country out of the abyss it has fallen into.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I agree Lane, good chance that obese ass Trump would die in office if he were to be elected.

A snowball’s chance in hell you mean.

If he gets elected…want to bet a bottle of whatever you like to drink?

Are you saying Trump's fat ass is not ripe for a heart attack?

Maybe a few more Big Macs with extra fries would get him in shape, XL diet Coke I'm sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I agree Lane, good chance that obese ass Trump would die in office if he were to be elected.

A snowball’s chance in hell you mean.

If he gets elected…want to bet a bottle of whatever you like to drink?

Are you saying Trump's fat ass is not ripe for a heart attack?

Maybe a few more Big Macs with extra fries would get him in shape, XL diet Coke I'm sure.

He is no more likely than the average man his age.

From what I know…he is an active guy. I am willing to bet no. You want yes?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:



He is no more likely than the average man his age.

From what I know…he is an active guy. I am willing to bet no. You want yes?

How are the averages for obese men in their 80's with piss poor diets?

Not that great.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:



He is no more likely than the average man his age.

From what I know…he is an active guy. I am willing to bet no. You want yes?

How are the averages for obese men in their 80's with piss poor diets?

Not that great.

Genetics are the biggest factor in cardiovascular disease. Looks like he comes from a long-lived family.

I got no…you want yes?

That's a loaded question....whatever it takes to keep him out of office, I'm not against a heart attack but not really for one either. I think a jail cell would be the better outcome.

Trump's father lived a good long life, his mother died at only 64.

A viable vice-presidential pick must have the ability to keep his/her nose firmly planted in Trump's ass. There is no other requirement, from Trump.
Any person with a sense of integrity and/or any hope for a future shot at the presidency, would be smart to run, not walk, away from the offer. Trump has little sense of loyalty or obligation to those around him. Bill

Why would Trump need a spin guy or a fall guy? If he gets elected it is his second term so he will not need to be worried about getting elected and he would have pretty much immunity on anything he does as president so he can do any damn thing he wants with no worries. Makes you really think!

Yea, on second thought, I think you're correct.

Trump doesn't like spin competition anyway. He likes for his servants to bring him good spin ideas so he can get the credit. Take the latest spin of project 2025 for example.

You're right about the immunity too. If he's still alive at the end of the second term he might go for a third helping, like he would at a buffet.

But Trump always likes fall guys in reserve, to kiss his butt.

quote:

I think a jail cell would be the better outcome.

For what exactly Steve? I didn’t want Hillary put in jail and all you folks running around talking about jailing people while talking about freedom and law and order really intrigue me.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think a jail cell would be the better outcome.

For what exactly Steve? I didn’t want Hillary put in jail and all you folks running around talking about jailing people while talking about freedom and law and order really intrigue me.

34 felonies and counting, and let us not forget the attempted theft of the 2020 Presidential election. Lock that rat bastard up is my feeling.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think a jail cell would be the better outcome.

For what exactly Steve? I didn’t want Hillary put in jail and all you folks running around talking about jailing people while talking about freedom and law and order really intrigue me.

34 felonies and counting, and let us not forget the attempted theft of the 2020 Presidential election. Lock that rat bastard up is my feeling.

All lawfare.

It boggles my mind that Libertarian leaning conservatives could be for that BS.

I told you before Lane, my account swears that hookers are not a tax deduction

Cooking the books is against law, even for Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I told you before Lane, my account swears that hookers are not a tax deduction

Cooking the books is against law, even for Trump.

I see you are still using H&R Block.

I saw no evidence of cooking the books in that trial.

quote:

I saw no evidence of cooking the books in that trial.

You have said that at least two times. I don't understand that.

I think it's a fact that the jury saw the presented evidence.

I don't see how he could be convicted if there was no evidence of fraud.

What you have created there with that claim is either you are obtuse or something worse, especially considering that you have a whole string of belief tied to that one claim.

I loath trying to make someone wrong. But in this case, this is important, IMO, especially because you string a bunch of lies tied to that one claim.

I hope someone chimes in with facts.

In the meantime, I'll research it and get back with you.

IMO, you NEED to be made wrong on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I saw no evidence of cooking the books in that trial.

You have said that at least two times. I don't understand that.

I think it's a fact that the jury saw the presented evidence.

I don't see how he could be convicted if there was no evidence of fraud.

What you have created there with that claim is either you are obtuse or something worse, especially considering that you have a whole string of belief tied to that one claim.

I followed the trial closely. The evidence was thin to non-existent. The conviction was based on a population of near 100% hatred for Trump.

Guaranteed in 90+% of the jurisdictions in the US…he would have been acquitted in 5 minutes.

As lavaca has stated…I doubt seriously that this conviction will hold.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I told you before Lane, my account swears that hookers are not a tax deduction

Cooking the books is against law, even for Trump.

I see you are still using H&R Block.

I saw no evidence of cooking the books in that trial.

Still wearing those rose colored glasses I see.


https://youtu.be/sJ8mlC3mWW4?si=rRqIL-Q95aPgd7FI

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I told you before Lane, my account swears that hookers are not a tax deduction

Cooking the books is against law, even for Trump.

I see you are still using H&R Block.

I saw no evidence of cooking the books in that trial.

Still wearing those rose colored glasses I see.


https://youtu.be/sJ8mlC3mWW4?si=rRqIL-Q95aPgd7FI

Nah…I just view the criminal justice system as it was intended…innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

NOT the case in this instance.

quote:

I followed the trial closely. The evidence was thin to non-existent.

I followed it too.

Fact is - a grand jury thought the evidence was there, and a jury of 12 was unanimous.

My common sense, what little I may have, informs me that what happened was not weaponization of the rule of law.

I'm still gonna research this claim of yours. I still think this is one instance where it's important to make (prove) you wrong.

In this, proving you wrong should be a slam dunk because what you are spewing is utter BS.

Standby. Gotta walk the dogs first.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I followed the trial closely. The evidence was thin to non-existent.

I followed it too.

Fact is - a grand jury thought the evidence was there, and a jury of 12 was unanimous.

My common sense, what little I may have, informs me that what happened was not weaponization of the rule of law.

I'm still gonna research this claim of yours. I still think this is one instance where it's important to make (prove) you wrong.

In this, proving you wrong should be a slam dunk.

Standby. Gotta walk the dogs first.

How do you feel when a conviction is appealed and it gets demolished by a higher court?

Don't react too soon. MANY people have been saved from a jury after further evidence has been brought forth. A big problem with the convictions you are so happy for is laws were altered to make felonies out of nothing. I think that is really sad (and it is wrong to do that just to single a person out) but you like it because it suits your politics, not because it is right.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:


Nah…I just view the criminal justice system as it was intended…innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

NOT the case in this instance.

Actually, the 12 jurors felt differently. I think I'll trust them instead of you and Fox News

quote:

How do you feel when a conviction is appealed and it gets demolished by a higher court?

Don't react too soon. MANY people have been saved from a jury after further evidence has been brought forth. A big problem with the convictions you are so happy for is laws were altered to make felonies out of nothing. I think that is really sad (and it is wrong to do that just to single a person out) but you like it because it suits your politics, not because it is right.

I feel sad that you feel that way. First, I'm not "happy" about it. What further evidence has been brought forth? What laws were altered? How was Trump singled out by the justice system? Seems to me he singled himself out by committing the crimes for which he was convicted.

What's right - to give him a pass on falsifying business records to cover up fucking a porn actress and paying her hush money, to protect his "reputation" while running for office?

Or is it "right" to prosecute where the evidence shows a crime?

What's right - to look over it, or prosecute?

It could be deemed lawfare to NOT prosecute.

That's why SCOTUS granted immunity, or the presumption thereof. Now, if elected, he can and will commit crimes with impunity.

Okay, there is a lot out there regarding the evidence and conviction.

The thing I looked for was a precise explanation of the factual evidence and that the source is reliable.

Here's two media analysis:

https://wapo.st/4bzIESo

The evidence that led to Trump’s hush money conviction
The prosecution’s case against Trump relied on 34 documents: 11 invoices, 12 vouchers and 11 checks.

By Nick Mourtoupalas and Azi Paybarah
Updated May 30, 2024 at 6:01 p.m. EDT|
Published May 30, 2024 at 3:56 p.m. EDT

And here's the analysis of the appeal:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trum...s/story?id=111807026

Trump asks judge to toss hush money conviction and dismiss case following Supreme Court immunity ruling
Trump's lawyers say "official-acts evidence" was used to fill "glaring holes."

ByKatherine Faulders, Aaron Katersky, and Peter Charalambous
July 11, 2024, 5:48 PM

It takes a special kind of arrogance to think you can rely on media reports to second-guess a jury who's heard all the evidence.

I'm pretty sure you are not referring to me as arrogant. I don't make shit up. Indignant is the correct word for my attitude in this.

And, I'm not second-guessing a jury. I'm looking for support of the jury from the best source I can find, which happens to be media. The weaponization claim is so bad that words seem insufficient to oppose it.

WaPo does a good job of summarizing the evidence that led to conviction.

If you are talking about Lane and others, IMO arrogance isn't the right descriptive word, but something much worse. They are sure they are right, for absolutely the wrong reasons, which run deep, and seem to be utterly incorrigible.

I wasn't speaking of you, Magine, but of Ledvm.

He ought to know better, but his bias and self-interest guide him now. Overruling logic and common sense.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If Trump wants a stooge for VP like Biden chose Kamala Harris, then Trump is likely to nominate Burgum.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I wasn't speaking of you, Magine, but of Ledvm.

He ought to know better, but his bias and self-interest guide him now. Overruling logic and common sense.

Actually, it is experience that leads me to my conclusion. I deal with the decision making skills of the public daily. No, I do not have faith in 12 randomly picked people to come right conclusion.

As to my logic and common sense…that is what keeps me from ever considering a Democrat as a choice in the first place and guides me through all of their propaganda that people like ME are so susceptible to.

Then there are enigmas like you Roland, freedom loving Libertarian types that usually have the right ideas, that let emotions override their logic and common sense and cut their noses off to spite their faces.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:


Nah…I just view the criminal justice system as it was intended…innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

NOT the case in this instance.

Actually, the 12 jurors felt differently. I think I'll trust them instead of you and Fox News

The proof will be the scrutiny of appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I saw no evidence of cooking the books in that trial.

You have said that at least two times. I don't understand that.

I think it's a fact that the jury saw the presented evidence.

I don't see how he could be convicted if there was no evidence of fraud.

What you have created there with that claim is either you are obtuse or something worse, especially considering that you have a whole string of belief tied to that one claim.

I followed the trial closely. The evidence was thin to non-existent. The conviction was based on a population of near 100% hatred for Trump.

Guaranteed in 90+% of the jurisdictions in the US…he would have been acquitted in 5 minutes.

As lavaca has stated…I doubt seriously that this conviction will hold.

Stick to cows and horses. Your legal analytical skills are woefully wanting.

Let me help.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...mp-hush-money-trial/

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I wasn't speaking of you, Magine, but of Ledvm.

He ought to know better, but his bias and self-interest guide him now. Overruling logic and common sense.

Actually, it is experience that leads me to my conclusion.

I deal with the decision making skills of the public daily. No, I do not have faith in 12 randomly picked people to come right conclusion.

As to my logic and common sense…that is what keeps me from ever considering a Democrat as a choice in the first place and guides me through all of their propaganda that people like ME are so susceptible to.

Then there are enigmas like you Roland, freedom loving Libertarian types that usually have the right ideas, that let emotions override their logic and common sense and cut their noses off to spite their faces.

It seems to me that it's repetitive practice of rigid ideology that leads you to conclusions such as we're discussing herein.

I think it's altogether probable that you and other professionals are able to just turn off or bypass ideology, within your field of expertise.

I know several people who are like that, and they exhibit both characteristics mentioned above. They are all from Texas, and very successful in their careers/business. The characteristics co-exist, and they do okay. But, they are also hard-headed.

I think it's a form of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Being competent and successful in their field, they overestimate their competence outside their field, through ego or arrogance, They think that because they are well-to-do and successful that they are smart and logical and practical even critical thinkers in all aspects of their lives that require mental agility. Yet they actively shut down critical thinking and rely on rigid ideology for guidance on politics (for example) and more. It's hard to say where the line is but they have it figured out and it works for them. It's a formula, developed and practiced over time. It's reliable, whereas to question it is unthinkable because it's the grasp on reality, of their making, that's at stake.

Most of such people, Texans, don't push it. They just go about their business, making money, getting along in the world. There's plenty of affirmations from like-minded people, circle of friends and acquaintances, in Texas, especially. But when someone pushes on them with political ideas, or such, that's different.

But in your case, you push it, righteously.