Conquer Club

Who should President Trump select as Vice-President for the 2024-2028 term?

I'm leaning to Vivek Ramaswamy, however, he hasn't renounced Hinduism yet and doesn't have much time. Then again, we've now had two Catholic presidents, so I guess anything is possible. Politico says he's angling for the White House.

There's also Josh Hawley who is famously well-endowed.

With Tom Cotton you get a military hero, however, his long neck is off-putting to some people.

Daniel Cameron played collegiate football which is a plus but making the jump from Attorney General of Kentucky to Vice President seems like a big leap.

MTG would be a disaster. If we're handing a box of dynamite to Trump, someone not quite as excitable needs to hold the detonator.

Others?

This is premature, since Trump has yet to show the he WILL be the nominee.

As I have said often, Trump has pissed off TOO MANY to make himself ELECTABLE in the General Election in 2024, despite his FALSE claims of election fraud. Trump may be the nominee of the GOP, but cannot win the General Election, not with 30-40% who WILL NOT vote for him and at least 10% Likely NOT to vote for him.

For those who want REAL Discussion, post in the other 2024 Election Forum:

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=237819&start=175

saxi is trying to turn that into some random discussion of Gay issues or some such rot.

FINE.

MODS - CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW!!!

Dmitry Medvedev seems like the right fit

I voted for the Hindu because I think it would be nice to see the US learning from the inclusivity of the UK Government.

Write-in vote for Xaviera Hollander.

------------Does anyone think this is the dumbest thing ever???....One person gets to pick the VP...People should run for the office of VP....Or, Whether it be Democrat, Republican, Independent, or even someone from, yes even the Communist Party....Who ever finishes second in the General Election for President becomes VP....
-------------- Not just picked by the Party's nominee...to run along side them....
------------- The VP is next in line to the Presidency.....One Person picks the VP, not voted on, now that's not Democracy...
------------- The Speaker of the House is second in line....At least the Speaker is voted on by Americans in their district....Then voted on in Congress, by others voted into office, representing The American People....
------------- If you went who finished second in the General Election for President, at least they also would be voted on...Think about it.... Hillary would have been Trump's VP....Trump would be Biden's VP right now....Could bring better Bi-partisan working together for All America....
------------- In stead we get , take Nixon....he picked a !oser like Agnew,...not the American people...Then Ford, although I think Congress atleast had to approve Ford...
------------- Or a VP is picked, like a hooker...Take LBJ, he was picked by Kennedy, For the electoral votes of Texas.... Kennedy is killed...LBJ becomes President...Only because Kennedy needed Texas electoral votes...
------------- Or Biden picked Harris, Black/Asian, Woman(Although the Democratic Party can't tell or define what a Woman is...)...Just for votes...
------------- I think people should run separately for the office of Vice President...It is the next best Office to hold in America... Americans should chose ....Not one person.... Democracy ...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
---------Or, you could....Say, in 2016 A.D...Ted Cruz finished second to Trump in voting for the Republican Nominee.... Shouldn't Ted Cruz had been Trump's running mate on the Ticket???...At least once again...Ted Cruz got enough votes to finish second as the nominee...At least he was voted on...Not just, Trump picks Pence....That would also be a Democratic way to go for Democracy...

We tried this. Did you forget your History, ConfedSS?

VP used to be the guy who got the 2nd highest vote total. Check the History involving Aaron Burr and the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bad idea, as is the entire thread.

---------Check your History....It was also in the Constitution that Alcohol be outlawed....This isn't 200 years ago....
------I don't like the who ever finishes second either, but it is a way....
------- I do think the American people should vote a separate VP than Just one person picking them....In a General Election....
------- Or , like Ted Cruz was voted second in Partisan politics....So if you run both on a party's ticket....Then in 2016 A.D....It should of been Trump/Cruz....At least that's how the Republicans picked them ....Not just , Trump picks Pence....Or Biden picks Harris..... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

ConfederateSS wrote:---------Check your History....It was also in the Constitution that Alcohol be outlawed....This isn't 200 years ago....
------I don't like the who ever finishes second either, but it is a way....
------- I do think the American people should vote a separate VP than Just one person picking them....In a General Election....
------- Or , like Ted Cruz was voted second in Partisan politics....So if you run both on a party's ticket....Then in 2016 A.D....It should of been Trump/Cruz....At least that's how the Republicans picked them ....Not just , Trump picks Pence....Or Biden picks Harris..... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

That is your refutation? Prohibition?? WHAT a TERRIBLE example to TRY to validate your point. That was repealed, and I am sure you know that. As is YOUR INITIAL idea of directly electing the Vice President.

That is what the 12 Amendment did; it got rid of your basic idea. The idea of a direct election of a VP was tried and Amended because it did NOT work. Why raise such a BAD Idea? Are you in favor of trying Prohibition, again, TOO?

I do think the American people should vote a separate VP

Like I said, this idea (that you are advocating) did NOT work, especially if the POTUS and the VP disagree and work against each other.

---------I also said....ONE PERSON SHOULD NOT PICK THE SUCCESSOR OF THE PRESIDENT....
---------- The Party nominees are voted on through states....One way would be, the one who finished second, would be a VP picked by The American People not one person... Everyone wants election integrity right!...That is about the only fair way...
------- In Burr's case....Congress voted /electors(got 2 votes)...It ended in a Tie...
--------- Today 160 million Americans vote(maybe???)...As for Then Electors...It still could end in a Tie...Very unlikely...
--------- But The President nominee from the party should not pick the running mate....The Primary voters did ,who finished second....In any Party...The way it is now is insane...
--------- I could lean a little for Truman....But I would have to say, The last Presidential,VP pick was Theodore Roosevelt,by McKinley....But everyone since than has sucked(with the exception for Truman)....... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
-------After Kennedy,Nixon, no one has thought about it...Talked about it..
-------- Jp4fun,you think it is O.K. for One Person to decide the next in line,in other words, Pick the President of The United States???... That's Democracy???...You know who picked Castro's successor in Cuba,he did...His brother Raul....Raul picked Diaz-Canel... Isn't letting one person pick their successor fun...Yay!!!...

One person DOESN’T pick the successor to the President.

The VP is part of the ticket that is voted into office by the electorate.
If the VP is that bad you can choose to vote for the other President/Vice-President ticket.

Idiot.
===

If you want to complain about something we should talk about the Primary System.

I’ve never heard any mainstream media person make this point… probably because they LOVE the system because it extends the campaign season and gives them lots of bullshit to “cover” and talk about.

Primaries (for President specifically… but really for all levels of Gov’t) are NOT a Constitutionally recognized part of our electoral system. (I know there are a couple exceptions.). They should NOT. be run by State Level Secretaries of State and should NOT be paid for by Taxpayer dollars. Their results have no legal sway (outside contractual party “rules”).

The parties (primarily Dems and Republicans, but others as well) should be able to decide how they set their own rules for selecting which candidate(s) to put forth as their nominees. I don’t care how they decide… since it’s not a part of our Federal Constitutional System. All I care about is that costs should be born by the parties themselves and NOT by the taxpayer.

The current system favors the two main Parties to the detriment other candidates… be they 3rd Party candidates or Independent candidates.

The current system costs me money, and hurts our democracy.

Constitutionally speaking, there is no explicit right for the people to even vote for president (or vice president). The state legislatures are charged with determining the slate of electors to represent their state. I actually favor leaning heavily into the representative system:
1. Double (or maybe even quadruple) the number of Congressmen to provide a more even distribution of electoral votes (the number of electors for each state is constitutionally specified as the number of congressmen plus the number of senators).
2. Each congressional district picks its own elector, completely independently of how the overall state votes (no more winner-take-all contests or swing states that have a huge impact on the overall election).
3. The state legislatures pick two additional electors - in states with bicameral legislatures, the state representatives chose one elector, and the state senators chose the other.
4. All electors are completely unbound. They run their own campaigns based on their stated positions rather than those of some specific candidate.
5. After all the electors have been selected, there should be a week-long election convention at which all presidential and vice presidential candidates meet with the electors and pitch their case for election. All presidential debates would be held in this setting rather than via televised soundbite-based appeals to the general public. The electors can spend time actually discussing the specific policy implications of the candidate's positions rather than relying on a 30 second pitch.
6. Possibly, the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates could be limited to the pool of electors. If someone isn't chosen by their own neighbors to be a good representative, why should the entire country chose him or her?

This is kind of a radical proposal, and it certainly has its own problems, though I think it would resolve quite a few of the problems we have with the current system, would make election manipulation radically more difficult, and completely fits within the existing constitutional standards.

Doc_Brown wrote:Constitutionally speaking, there is no explicit right for the people to even vote for president (or vice president). The state legislatures are charged with determining the slate of electors to represent their state. I actually favor leaning heavily into the representative system:
1. Double (or maybe even quadruple) the number of Congressmen to provide a more even distribution of electoral votes (the number of electors for each state is constitutionally specified as the number of congressmen plus the number of senators).
2. Each congressional district picks its own elector, completely independently of how the overall state votes (no more winner-take-all contests or swing states that have a huge impact on the overall election).
3. The state legislatures pick two additional electors - in states with bicameral legislatures, the state representatives chose one elector, and the state senators chose the other.
4. All electors are completely unbound. They run their own campaigns based on their stated positions rather than those of some specific candidate.
5. After all the electors have been selected, there should be a week-long election convention at which all presidential and vice presidential candidates meet with the electors and pitch their case for election. All presidential debates would be held in this setting rather than via televised soundbite-based appeals to the general public. The electors can spend time actually discussing the specific policy implications of the candidate's positions rather than relying on a 30 second pitch.
6. Possibly, the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates could be limited to the pool of electors. If someone isn't chosen by their own neighbors to be a good representative, why should the entire country chose him or her?

This is kind of a radical proposal, and it certainly has its own problems, though I think it would resolve quite a few of the problems we have with the current system, would make election manipulation radically more difficult, and completely fits within the existing constitutional standards.

I’m not opposed to this.

A major change would reframe everything and I think the system would be “more fair” after for at least a few decades.

After a few decades the “powers that be” might figure out how to “game” the system… but that could take decades and during that time “the people” might be able to wrest more power and get a lot done that “most” people agree with… things like Legislative and Senatorial Terms Limits into the Constitution.