That analysis seems a little glib.

I agree that Trump is basically guaranteed to win the presidency regardless of his VP pick, but it's still a meaningful choice. Trump's VP has a reasonable chance of becoming President in the coming four years - Trump is old, his health is probably not great, and we've all just been reminded that US political figures are vulnerable to assassination.

I'm surprised he picked Vance. Why would he pick a running mate who has said nasty things about him in the past, especially when he doesn't actually need their support to win?

It speaks to the strategy of

Oh that guy
Yea sure him
Who cares?

Basically biden is losing badly and the best strategy wouldve been to just let it ride

Instead some psycho tried to assassinate Trump. Now hes pretty much gonna win in a massive landslide. Hell he might even carry states like colorado and minnesota now.

The vp pick adds nothing to any of this really.

Short of biden dropping out and kamala naming michelle obama, taylor swift or AOC as a vp this is a epic loss

Looks like Trump has made his VP pick.

JD Vance was one of the better known contenders, but I still feel I don't know much about him.

What does a Vance VP pick say about Trump's strategy?

What would a Vance Presidency look like if Trump won the election but became unable to serve as President?

I'm just refuting what Brainbomb said here:
[quote]
How is it possible that Biden can be senile, a moron, incoherent, and incompetant. And also capable of stealing an election, staging fake ballots, rigging entire states results, and also covering up for his sons crimes by hiding evidence that would surely get Hunter imprisoned.
[/quote]

I think there are reasons to believe that some of those things didn't happen, but Brainbomb's argument here doesn't stand. There are others in his party that will gladly do this for him if he does what they tell him to do.

[quote=CaptainFritz28 post_id=397554 time=1713387458 user_id=25902]
That said, I was talking about Biden being a puppet of his party, of the politicians themselves, not of the people.
[/quote]

It seems like you're trying to say Biden is unusually puppet-esque in some anti-democratic way. I don't think that's quite right. Didn't voters opt for his party in the last election? Shouldn't there be some balance between keeping Biden's core supporters (centrist Democrats) happy, while also reflecting at least some of the policy preferences of other Democrats (e.g., progressives)? Many Biden voters picked him because he was the most-left viable candidate, not because they wanted his particular brand of centrist politics - if he wants to keep progressives' votes, he has to do at least some of what they want. That's democracy working well in my view.

My assessment of whether the Biden admin has balanced these competing policy priorities appropriately doesn't matter - the upcoming election will tell us what the US electorate thinks.

Of course, the nature of the US political duopoly means that voters have extremely meager choices, which emboldens both parties to pile on policies that a majority of Americans disagree with in order to placate primary voters, sway strategic donors, etc. It's a systemic problem that goes beyond the personal failings of any particular president.

Agreed. The idea of being beholden to your party at all costs is ridiculous. Representatives should simply represent their constituents, it's their job.

That said, I was talking about Biden being a puppet of his party, of the politicians themselves, not of the people.

It's easy to exaggerate the mental decline of both Trump and Biden. Yes, it's terrible that they're both so old. Their age has cognitive consequences that, in my view, should be considered disqualifying for the most important job on earth. But they're both still smart, capable human beings. They're still skilled political operatives. They each have a genuine policy agenda and the will to make it happen. Yes, their age makes them gaffe prone. It means they could suffer further mental decline or inconvenient health episodes. But neither man is a vegetable lol.

All elected officials are "puppets" in a democracy in that we don't elect God Kings who rule by edict. All presidents need to keep a viable winning coalition of voters and donors happy. They're restrained by congress, the courts, state power, etc. Their power is even mediated by compromises they have to make to keep their own advisors, their own Cabinet, and the bureaucracy in-line.

Trump is better at selling his policy compromises as if they were his own convictions, but its clearly untrue. Trump has been for and against abortion, for and against immigration and free trade, for and against gun control, etc. But he sells these turns with bravado and his supporters don't seem to mind the inconsistency. Biden is a less adept showman and so the compromises he makes with, say, the progressive wing of his party, look more spinelessness.

What is derided as flip-flopping or being a puppet is actually the core benefit of democracy. Elected leaders should subordinate their own policy views to the compromises necessary to sustain democratic power. They should flip-flop on policy issues if the constituents they represent change their mind.

He's not. He doesn't "mastermind" anything, that wouldn't be possible in his mental state. What, you think he's all alone in the White House? It's pretty obvious that he's a puppet of his party, not that the party is a puppet of his.

How is it possible that Biden can be senile, a moron, incoherent, and incompetant. And also capable of stealing an election, staging fake ballots, rigging entire states results, and also covering up for his sons crimes by hiding evidence that would surely get Hunter imprisoned.

How is it possible someone this allegedly braindead could also be masterminding all these things also?

If Scott hadn't dropped out, I may very well have voted for him in the primaries. I greatly wish Trump weren't the only Republican option. He's caused great harm to the party and, as good as some of his policy was, much division in the country.

I listened to a podcast with Ramaswamy and got the impression he was a bit of a side show. Seems likely to me his run in the Republican race had more to do with selling his anti-woke books than seriously trying to get into office.

I don't mean that to denigrate him. He seems like a smart and capable guy with genuine, if sometimes outlandish, policy beliefs. I even agree with a couple of his more out-there proposals (e.g., total decoupling from China). But he's a no-name in US politics and the betting market implied odds of him being the VP pick are very low. That said, anything could happen.

It's not clear to me how the Trump team will be picking their VP. Do they want someone young and capable to reassure voters that MAGA-style politics will continue if Trump has to leave office? Or do they want a damp squib who won't make Trump seem elderly and out-of-it by comparison? Maybe they want a more mainstream and experience-in-government VP like Pence again.

One thing I find funny is that, for all the accusations that many/most Trump supporters are racists, Tim Scott is a real contender to be Trump's VP. If he does become Trump's running mate, and given the chance that Trump's health forces him to leave office at some point, Trump voters in 2024 may well be voting in America's second black president.

I'd guess that Trump takes Ramaswamy as his running mate, since they seem most alike, but honestly I don't know.

Does anyone have views about who will be Trump's running mate? Any views on the relative merits of the potential Republican VPs?

The VP pick this cycle seem especially relevant given that each candidate only has a 75% chance of [i]surviving[/i] their term, let alone suffering a health incident that causes them to step down.

The betting markets for this are still pretty volatile: https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/8069/Who-will-win-the-2024-Republican-vice-presidential-nomination

Seriously stop with this shit.

I think that the fine line is understanding the divine plan. Idk if you still remember it, but I wrote earlier (and in another thread) how everything seems to logically follow from what the Bible tells about God:

[quote=learnedSloth post_id=369952 time=1703760144 user_id=23147]
The Bible reveals that God is love. Creating something that can love and be loved seems to follow. This is what I think the eternal life will be, for God created man in his image and likeness.

Something must be done to ensure that sin won't ruin the eternity. The original sin makes forgiveness necessary, which makes repentance necessary.

Scarcely any would repent without seeing where his way leads to. This life shows it to all that are willing to see it.
[/quote]

To repent, people need another way to follow instead:

[i]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. -- John 14:6[/i]

This way leads to the everlasting life and makes you ready to it.

Helping people see where their way leads to should move them to repent,
but it is easier said than done:

39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
(Luke 6)

In the sense of the mental game, I agree with Sloth, but when it comes to practical application, I find there to be a fine line between trusting God and failing our moral responsibility to act.

As William Wilberforce said, "You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know." Similarly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer stated that, "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

I can't help but agree with Bert here. God uses us to do His will. Sure, we shouldn't worry (in the negative sense) about what will happen, but we also should be mindful that God has given us a clear set of instructions for what to do when people commit evil.

"Leave it to God" is where religion goes from benign to harmful.

I have the strong intuition that even if God's behind the wheel, it would be working through us and our actions. This world matters, our choices matter, and if what you call revivals is the only real solution then we should be working towards it.

[quote="Esquire Bertissimmo" post_id=388591 time=1711034036 user_id=25229]
What practical steps would you take to address this "root cause"? What if addressing what you view as the "root cause" is contrary to our nature and literally impossible absent something like the second coming?
[/quote]

[i]And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. -- Mark 10:27[/i]

The key to addressing the root cause is letting God do it. It must begin with repentance, because an unrepentant soul would just harden his heart again.

[quote="Esquire Bertissimmo" post_id=388616 time=1711040594 user_id=25229]
Sloth's line of reasoning went "this life doesn't matter, don't worry about it". Then, when pressed "okay but politics are complicated, and only God can solve complex problems". Finally, it ended with "all solutions are band-aid solutions other than mass revelation, which only God can bring about".
[/quote]

You have misunderstood me. My first post in this thread was pretty much a direct response to the topic question; I figured that a major source of anxiety would be having treasures on earth, so I told what I do instead. Then you told that you must make decisions, and I told what I do when I must make decisions without sufficient knowledge.

On the other hand I think that you have now got the basic idea of the message that I have tried to get across on this page, except such phenomena are usually called revivals, not revelation.

The greatest schism in Christianity is between those who include Sundays as part of Lent, and those who do not. I've always been a tad suspicious of those who do... It's one small step from that to burning heretics on bonfires.

Alas, they seem to spread themselves in equal proportions across all mainstream parties