Mike Pence, unlike any of us here, knew Trump personally and had a very direct working relationship with Trump. He likely knows Trump better than any of us ever will.
He refused to endorse Trump in 2024.
He also stated: "But the American people deserve to know that on that day, president Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the constitution. Now, voters will be faced with the same choice: I chose the constitution and I always will."
The right claims Jan 6 is just a liberal talking point, but I'm not sure if that logic makes sense considering Mike Pence's words above, unless you believe Pence is secretly a liberal or benefitting from aiding a liberal talking point?
Has there ever, in US history, been a situation similar to this where a vice president refused to endorse their president for re-election?
Can a trump supporter help me understand why so little weight is given to Pence's words?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Trump is a populist who could’ve run as a centrist Democrat. His main overlap with Republicans is not hating America.
Mike Pence is a typical conservative nobody follows except typical conservatives.
And he’s aligned with neo’s- specifically who Trump ran against. He was most likely chosen to woo voters outside the center vein.
So who would his words even carry weight with, outside of a conservative minority and the anti-Trumps constantly looking for points?
This comment sums up the situation exactly.
I was against pence because he was a stiff and was not what our MAGA movement is about.
Thankfully, we have JD who the smartest VP in the history of our country.
What is your MAGA movement about that Pence doesn't represent?
Why did Vance call Trump hitler and quicky change tunes when given the chance to gain political power? Is this not suspicious to you at all?
I think Pence was originally chosen to more solidly connect with the Christian right and Midwesterners. He's connected solidly with that base now so he didn't need his VP to fill that role.
That’s what I thought too- it seemed weird to me at first. He’s way more conservative. Neither he nor Cheney would naturally go for Trump.
-here comes all the downvotes, lol.
What policies has Trump enacted that align with the Democratic Party?
I mean he’s eliminated federal protection for abortion which has been a #1 republican goal for over half a century now, cut ACA benefits, and cut nearly a trillion in funding for Medicaid.
All while raising the debt ceiling by 3 trillion dollars to pay for huge tax cuts for the wealthy, ie corporations and billionaires.
His immigration and economic policy closely matches what Democrats historically supported. Republicans were the party of free trade and immigration because it meant higher profits for big business.
He also campaigned in 2016 as pro gay marriage, something even Obama didn't do, and campaigned in 2024 on being pro choice. He removed a federal ban on abortion from the Republican party platform and vowed to veto any federal ban.
Even his talk about returning manufacturing to the US is something that appeals to 1990s Democrat politics in regards to the working class that used to make up their base.
No new wars, no matter how you feel he has followed through on that promise, is essentially the same thing Obama campaigned on when he promised to end US occupation of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and reduce military adventurism.
Sorry, what makes you think that?
The fact he said he opposed late term abortions but not earlier abortions and promoted exceptions for rape or medical necessity, bragged heavily that he'd returned the choice to the states even in instances where the vote did not go the way the pro life lobby prefers, the fact that Live Action refused to endorse him for not being pro life enough, and the fact he's repeatedly said he'd veto any federal ban on abortion.
See this is very interesting…you’re challenging the premise by asking who would his words even carry weight with—as though it’s normal to ignore those not in your in group. Did I understand your comment correctly?
I am an American, Pence was the vice president of the United States. Good enough for me.
Would you agree the logic in your comment is faulty/does not broadly apply to others if I (honestly) claim that Mike Pence’s words carry weight because he’s the vice president?
What are your feelings when I say that Trump’s words carry weight because he’s the president, regardless of how much I like or dislike or even think he’s telling the truth versus bullshitting.
By virtue of holding the office, being a public figure and conducting in public speech, his words carry weight just like what you say does in a crowded theater.
I just completely disagree with the way you even assess why someone’s words should carry weight. Final Q: do you agree with me that you did not answer OP’s question?
Who hates America? Besides non Americans?
I never understood this mentality
“This person doesn’t like Trump, how can you still support him??”
The answer is that many of us including me don’t base our opinions of people on the words of other people. I base my opinions on what I see, what I know, my own research and if I feel someone is right about things.
This isn’t meant to sound like criticism towards you! I just don’t like when people say things like this.
If you choose to take on Pence’s words and don’t like Trump for it, fine. I won’t hold it against you, that’s how you see things. But I just think it’s weird expecting anyone else to take the opinion of a former vice president as some kind of gospel, when at the end of the day it’s just two people who didn’t agree about something.
Trump made Pence, he wouldn’t be politically relevant if he hadn’t been VP.
What is your own research if not listening to other people? It is almost impossible to get a proper understanding of the repercussions of policies without hearing other people's opinions. The same goes for a person's character. If you do not have direct access to a person, how would you know his character. In this case, we have the vice president telling the people that the president is not fit for the role and doing it without anything to gain (it would seem)
What a very interesting question! You know, time and time again it's shown that endorsements mean almost nothing to the outcome of a race. I love watching this... It's really funny to see media pundits do the same kind of logic as what's in your question. Trump endorsed candidate is winning! Losing!.. Picking a candidate that someone endorses a horse in a horse race. Trump tends to pick winners but a Trump endorsed candidate getting over the line just because of Trump is pretty rare.
You are about to hire a person to run your company that you built from scratch. The man seems perfect on paper, but after reaching out to multiple people who have worked with him, they all confirm this man is extremely lazy and bad at their job. Do you still hire this person?
Own research is seeing how someone acts, how they talk, how they present themselves, you don’t need other people to tell you that you can judge it for yourself.
You’re also assuming that Pence is badmouthing Trump for noble reasons, when there’s a clear incentive structure for him.
Had Mike Pence sided with Trump he would have forever been known as the Trump guy, and when Trump left office it would have been the end of his career.
But by throwing Trump under the bus at the time, it’s short term bad for him but he’s now known as the good little Republican that will fall in line, and the media has less to attack him on. He can join some future administration that’s less Trumpian and he’ll be fine. It was 100% a calculated move for his career.
You meet a really friendly man. You hear rumors that he’s actually not that nice. You later meet his sister, who tells you that this man is very mean behind closed doors. You then meet his wife who also confirms. Does this really not change your opinion of said man?
uh... no??
I mean this is kind of analogy specific but i generally care more about how i se people act then i do how other people talk about them. Since like, grade school i've found this to be a good rule of thumb.
Some people can be awkward or anti-social or just shy and that can lead to people generally getting the perception that they're dicks. They may just attract the attention of people who tend not to like them or they may just not be on the same social wave length as most people but that doesn't make them necessarily bad.
In Trump's case though thats obvious not even the case though. He's known alot of people throughout his life and some of them say nice about him and some of them dont; because he's a polarizing figure people tend to have stronger feelings one way or the other then is the norm.
In my opinion he has a strong personality and has certain unorthodox views; views which play very well with the half the country that wasn't represented for decades before him but very poorly with the inside the belt way political class that make up the majority of political appointments in almost any administration.
He was of a different culture then the people he had around him in his first term and they hated him because (at the end of the day) they didn't share his fundamental values.
[removed]
Is there any world where you think i'm going to answer "yes" to this dude?
Like map out for me what exactly your intent was behind this question??
Are you genuinely interested to hear me say "no the fundamental values of ect"???
What was the point of the time you took to type this?
what are trump's fundamental values?
Pragmaticism, Cynicism, Crass Honesty over Hypocrisy.
Basically the people in DC (and specificially his first term admin) hated him because he was honest about things they all knew were BS but were taught not to say out of politeness.
They hated he pointed out we funded head choppers and "killers" in the middle east against our enemies, they hated that he pointed out the holes in our extremely unregulated election system, they hated that he called nations run by tribal war lords "shit holes."
Basically they hated him for saying the quite part out loud. They never forgave him for ripping the mask off the media and the institutions that had been further the left-ward shift of the country for 6 decades before him.
and how did you arrive at that conclusion?
why is our extremely unregulated election system only relevant when trump loses? but not the two times he won?
Is this to say, you have to see certain behavior to believe it in all cases? or do you mean when it goes against your current understanding/beliefs?
No it would have zero effect on my opinion. I don’t judge others based on what other people say, I judge them based on their own words and actions.
Side note I would actually judge the wife much more heavily because if she was telling the truth then she wouldn’t still be with him
could be staying for the kids? or a host of other reasons? super weird thing to say lol.
Anyway, I understand your position better now, thanks.
His political career is dead on the right, I could not care less what he thinks.
40 of trump's 44 first term cabinet members refused to endorse trump. How can 90% of the people who knew trump best reject him and that not have an impact on your opinion?
Easy, most of Trump's cabinet picks were swamp creatures because that's who he thought he could get through the Senate. Old guard GOP hate Trump. I'm not a Republican... Their opinions don't mean anything to me.
I’m asking this genuinely, has anyone ever criticized Trump that you agreed with? I’ve noticed a pattern of Trump supporters quickly turning on people the second they turn against Trump, it’s quite odd.
That's quite true, not really odd though. Most Trump supporters are Trump supporters, not Pence supporters or Pompeo supporters.
What about Trump makes you or any Trump supporter in the context you're using just blindly follow him and ignore anything that's brought up as concern by Pence, or 90% of his cabinet?
What's blindly following? Do you actually think so little of us that you think we're just a bunch of barking seals who automatically support everything dear leader does? You think pretty low of us. Perhaps look at some of the recent threads and some of their responses and see the spectrum of responses you'll observe.
Has there been a time that you disagreed with dear leader and thought maybe those saying he shouldn't be in office again were right? That's what blindly follow means.
Given no one should agree 100% with any politician, but I've yet to see any supporters (till very recently) call out Trump on his over stepping. At what point would you (or any one else reading this) stop and think "Oh maybe he did con us?"
Blindly follows means to support them regardless of their actions. I'm regularly the sole dissenting voice in ATS. You're really barking up the wrong tree with this.
Con on what? Looking like he's cozying up to the neocons now? Carrying their water? And what exactly is the alternative? Besides bitching about it? I really fail to understand why it's important for you to feel like you're driving some kind of wedge.
And there is far more than just this issue. Trump overall is doing a good job, not great, not wonderful, not amazing. A good job. No more, no less. If I disagree with his actions, I'll say so. If I can see how he or those around him could possibly justify those actions I'll say that (and watch as the downvotes come in... I'M NOT ENDORSING EVERYTHING HE DOES). It's frustrating when I see people, such as yourself fail to actually understand what the other person is saying.
After so many picks who now dislike him, do you agree that trump is a horrible judge of character?
I don't really see how picking those he thought he needed to at the time to get Senate confirmation means he's bad at picking people. He needed to choose who he had to. You think John "the man who never saw a country he didn't want to bomb" Bolton was ever going to support Trump? Or Mark "it's my job to second guess Trump" Meadows? Or General Mark "Don't mind me, I'm just over here calling China" Milley? You think any of these should reflect on Trump when they didn't actually support him?
He did at first. All of them did. Does it concern you that so many of trump's picks turn on him once they get to know him better? How does that not show an inability to choose quality people? Or even to choose people with similar values?
Why would anyone care about that?
You know how many people voted for him? He had the people's endorsement which is worth more in my opinion, than politicos I don't like to begin with.
Like OH NO, Marjorie Taylor Greene is not supporting Trump? I don't care. If anything that just shows they aren't at all in touch with their base.
I think the GOP is screwed and so is the DNC.
We care about that because they were picked by trump, but once they got to know him better, refused to endorse him. Doesn't it concern you that the people who know him best refuse to vote for him?
No, as a boss you hire people who don't like you all the time. They're there to do a job, and they want to be electable.
The left hates literally anything adjacent to Trump. To me it just comes off as opportunistic.
Why do you care so much about a random politician's opinion? It's basically in the job descriptions that they are two-faced liars. I like most of the results of what Trump is at least trying to do so why would the opinion of someone disgruntled sway me when I don't agree with what they are saying?
I care because it's a trend and unprecedented. Cabinet turnover is one thing, but so many refusing to endorse their former POTUS is unheard of. Doesn't that concern you?
No. Social media brainrot concerns me, and weak two-faced politicians.
They were fine getting his endorsement but once they got in they suddenly backtracking?
Don't care, they are entitled to their opinion. They are probably just trying to protect themselves from an increasingly dangerous political climate, especially towards Trump and his allies.
What do you feel like ended his political career?
When he didn't allow the right a chance to air their grievances and instead allowed the (flawed) process to continue. He became unelectable on the right. He's got a future on the left if he ever wants to go in that direction or perhaps on CNN/NBC.
FYI for Pence, the US Constitution reads:
The US Constitution requires that elections be held in accordance with laws passed by the state legislatures. In multiple instances -- e.g., as most recently revealed in Georgia -- that did not happen.
So, did Pence follow the Constitution when he chose to ignore that clause in the Constitution?
Excellent answer
Is there a reason that you provide constitutional evidence to contradict yourself? The states certified their electors, by the constitution Congress cannot change that. Are you suggesting that non-double signed tabulator tapes in Atlanta nullifies legally cast ballots? Playing the thought experiment game, how would a different outcome in the 2020 Georgia election results have changed the national outcome?
The 315,000 votes in question were not certified as being "legally" cast.
I disagree with that statement and so does the Republican Georgia Secretary of State. It was a rule violation at best that doesn’t invalidate votes or make any votes cast not legal. The Georgia election code is easily accessible online. Will you answer the questions I asked? I’m good either way and this is my first time participating in this group. Happy New Year
It was a violation of the legislated law. That you mendaciously substituted the word "rule" for "law" is duly noted.
I, for one, do not accept the dismissive attitude of the one in violation of the law claiming that violating said law is of no major consequence.
Seems like a slam dunk legal case, especially in a red state like GA. Why was this not remedied by normal channels and instead the burden was put on the VP, who was asked to not certify the results that GA officially sent to Washington?
315,000 uncertified votes indicates that it wasn't such a slam dunk. It's trivially obvious, that the burden was put on the VP by virtue of his elected position.
When were those votes uncertified!?
Those votes were never certified.
Are you saying Georgia did not certify their election results even after the recount?
No, I'm saying the violations of state law that you're referencing as obvious would be a slam dunk with courts, with the GA SOS, GA legislature. Instead of the GOP controlled state of GA ensuring that their election was conducted in accordance to their own laws, they certified electors, and sent them to Congress. Pence's role was not to audit state elections, or argue with states who handed him certified electors. Even if he had concerns, why not push to have the DOJ bring a case against GA before, rather than at the 11th hour? Why didn't GA sort this out? Why was there never a successful legal case if this is so black and white? Especially ik such a GOP friendly state
315,000 uncertified votes indicates that it wasn't such a slam dunk.
Why was there not a successful lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of the election? Why did the GA SOS and GA governor certify the results?
Would you please cite the law? Do you not understand the difference between a rule and a law? That would be understandable and I wouldn’t criticize anyone who didn’t. In this case even if we swap “law” for “rule” as defined in George Election code, there is nothing in there stating that votes are thrown out because polling stations didn’t sign the voting tally sheets. That would make no sense. This rule isn’t in place to validate the individual votes being cast.
It's not I who does not understand.
"Georgia's rules for government are a form of law, as they are established to regulate behavior and ensure order within the state."
The Constitution of Georgia is the foremost source of state law. Legislation is enacted by the Georgia General Assembly, published in the Georgia Laws, and codified in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.). State agencies promulgate regulations (sometimes called administrative law) which are codified in the Rules and Regulations of Georgia (Wiki).
Ok, I’m going to go along with your argument. The law states that not signing the tabulation tape shall be reported and investigated as necessary. It doesn’t say that anything about votes should not be certified or dismissed. This rule isn’t about the validity of votes, it’s about housekeeping. As an American, to suggest that the state of Georgia should have not certified their entire election or that the VP should have not certified Georgia is ludicrous in my opinion. I am a patriot who supports our republic and states rights to run and certify their elections with all the rights afforded under our constitution. Agree or not, does this make any sense?
A bogus, illegitimate vote disenfranchises a legitimate voter. I am a patriot who supports our republic and the legitimate, legal voter's right to vote as per the constitution.
Even if you believed that all of the states counted votes wrong, wouldn't the clear implication of that quote be that the states can send whatever electors their process selects, and that the federal govenrment is not the authority on the legitimacy of that process?
Mike Pence was being asked to reject the electors the states certified in favor of an alternative slate of electors selected by people who said the states were wrong, which is the opposite of that.
The Constitution is the final authority. Read Article I, Section 4, clause again. Multiple states violated the black-letter law of the Constitution.
Whether or not the votes were certified correctly, that must be done in court. The alternate electors are still illegal. You can’t just say “I suspect”.. it has to be proven first.
Whatever the case, the alternate electors were still illegal, correct?
You're wrong in asserting that it was an "either-or" situation. The matter deserved more attention than it got, and Pence was in a position to insure that the certification process was correct,
Previous elections have been stalled by irregularities in voting. Without declaring for or against Trump, Pence could have insisted that a thorough examination be made to determine whether the states had followed the Constitution, and he did not do that.
A couple of points on this:
1) Texas vs Penn (2020), and its conclusion of no standing, set precedent that states don't have standing to sue other states for their federally ran elections in violation of the Constitution. If the fed govt also is not the authority here, then who is? That state that ran the bad election? Give me a break...
2) The original OP basically boils down to, Pence made the hard choice of Trump vs the Constitution in 2021, why didn't you guys listen to him? Where was all this loyalty to the Constitution when many states changed election timelines, process, and ballot acceptance outside of the state legislative processes in Oct/Nov 2020, in direct violation? You guys don't get to fall back on the Constitution only when its convenient or suits your needs.
I just want to say I very strongly agree with you here. Both sides have a bad habit of looking only at evidence that supports their worldview while ignoring that which doesn't.
So 5 years later, where are the finalized legal proceedings that conclude what you assert here? I.e. that multiple states violated the Constitution with respect to their voting process? From my understanding, lawsuits popped up all over the place, in both blue leaning and red leaning courts, with red and blue judges, some even Trump appointees, and literally none of them turned into anything.
If I'm wrong, please educate me (I'm genuinely willing to learn new things) but if not, is it really fair for you to continue asserting Constitutional violations when all the investigations and legal processes around that question have concluded that such violations didn't occur?
I think though this raises a fair point of- what was wrong with a tentative role, while an investigation ensues?
At a bare minimum lay to rest the doubts and be like 'no the system is working, here is the proof'.
Of course now we know the system is a complete mess and needs reform based on investigations, so while I am uncertain if the election was outright stolen, I am 100% sure shady stuff was going on behind the scenes and that should have proper ways to be handled rather than "Hey I think you cheated", "Too fuckin' bad"
What do you think should have happened in Georgia?
According to Georgia law, the ballots in question should not have been counted.
I just re-read the applicable section of the Georgia Election code and cannot find anything to that effect. Would you please share?
Too late! Georgia has already admitted they violated the law. Your pretending that they didn't, doesn't change the fact that they did.
You can keep stating that a law was violated but there is no such law. You reference the US Constitution, but it doesn’t say that Congress can drop electors certified by the applicable state legislature. As an American, how can you suggest that legally cast votes are not valid? Who you be OK with your vote being tossed?
Georgia's law requires that "The poll manager and the two witnesses shall cause each ballot scanner to print three tapes of the tabulated results and shall sign each tape indicating that it is a true and correct copy of the tape produced by the ballot scanner." That did not happen! Ergo, Georgia's election was not conducted in accordance with its own laws; thus, violating the U.S. Constitution.
The rule not the law. Where does it state in that law that the election results cannot be certified? If true, that would disenfranchise votes legally cast.
The law states the poll manager and two witnesses "shall sign each tape indicating that it is a TRUE AND CORRECT COPY of the tape". Without those signatures, there's no evidence that those votes were legally cast.
Where in the law does it say the votes should not be counted?
By your logic wouldn't that invalidate any court's decision to overturn or constrain a law? After all, laws in general are to be "prescribed" by the legislature, but courts frequently modify or overturn them, effectively resulting in major policy changes. E.g. SCOTUS seems about to rule that presidents can fire anyone they want (except special agencies they care about like the Fed), even though the Constitution mentions nothing whatsoever about firing (and in fact entrusts hiring in part to the Senate). Instead of ruling the agencies unconstitutional in their entirety, they're going to hand all their power directly to the president instead, even though it's not clear Congress would've ever created the agencies (or given them the power they did) if they knew in 100 years conservatives were suddenly going to decide the president alone would wield it.
This seems to me like if Dems complained that every House election Reps win is illegitimate because they cheated through gerrymandering. Like there are technically ongoing court cases where conceivably these gerrymanders could be struck down in the future, but SCOTUS is ruling they should be allowed to be used in the next election anyway without ruling on the merits.
Mike Pence was a squish who folded on religious liberty prior to getting the Vice Presidency. He had a pattern of showing he couldn't make the right decision and stand on it.
What would have been the “right decision” for Mike Pence to make on January 6th?
It's almost as if Trump isn't as bad of a person as you were led to believe, and that Pence was lying while he was running for President himself.
Mike pence saved our country on January 6th by denying trumps order to overturn the election. Why are you talking about pence running?
Led to believe? I’ve come to the conclusion Trump is a bad person based on the things he has directly said, why do you always assume we are led to believe something? Did you not read his post after rob reiner died?
Stop overreacting. That post of Trump's was done in poor judgment, and he was roundly criticized for it by his supporters. That does make Trump a bad person. Trump's supporters also roundly felt grief when we heard about what happened to Rob Reiner. I myself am a longtime fan of his work. And that is a horrible way to end a long lifetime. It is a horrible, horrible shame what happened to him and his wife.
Meanwhile, Charlie Kirk's death inspired Halloween costumes and lies spread about him. Do you really think that Charlie said that he wanted to stone homosexuals? Do you really think that he said that Africans should not pilot aircraft?
I already corrected one non-supporter in this very thread when they spread the disinformation that 40 of Trump's previous 44 cabinet members did not endorse him for President in 2020. That is straight up not true. The truth is that most of the reasons you hate Trump are based on lies.
I didn't ask what you thought about his death, nor did I ask about Trump supporters thought about his death. I am concerned about the thought process Trump went through when he heard about the death, and thought, yeah let me make this about myself. This wasn't a one time mistake. He has a pattern of doing this. Therefore, I am able to conclude for myself that he is a bad person. How is this overreacting? It's literally using information given to me to form a conclusion. I would hope every intelligent, ratonal person does this.
I don’t think I heard of anyone that didn’t say that was a gross thing to say though? Literally everyone?
Did trump acknowlege it was a gross thing to say? Why are you bringing up what others think?
That doesn't make Trump a bad person.
Because the OP is quite literally asking about what others do or don’t think? That’s the topic at hand. You asked. In fact the whole sub is about what Trump supporters think, even if you hadn’t asked directly, which you did.
The discussion within this specific thread is about whether or not Trump is a good person. I brought up his rob reiner post as an example of why I believe he isn't a good person. You defend trump by saying his supporters think his post was bad. This makes no sense, what part of this do you not follow? Happy to explain further.
That’s not in defense of him at all. It literally says most ppl think that’s gross. How did you not pick that up? There’s no possible way you’re that obtuse. In what universe does “everyone thinks this thing X person said is gross” defending that person or what was said in any way at all? lol
so what was the point of your comment? Did I ever say Trump supporters support Trump's statement? What is your contribution here?
Again, making that post does not make Trump a bad person.
Can you accept that I am able to arrive at conclusions without your input? You initially stated that I was "led to believe" Trump is a bad person. I explained I wasn't led by a 3rd party source to believe something, I got my reasoning directly from Trump himself. Whether you agree or disagree is entirely irrelevant.
And to be clear, that post was one of many things Trump has said and done to make me believe that Trump is straight up just a bad person. I find it hard to believe you would want this man to be a role model for your children.
Oh, yeah. Of course. Why wouldn't I think that?
What I'm saying though is that most of what you believe about Trump is erroneous. I'll give you an example. The whole "Trump walked into the dressing room at the Miss Teen USA contest".
Trump was obviously not the only adult in that room. There were also parents, managers, talent agents, makeup artists, producers, and directors. But, you focus solely on Trump - the guy who owns the show and venue - and purposely ignore all the other data points. That's confirmation bias, my friend.
why did you leave out the part where he said no men were anywhere? While there were other adults there, Trump himself said he was the only man in there.
Because that doesn't matter. If the latest batch of female teachers taking advantage of young male students in the news is any indication, women can be predators, too.
Did you also miss the part when he said that 21 was too young for him? And that he prefers 30 years old for women?
And, no, Trump did not call his daughter Ivanka "a piece of ass". Howard Stern said that, and Trump simply acknowledged the statement with a weak "yeah".
Confirmation bias all over the place with you.
so why did he feel the need to mention that there were no other men?
He also stated "I sort of get away with things like that"
What is he getting away with?
i can't believe you chose this example to defend trump lol.
I never said this, are you confusing me with someone else?
Why did you stop responding? Did you come to your senses and realize what a pervert Trump is?
Can I list out reasons why I dislike President Trump, and you can tell me which ones are lies?
Do you think that he is racist because you think that he called Neo-Nazis "very fine people"?
Or is it because you think that he said that the Central Park Five should be executed?
Or is it because you think that he was purposely not renting rooms and spaces to Africans?
Can I list out reasons why I dislike Trump and you tell me which ones are lies?
Naw. I cannot trust you that you won't gish gallop. And it's pretty far from the topic of this thread. Start a new thread about it.
When you say "most of the reasons you hate Trump are based on lies", can you give some examples? I personally do hate Trump's presidency, but wondering what lies you think has led someone like me or my ilk to feel this way.
Just a warning that that question strays the conversation pretty far away from this thread's main topic, so I may not respond to any further replies of yours, and if you are truly interested in this, then you should start a new thread.
Do you think that Trump is racist because you think that he called Neo-Nazis "very fine people"?
Or is it because you think that he said that the Central Park Five should be executed?
Or is it because you think that he was purposely not renting rooms and spaces to Africans?
[removed]
[removed]
Because mike pence did nothing to stop the stolen election in 2020.
Neither did any of the judges Trump appointed - almost like it was a meritless case? In what way do you feel Pence could've intervened in the 2020 election in a way that Kamala could not have in 2024 (or Biden in 2016)?
Because no trial was ever conducted.
"almost like it was a meritless case?"
how so when Georgia just admitted to election fraud?
Because the Trump admin nor any of the red states brought one or even alleged who was supposed to have defrauded what.
Are you talking about the early votes without poll worker signatures? Because if so, the Republican secretary of state called it a clerical error:
Humans make mistakes. I guarantee if you randomly zoomed in on a large red county in Alabama you'd find errors of this type. But no one does this because they don't have a narrative to push about Alabama. The fact remains even if this were significant fraud, that you/Trump decided there was fraud first simply because you lost, and then you looked for 5 years to try and find something to back that up in the slightest.
Wrong, many were brought. In fact, it was over 80 so right away we know you are not knowledgeable on this topic. Do you admit that?
None of them were fraud cases, which would be a criminal charge. Complaining about state vote counting procedures is not fraud. The cases they did bring were dismissed before they could ever reach a jury because they were so laughably meritless. Even Trump's own appointed judges slapped his suits down. So are you alleging there was fraud in, say, Georgia or Arizona, despite top-to-bottom Republican control of both states, Republican control of SCOTUS, and some of Trump's own lower court judges dismissing his suits? How do you think Dems managed to orchestrate that and then get away with it?
I dont think anyone denies the existence of the uni-party, or politicians being bought off with jobs for themselves or their families. We also know Trumps first administration had many swampy people still in it. And he'd have to speak further on trumps exact words for anyone to decide if his claims actually are against the constitution.
I don't think many cared all that much about pence ever. AFAIK he was just a non divisive running mate.
The general public sees Pence as an establishment, career politician and a relic of Bush Republicanism.
You can disagree that that's a disqualifier to care about his opinion, but that's how most people, not just Trump supporters, view him and that's why it didn't end trump's career.
Why should I care what Mike Pence thinks? He was only ever on the ticket to make the idea of a Trump presidency slightly more palatable to boomers who miss the days of George Bush.
So he was a dei pick?
Trump's 1st presidency more successful than Joe Biden's. Time for Trump 2 Venezuala Boogaloo.
It doesn't matter what Mike Pence says, he's a politician.