You have to admit, it’d be a historically idiotic ticket.
It’d probably be the least harmful Republican ticket since Ford/Dole in 1976.
Given that Trump will probably step down within the first year, if elected, whoever gets the VP role is assured presidency.
Despite his rhetoric as the “master of the deal”, Trump is probably used to the business world, where most of what you’re doing is the work of an executive - telling people what to do. Despite the similarity of name, the President has executive powers over a very small group of people. If he wants any changes to the legal framework, he has to play politics with the Legislature. Trump probably has no ability to do that, and nothing to offer. He’s an outsider to his own party, and the Democrats aren’t just going to block anything he tries to get passed, they’ll find his policy to be comedy gold. His base may be larger in the Republican party than the other candidates’ were, but still wasn’t enough to get him over the 50% line. So it’s not like he’s really all that popular with the people.
After taking the role, for months on end, every day, Trump is going to be told that he’s an idiot by everyone in his cabinet, all of the subject matter experts he talks to, everyone in the party, and by the legislature. He might fold and start to listen to the experts, going against everything he promised in the campaign cycle, but then he still has to deal with the fact that he’s powerless to get anything done and doesn’t like any of the policy advise he’s getting.
So he steps down, citing an inability to get anything done and the cruelty of having reality not conform to his preconceived notions.
Personally, I’d love to be Trump’s VP. It’s an automatic in for the Presidency. And if actually chooses someone good, that would be a good reason to vote Trump in the main election. Trump himself, I give a less than 30% chance of sticking through to finish his first term.
I was just today wondering where you’d disappeared to. 
…did I miss something?
You seem to have missed the entire rest of my post, which explained my logic. Unless you have a question on any of it, I don’t see any reason to rewrite it. It won’t get any shorter.
That would make so much sense. Maybe too much sense!
Changing things so that the executive has full control over the executive branch isn’t really as hard as it seems, it’s just that Presidents don’t want it because power=accountability. Plus many politicians like the idea of an unelected bureaucracy that is eternal even as parties come and go.
But really, there are two easy ways to change all that. The easiest way is for Trump to ask the Republican Congress to change the 1950s era law to give the President direct control over hiring and firing all throughout the bureaucracy. Another would be for Trump to do the logical extension of Obama-era executive orders and just give himself this power. After all, it is the executive branch and the executive is supreme within the executive branch. Congress has no more legal power to prevent a President from hiring and firing workers than the President has to prevent them from hiring or firing their own staff.
Oh, I see, it’s pure speculation. I thought I missed an “inside source” or something along those lines in the news cycle.
I don’t know that he would do that. I don’t think the people would favor a return of the spoils system, once the media (both left and right) started to run through what the downsides of it are, so even if he did decide to go there, I wouldn’t bet strong money that he’d go through with it.
But even if he did, you’re still talking about a fraction of the people he would have to deal with. There’s still all the lobbyists, the thinktanks, the legislature, the party advisors, and several others. And even allowing Trump to restock the entire bureaucracy, I don’t think that he’s so stupid that he would hire people who were unqualified and incompetent, just because they’d say what he wants them to say. Bush II had to run through a number of heads of the EPA in order to keep on them for saying that global warming is real. There’s only so much you can do to fight reality.
No one favors the spoils system, and I recognize that the laws passed to end that had value. But the culture has changed and no President would overtly return to the spoils system. Ideally, the law would change or an executive order would be issued allowing the firing of employees for documented performance shortcomings. The bureaucracy must be manageable by elected officials, elected officials must be accountable for the performance of the bureaucracy, and voters must be able to directly hold it accountable. The alternative would be for direct election of the Cabinet instead of appointment with consent of the Senate. We’ll probably have to go that route simply because modern Presidents seem to see their jobs as excluding management of the federal government(they leave that to their cabinet). If that’s how they see it, then the Cabinet should be elected by the people rather than appointed by the President. Then the President actually isn’t accountable.
Trump won’t release his own tax returns, but wants to see those of his prospective VPs. Double standard much?: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-tax-returns-vice-president/index.html
To be fair, he did say that he will release them after the audit process is complete. He is not releasing them during the audit process at the advice of his tax attorneys.
So what’s stopping him from releasing last year’s?
As has been discussed elsewhere, he can release those past returns that are not under audit. But he won’t.
And I have not heard of any advice from his tax attorneys. I have only heard The Donald SAY that. And I’m afraid I don’t believe him.
You’re fine with a tax return from 2008? Well I guess you got him there.
That’s odd. I don’t see a tax return at that link.
I will comprehend for you:
- His tax attorneys inform him that his tax returns from 2009 to present are, in some fashion, involved with the current audit.
- The tax attorneys then remind him that 2002-2008 returns are closed without error or penalty.
In conclusion, it is fair to assume that he should have no qualms releasing them considering that he pointed to an ongoing audit as to why he isn’t releasing 2008 and on.
Any questions?
Sarah would serve as an insurance policy against impeachment…
Maybe he doesn’t want people to know how little he pays. Last time his returns went public, they showed he didn’t pay a cent.