http://www.indystar.com/story/news/polit.../87075866/

---

Interesting choice.

---

Love the pick

---

Love the pick

Why

---

Why

Because in my opinion, he is the best chance that Trump has to amend and bring The GOP together. Pence is in good standing relationship with Ryan and I think a social conservative at Trump's side would be a good showing in the party itself. Yeah, he used to be a democrat and he endorsed Cruz, but I think he'd be better than Gingrich and Christy..

---

Well, in an interview, Pence said he "grew up" as a democrat.. We all can't be perfect

---

Love the pick

 

Not a fan. He called Trump's call for a pause on Muslim immigration unconstitutional (it is not) and he is pro-TPP. Also way too evangelical and could possibly turn off many moderates/independents.

---

Not a fan. He called Trump's call for a pause on Muslim immigration unconstitutional (it is not) and he is pro-TPP. Also way too evangelical and could possibly turn off many moderates/independents.

Even Trump has backtracked and said it's a ban on immigration from specific hostile nations, cause banning immigration of a religion would be unconstitutional.


As for Pence I don't like his support of the tpp either, I also disagree with his view on the states role in civil unions and marriages.


This is probably a play by Trump to the evangelicals since he is obviously not the typical candidate to drum up support amoung evangelicals.

---

I think that on the one hand, this is an olive branch to the grass roots party activists who may not think that trump is conservative enough.  At the same time it will be enough to bore everyone else and not really threaten his negatives. 

---

Not a fan. He called Trump's call for a pause on Muslim immigration unconstitutional (it is not) and he is pro-TPP. Also way too evangelical and could possibly turn off many moderates/independents.

It isn't unconstitutional?


News to me.

---

It isn't unconstitutional?


News to me.

Banning immigration from certain countries isn't unconstitutional. We've had immigration restrictions, in various forms, since our inception. If you could put a quota on Soviets in the 1900s, for example, you can totally put a quota on populations with such a proven risk as this.


We're supposed to take in 10000 refugees by the end of the summer, with no idea how to ensure that they're not our enemies. If just one tenth of one hundredth of them are, that's ten monsters like this guy who did what he did last night. And he's proven that you don't need guns to kill almost a hundred people. I have great compassion for the hardships of these people but a responsible government can't let in such a security risk.


Edit for another perspective. When disease strikes a region we immediately double check our immigration from that area. Would we have taken in 10000 refugees from Western Africa during the Ebola crisis? Will we take ten thousand, potentially Zika-infected Brazillians now? No, we wouldn't. Not until we could make sure they're all vaccinated or immune to the disease going through their regions. And that's not racist, that's not unconstitutional, that's smart.

---

"Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." Galatians 5:26

2015 NFL Draft - Analyzing Targets www.jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/topic/7892-2015-nfl-draft-analyzing-targets/

Mike Pence endorsed Ted Cruz  during the Indiana Primary...  LOL!    

---

Banning immigration from certain countries isn't unconstitutional. We've had immigration restrictions, in various forms, since our inception. If you could put a quota on Soviets in the 1900s, for example, you can totally put a quota on populations with such a proven risk as this.


We're supposed to take in 10000 refugees by the end of the summer, with no idea how to ensure that they're not our enemies. If just one tenth of one hundredth of them are, that's ten monsters like this guy who did what he did last night. And he's proven that you don't need guns to kill almost a hundred people. I have great compassion for the hardships of these people but a responsible government can't let in such a security risk.


Edit for another perspective. When disease strikes a region we immediately double check our immigration from that area. Would we have taken in 10000 refugees from Western Africa during the Ebola crisis? Will we take ten thousand, potentially Zika-infected Brazillians now? No, we wouldn't. Not until we could make sure they're all vaccinated or immune to the disease going through their regions. And that's not racist, that's not unconstitutional, that's smart.

He didn't say certain countries.


He said Muslims.

---

He didn't say certain countries.


He said Muslims.

He's clariified recently to only terrorist countries, but even if he didn't, my point is the same. Immigration is an issue that the constitution barely touches. Even were it to be a Muslim ban (which it won't) that's not a question of constitutionality.


And you didn't address my point or the very poignant analogies I made. Please do, I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

---

"Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." Galatians 5:26

2015 NFL Draft - Analyzing Targets www.jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/topic/7892-2015-nfl-draft-analyzing-targets/

He's clariified recently to only terrorist countries, but even if he didn't, my point is the same. Immigration is an issue that the constitution barely touches. Even were it to be a Muslim ban (which it won't) that's not a question of constitutionality.


And you didn't address my point or the very poignant analogies I made. Please do, I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

 

Right. Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. A ban on a certain religion (especially since it's as much a legal system as a religion) entering the country is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution. The US denied citizenship to the Mormons until the Mormon religion was modified to no longer allow polygamy.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Mike Pence endorsed Ted Cruz  during the Indiana Primary...  LOL!    

 

George H.W. Bush endorsed George H.W. Bush when he ran against Reagan.


 

And while Pence endorsed Cruz, he did so grudgingly at the last minute. He's not exactly a Ted Cruz fanatic.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Right. Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. A ban on a certain religion (especially since it's as much a legal system as a religion) entering the country is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution. The US denied citizenship to the Mormons until the Mormon religion was modified to no longer allow polygamy.

Wrong.


The constitution only expressly limits the exercise to vote and to run for federal elective office to its citizens. Foreign nationals are protected by those constitutional rights not expressly given to its citizens.

---

He's clariified recently to only terrorist countries, but even if he didn't, my point is the same. Immigration is an issue that the constitution barely touches. Even were it to be a Muslim ban (which it won't) that's not a question of constitutionality.


And you didn't address my point or the very poignant analogies I made. Please do, I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

You didn't either so I didn't waste my time.

---

You didn't either so I didn't waste my time.

Uh, what? Come on man I'm trying to have a productive discussion with you. You stated that you thought it was a ban on Muslims; I told you that it was a ban on immigration from terrorist countries. Here's my backup, from CNBC no less.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/trump-if-elected-ill-ban-immigration-from-areas-with-terrorism-ties.html'>http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/trump-if-elected-ill-ban-immigration-from-areas-with-terrorism-ties.html</a>


So I've answered your point courteously and with facts. Can you do the same for me?

---

"Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." Galatians 5:26

2015 NFL Draft - Analyzing Targets www.jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/topic/7892-2015-nfl-draft-analyzing-targets/

Uh, what? Come on man I'm trying to have a productive discussion with you. You stated that you thought it was a ban on Muslims; I told you that it was a ban on immigration from terrorist countries. Here's my backup, from CNBC no less.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/trump-if-elected-ill-ban-immigration-from-areas-with-terrorism-ties.html'>http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/trump-if-elected-ill-ban-immigration-from-areas-with-terrorism-ties.html</a>


So I've answered your point courteously and with facts. Can you do the same for me?

I didn't state that either, pal.

---