ADMIN

politics mike pence Memes & GIFs - Imgflip

Former Vice President Mike Pence will reportedly back incumbent GOP governors over challengers endorsed by Donald Trump, potentially furthering the rift between himself and the ex-commander-in-chief.

Pence told a handful of these governors of his support during a private meeting, according to a Wall Street Journal report published on Saturday.

"I want to be clear," Pence reportedly said. "I'm going to be supporting incumbent Republican governors."

read more:

https://www.newsweek.com/pence-vows-back-gop-governors-facing-trump-approved-challengers-1651604

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • F*** Mike Pence!!!

    I'm glad that all the RINOs are coming out from behind the curtain so we can remember forever who they really are!!!

  • "Pence Vows to Back GOP Governors Facing Trump-Approved Challengers"

    It seems one-time President of the Senate Quisling

    views his former bosses back as a knife rack.

    If nothing else, he acts consistantly.

    But shame is all he has left.

    Download OBJ file Caesar Knife Kitchen Holder - Cesar ...

    • Such men have no shame... shame implies conscience and conscience morals...Pence is an amoral political hack whose only loyalty is to power... his and his crony's power.  Everywhere he appears must result in boos so loud he has to withdraw.

    • OKAY! LOL 

      He doesn't have much of anything at all to offer. 

      I considered the three avenues of possible motive. 

      - I don't think he was bribed.

      -I am not sure if something is used for blackmail threat.

      - I do not think he is a radical.

      Pences actions are a total mystery to me.

      As Executive Vice-President, he could only benefit by asserting Jeffersons strategy to resist electoral mischief. If Trumps nomination failed, his V.P. term failed too. A Pence bid for 2024 outside the Vice-Presidency seems unlikely.

      Seems to me, the Constitution does not empower Congress' to neuter the role, in statute, of a President in the Senate, or it would say so. I have looked, but I am thinking Amendment here. That is what it took to flesh out the Presidential succession rules.

    • The Constitution defines the legitimate exercise of political power by defining the playing field and rules for play by regulation and statute. All laws legitimacy flows integrally with the Constitution and not apart from it.

      Politics like to believe it creates its own rules. It does not. Otherwise, no politician need ever face criminal charges, and convictions.

      At first glance, Mike Pence had good conformation as a followup to the Trump terms. But his performance in the "clenches" showed him to be the stumble bum he is.

      You are right that his actions do not fit readily in my three rule behavoural model. That does not vindicate the vile refusal to perform that he demonstrated.

      Gazpacho soup seems more spanish, and less mexican. I am a Californian native, you know, and may be biased.

      CharroHatsMAPDF.JPG

    • My good fellow, arguing that "might makes right" sanctifies central goverment despotism. I cannot agree with such a jadedly tinged notion. It denies criminality and reduces legality to a defined outcome condition of winners and losers with brutal self-justification. Asserting that only SCOTUS can reveal to the citizenry what the Constitution means, smacks of the same touted authority the Roman Catholic church claimed it had in interpreting what the Bible verses meant for the layman. The church denied individual guidance and revelation by the Holy Spirit (I'll be interested to hear the Colonel chime in, if he is not too tuckered out playing tag with Marlene) . Neither anti-individual idea will fly in this Protestant founded Nation. If you continue with such pessimistic fatalism, I predict you will suffer significant obstacles before you think otherwise. But I hope not.

      ps- SCOTUS role is to advise concerning Constitutional grounding in legal issues with new or existing conflicts. The document is written in its then contemporary common language for common consumption. SCOTUS DOES NOT dictate what the Constitution says, but just how other laws or events apply to it. SCOTUS has no executive or legislative authority for compulsion.

      But as for cuisine, different strokes for different folks.

    • " I see the world as it is and not as you would have it be.  I deny nothing.  It is you who is denying reality. "

      This presents a difficulty since this Countrys political beginning to this day is rock-bottom grounded in the idea of what ought to be, and not what currently is status quo.

      Worse, the harsh realism you suggest is at the very ethical kernel of Social Darwinism, used to justify survival of the fittest, and exploitation of the weaker as a resource by the stronger, as correct in every way.

      This is part of the orthodoxy of our NWO friends and their political anscestors.

      SCOTUS is to merely advise in judgement, leaving the Executive to act or the Legislature to compose. You can seek judicial redress for either failing to react to judgements. Good luck with that. Prodding either branch to conform to intended purpose is like rolling the giant boulder up the hill. Very hard work and you cannot let up or lose control for a moment. All branches have to act affirmatively and  conscientiously in good faith to be truly effective as intended. How unrealistic of me in this World to expect it so.

      A Jesuit now acts as Pontiff, and that will mandate real faith to defend the unfolding outcomes. The sexual scandals alone cause me to cringe. The Book predicts such leaders, but I do not have to like it at all, and hope for better. How optimistic of me to prefer so.

      Your recorded intentions seems clear. I advocate to others the idea that everyone will die on some "cause" hill one day. Choose your hill and make it count. I find this purposefully pragmatic myself.

      Finally, thanks for the compliment! I try to get along but admittedly roust about with the snowflakes on other sites. But here alone I only take a serious expectation for discourse, and won't participate in trollish exchanges (at least I try not to).

      Hasta La Vista!

    • Until I know your outlook, I will hesitate to be too provocative with a new idea. Recently I had a misunderstanding on this site due to me not knowing the other was assuming my viewpoint was chauvanistic. It brought me to anger which I will not casually repeat.

    • "Trump cut some specific federal funding to certain sanctuary entities because they were in violation of federal immigration law.  The SC said it was unconstitutional.  He felt forced to restore funding.  How does that square with your idiotic assertion the SC is only there to advise?"

      M-Lo, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe reviewing Andrew Jacksons waltz with SCOTUS and the National bank issue will say it better. I'd check it out to see if it offers hints.

      " Politics is and has always been the art of what is possible."

      If a tree falls in the forest on M-Lo, does it kill him (much less make a splat-sound) if know one is around to see and hear?

      Reality says yes. But politics (the art of the deceptible) says not necessarily, unless you can produce the body and happen to know about and can prove the chain-sawing agent under cover.

      Ask the Clintons. They are old pros at "resolving" awkward loose ends. An awful lot of folks associated with them have died of gun-shot, car or airplane accidents. Conveniently.

      "If a tree falls in the forest and hits a certain individual, would he still be able to testify?"

    • Thank you for defending The Faith; you said it better than I could have.

       

This reply was deleted.