Slashdot Mirror


Donald Trump To Announce Mike Pence As Vice-Presidential Running Mate (theguardian.com)

Donald Trump has selected Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his vice-presidential running mate. A senior GOP official, cited by many media outlets today (including the WSJ), confirmed the news, adding that the announcement will be made Friday. The Guardian reports: Pence brings several qualities to the Trump campaign that Republicans have found lacking, not least of which experience in government. The 57-year-old spent 12 years in Congress, including two years in a leadership role with the House Republican Conference. He was elected governor of Indiana in 2012, and gained a degree of national notoriety that's to a controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he signed into law and then wanted revised, after many argued it would allow discrimination against LGBT people. A Trump-Pence ticket could send a message to Republican dissenters who feel they cannot support a candidate who has proven inconsistent on guns, abortion, LGBT rights and other social conservative issues. Just before the Indiana primary election, the staunchly conservative governor endorsed Ted Cruz, Trump's leading opponent and a far-right senator from Texas.An anonymous reader shared a BuzzFeed article on Pence today. The article digs into some of the opinion pieces Pence has penned over the years. In one such article, Pence wrote that "smoking doesn't kill." "Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill," he wrote. In another piece, he argues that Carbon Dioxide "can't be the cause of increased global temperatures" because it is "a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature..." not an unnatural one.

18 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Nice previously researched spin in the "article" by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's what Mike Pence said word for word in his so-called "denialist" and "anti-science" article:

    This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit. The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.

    And he was right.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  2. Bleah! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just googled Mike Pence's legislative history and he is bloody awful!

    Totally against abortion, "[2011] remove the mandate on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee to focus on maximum employment", against same-sex marriage, does not want gays and similar to have equal rights, remove restrictions on campaign contributions, reduce taxes on the rich...

    ...the list goes on and on.

    He is no friend of the people .

    1. Re:Bleah! by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Over his 12 years in Congress, he was the primary sponsor for 63 bills. 18 made it to committee. 0 made it out to the floor even for consideration. He was useless in Congress. He was harmful to Indiana. If the pattern continues, he'll be awful as VP even with token powers.

  3. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The more viable VP candidates are probably extremely hesitant to poison their career by associating with Trump's historic, losing campaign.

  4. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.

    *Takes deep breath free of cigarette smoke*. I'm going with back handed big government since I'm not being killed by someone replacing my breathable oxygen with carcinogenic smog against my consent.

  5. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by thaylin · · Score: 4, Informative

    there is plenty of evidence to support it. And if it is harmful to me then I have a right to live and you dont have a right to smoke around me. You can smoke anywhere you want, just not around me.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  6. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by guises · · Score: 3, Informative
    If you quote the whole paragraph it's mostly just confusing:

    Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer. This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit. The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.

    Smoking doesn't kill... except for those one out of every three smokers who die from a smoking related illness. Then he tries to say that the relevant part of a conversation about smoking is really about second hand smoking... On the whole, it's just a bunch of nonsense.

    If you take just the part about "smoking doesn't kill" it does make him sound worse than he deserves, but similarly the bit that you quote makes him sound better than he deserves. Mostly he's just spewing gibberish here.

  7. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Informative

    Smoking does raise your risk factors for fatal disease dramatically, thus can be said to "kill". Science has consistently shown second-hand smoke has zero impact on anyone, aside from annoying people and irritating the bronchial passages. CO2 is a natural phenomena; the amount of CO2 we're pumping out in the given time frame is *not* a natural phenomena (in so much as human activity can be said to be not natural); and whether you believe the AGW line or the anti-AGW line, that distinction remains a cold, scientific fact, indisputable because it is a comparative mathematical relationship and not a whimsical conclusion drawn from data.

    People are persistent in being imprecise.

  8. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's decades worth of evidence of the harm of second hand smoke. It isn't 1950 any more, Big Tobacco's "research" has long ago been debunked, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances. Your right to smoke ends at my fucking lungs.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's never been any proof that second hand smoke is even remotely dangerous.

    the NIH, CDC, Cancer.gov, American Cancer Association, Surgeon General, International Agency for Research on Cancer, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, just to name a few, would disagree with that statement. But I know, biased sources with agendas.

  10. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's never been any proof that second hand smoke is even remotely dangerous.

    This is an absolute fabrication. You are a liar and a bad one at that.

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...

    There are 10 scientific paper linked at the bottom of that CDC page that affirmatively show a statistically significant connection between secondhand smoke and the conditions and problems listed. The smokers lungs only filter about 10% of the pollutants contained in the tobacco smoke, the rest remain in the second hand smoke and will be absorbed partially by the next person that inhales the smoke.

  11. Re:would have voted for Trump had it been Gingrich by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Informative

    >For all his faults, Newt accepts climate change and calls for "green conservativism",

    Which makes him totally unacceptable to Republican voters. They don't care about the hypocrisy, or extremism, but they do care if someone threatens their collapsing delusional worldview.

    The wacky things Republicans say and do make a lot more sense if you view them as a failed subculture, desperately trying to hold off the collapse of their propaganda and superstition based worldview for as long as possible. Choosing religion and pandering hoax-media over evidence is a dead-end, and on some level they know it.

  12. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Informative
    Science has consistently shown second-hand smoke has zero impact on anyone, aside from annoying people and irritating the bronchial passages.

    Bullshit. CDC link:
    1. Secondhand Smoke Harms Children and Adults
    2. There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.1,2,6
    3. Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.1
    1. Health Effects in Children
    2. In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:1,2,3
    3. Ear infections
    4. More frequent and severe asthma attacks
    5. Respiratory symptoms (for example, coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath)
    6. Respiratory infections (bronchitis and pneumonia)
    7. A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

    Health Effects in Adults

    1. In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:
    2. Heart disease
    3. For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.1,3
    4. It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005â"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
    5. Lung cancer1,7
    6. Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005â"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
    7. Stroke1

    From the American Cancer Society

    But go ahead, claim all their science is junk and you're smarter than the experts. That seems to be a symptom of people who can't admit facts.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  13. Re:Homosexuals by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a Representative, he co-sponsored an amendment to prohibit same sex marriage. He voted against the Employee Non-Discrimination Act because it would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted to oppose prosecuting hate crimes based on orientation. He voted against repealing of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As governor, he allow businesses to discriminate based on orientation before RFRA was amended.

    It's pretty clear that he has made hostile actions towards LGBT in what he's introduced, supported, or signed into law. As a politician, I'd say that qualifies more has hates LGBT rather than disagrees with LGBT.

  14. Re:Irish Catholic by macs4all · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can't find anything really negative about him,

    How's this for a start?

  15. Re:Meh by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reaction from conservatives and Republicans on this will be little to zero excitement.

    Pence shriveled up in the face of the challenges in his state when the religious freedom act came under assault, and he really bears no marks of being a person who could be sold as a moderating influence to Trump.

    However, I suspect that Trump has left himself with few friends and fewer qualified choices, so this is what the Trumpsters get. Mike the Generic Guy.

    Oh, he didn't "shrivel up". He outright LIED.

  16. Re:Meh by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Informative

    What was he before?

    Trump was a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Independence Party from '99 to '01, a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2009, switched to independent, in 2011, and then Republican in 2012.

    Source

  17. Re:Nice previously researched spin in the "article by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's never been any proof that second hand smoke is even remotely dangerous.

    You might not want to smoke, but you have no right to prevent anyone else from doing it.

    It amuses me that the way the US is going, it might soon be legal to smoke marijuana but not tobacco.

    Then how do you explain the fact that I have COPD with ZERO cigarette smoking "experience"?

    I'll tell you how: Six decades of constantly LIVING WITH cigarette smokers.

    Second-hand smoke really is no joke. I'm not an anti-smoking crusader (quite the opposite, actually); but I have to pay at least some attention to my personal experience...