The most surprising thing about the VP debate

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

 

[the_human_being]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Don't you have other things to worry about?

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Don't you have other things to worry about?

Do you have other things to do besides ask about what things I have to worry about?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

When did that happen? You have got to lay off the drugs!

 

[The VOR]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Don't you have other things to worry about?

Do you have other things to do besides ask about what things I have to worry about?

No, he doesn't. He was hoping you could find something for him to do to keep him occupied.

 

[the_human_being]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Everything. He did support him as best he was able to say anything at all. You are simply beside yourself because the active duty military, law enforcement and police, ICE officers, and the Border Patrol don't want anything to do with Hillary. The only support she garners is from the likes of BLM, the LGBT, and Planned Parenthood. No really decent folks support her.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Don't you have other things to worry about?

Do you have other things to do besides ask about what things I have to worry about?

Not right now. Self-imposed coffee break.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Everything. He did support him as best he was able to say anything at all. You are simply beside yourself because the active duty military, law enforcement and police, ICE officers, and the Border Patrol don't want anything to do with Hillary. The only support she garners is from the likes of BLM, the LGBT, and Planned Parenthood. No really decent folks support her.

You're another one of those patriots aren't you, the kind that "love" their country, but can't stand roughly half of your fellow citizens; you know, the undecent ones.

 

[OldLady]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

- What did Pence not agree with Trump about? I'll admit I watched it VERY early this a.m. and ff through some of the tax stuff, but I didn't catch that.
- How does the fact that they have disagreements impact citizens? The only highly unlikely scenario I know of is if the senate has a tie vote, he breaks it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

When did that happen? You have got to lay off the drugs!

When Pence did not concur with Trump's positions:

• Mike Pence repeatedly denies Trump statements during VP debate
  
• Mike Pence Splits With Donald Trump on Paul Ryan Endorsement
  
• Mike Pence Endorses Paul Ryan After Donald Trump’s Refusal
  
• Seven ways Pence disagrees with Trump
• Mike Pence appears to disagree with Donald Trump on climate change: Politics Extra
  
• Mike Pence and Donald Trump disagree on a heck of a lot of issues
  
• A Brief List of Insane Things Donald Trump Has Said that Mike Pence Disagrees With
  
• Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Disagrees With Donald Trump On Key Issues

 

[Snouter]

The only thing surprising about the VP debate was how embarrassingly pathetic Caffeinated Kaine was. We must conclude Crooked Hillary again, as she has for her past 30 years in politics, showed poor judgement and poor decision making in hiring that nutcase. In contrast Gov. Pence did a great job in defending The Donald, explaining Crooked Hillary's failures and crimes, and explaining how The Donald administration will get the country moving in a positive direction. Low info folks apparently did not watch the debate and instead watched the MSM for their talking points.

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Everything. He did support him as best he was able to say anything at all. You are simply beside yourself because the active duty military, law enforcement and police, ICE officers, and the Border Patrol don't want anything to do with Hillary. The only support she garners is from the likes of BLM, the LGBT, and Planned Parenthood. No really decent folks support her.

No, I'm not. I'm surprised that Pence refused yet again, in the most visible public stage he's yet had, to support some of Trump's positions. I made that very clear in my OP.

 

[320 Years of History]

What did Pence not agree with Trump about?

See the linked content here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15461204/.

 

[320 Years of History]

How does the fact that they have disagreements impact citizens?

To the extent that a President and his top subordinate do not agree, there will be less efficient governance, increased controversy, and a lack of coherence and consistency in messaging. All that costs time and money above and beyond the time and money governance costs when there is cohesion between the President and Vice President.

 

[coldjoint]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Pence refused to take the bait, that is what you are pissed about.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only thing surprising about the VP debate was how embarrassingly pathetic Caffeinated Kaine was. We must conclude Crooked Hillary again, as she has for her past 30 years in politics, showed poor judgement and poor decision making in hiring that nutcase. In contrast Gov. Pence did a great job in defending The Donald, explaining Crooked Hillary's failures and crimes, and explaining how The Donald administration will get the country moving in a positive direction. Low info folks apparently did not watch the debate and instead watched the MSM for their talking points.

That's all that surprised you? I wasn't surprised that Pence tried to distance himself from all the crazy things Trump has said, but I was surprised that he tried to do it by just saying they never happened. His obvious lies didn't help him much.

 

[bendog]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

When did that happen? You have got to lay off the drugs!

Pence just denied everything.
What Trump Could Learn From Pence's Debate

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Pence refused to take the bait, that is what you are pissed about.

It's not "bait" when one is asked to defend or advocate for a position that the Presidential candidate advocates and the one asked to do so is the Vice President. It's not "bait" in any way at all when one is asked to defend one's own positions and assertions.

What makes a call to defend one's positions and ideas become "bait" is either (1) one's being incapable of defending them cogently and directly, which is something that typically happens one has articulated something that one has not fully considered prior to making the statement, (2) the ideas themselves being indefensible, or (3) both. At this stage of the campaign, #1 is inexcusable.