> i always ask a simple question: who else should have been vp well trump's original pick would've been burgum, without the intervention of tucker and all the other silicon valley jews. so him. burgum isn't much better, but at least he's not a trojan horse for a new wave of fbi / mossad influence. > i don't like the answer of 'anyone else would be better' that is unironically true. almost anyone else would've been better. it seems fine now in retrospect but up until the debate there were months when vance was nothing but a drag on the campaign. he was and still is the most unpopular vp pick in history. he adds nothing to the ticket, wins no new voters, and doesn't come from a battleground state. his debate performance was good, but it actually doesn't matter.
United States