I want to like Tulsi, which is why I cant support her. Controlled opposition is what keeps roiling around in my gut,and I trust my gut. Sadly,I fear we can not count on a compromised government to right itself. It is going to take an overwhelming flood of political outsiders, the people.
Nimrata’s one county came from a university centric location, so yes “dem-ish”. I like Tulsi, not as VP, I don’t trust her enough, but certainly in a visible Trump cabinet position.
I hesitate to comment as I don't have a dog in this fight (I am English and live in England*). But, actually, I do and so does the whole world.
I was delighted when Trump beat Hillary, purely because of who she is, and because it shut up all the screeching bourgeoises for a day or two. But ultimately it made the Democrat party doubly virulent because of their sense of lost time. I hope they are never re-elected, for the good of this planet.
Frances L says: "They obviously would prefer the Dems win. But on the other hand if they let Trump win THEN crash the currency, start a World War, launch a plague, fire up their crazies, ALL at once they could blame the ensuing nightmare on Trump."
This seems very very likely to me.
It would be amusing to watch the UK's heir-apparent Keir Starmer,* a virtue-signalling ponce who makes Justine Trudeau appear sincere, deciding how to approach relations with the US. I expect he will cave and grovel just like virtue-signalling ponces always do.
* I apologise Mark and fellow readers for the off-colour language, believe me this is very certainly toned-down. I asterisked England and Starmer because I am not British (Grenadier Guards, landed gentry, disgusting history of oppresion right across the globe) and I will not bow to anyone, nor recognise any Sir, Lord, Dame etc.
On the abortion question. I am a Buddhist and believe that life begins (or continues, if you accept the notion of rebirth) at conception. The first precept is not to take the life of any living creature. At the same time I totally recognise that the decision to seek abortion is entirely that of the woman who has conceived. That will be her kamma. I'll add, and end with, the observation that in a different time-line I would be, but am not, the parent of a 40 year old.
As the saying goes, “it’s a long way to Election Day and a lot of things can happen”.
And I would add that 2024 is destined to be
a year when those “things” that happen will be on steroids. As active as the first two weeks of the month have been, I think we may look back at this time as the lull before the storm.
I still like Lake, she has proven to be tougher than a 2.00 steak, she gives as good as she gets and I’m pretty sure that if you asked her if a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man you’d get the short answer and it would probably be a little earthy! Be sure that you file this in the “for what it’s worth” folder :-)
If he chooses Haley for his VP, a lot of people are going to stay home next Nov. In general, I think folks here are putting a lot of faith in one man. Trump at best will give us a short tea break from the dystopian collapse, but no human can fix the irretrievably broken wreck that is the West. And as a commenter on Market Ticker said, his campaign consists of promising to do all the things he was supposed to do in his first term.
I'd still vote for Trump if he chose Haley as VP. If he does choose Haley, it would tell me that he hasn't learned his lesson about the Deep State. I think that he has learned his lesson and won't choose her.
You're correct that he is one man and can't do it alone. He represents a movement that has been brewing for a long time, think of Ross Perot and later the Tea Party. The movement is big enough to include small business owners and union workers, pro-lifers and not pro-life, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists.
The cause is freedom. Trump doesn't own the movement and when he is wrong, like on the vaccine, the movement doesn't kowtow to him.
I can't say for certain, but am hopeful that we take the country back from the oligarchists, the anarchists and the elite.
Trump needs to choose wisely otherwise he will be an assassination target. There are few VP picks who the deep state would not prefer over Trump. I am not sure Tulsi qualifies.
Trump and Gabbard could certainly be the cure to what is ailing military recruiting, specifically the failure of young white males to volunteer.
My view is that whoever Trump picks as VP, that selection will be Trump's nod to who he thinks should carry the party forward after he is gone. When he said, and I paraphrase, no election has ever been won based on who was the VP pick, he meant it. That gives him the room to select his successor who he believes will continue his MAGA movement while still popular with the majority of his supporters.
Trump has learned a lot about DC politics since he was last elected. Pence was more of a sop to the GOP establishment than a fellow traveler to turn the country around. I don't believe he'll make that same mistake again knowing that the establishment RINOs are as much a political enemy as the democrats.
She is not perfect politically, but I think she is likely to buoy his candidacy.
She has supported abortion and gay marriage, but I believe in the past she was against both of those. Maybe she altered her position based upon the need to fit in with the leftist Democrat position. She seems to be opposed to radical trans thinking. Most people appear not to be 100% pro-life and not 100% pro-abortion, so she might fit in neatly with a large swath of society. Based upon my reading of her, I don't think she is personally an advocate of abortion, and certainly not an extremist.
She is not a Christian. I saw a video of her and her husband Christmas carolling and she seemed to truly appreciate and respect the spirit of Christmas. I give her high marks for that.
I think that she is fairly genuine and supports the rule of law. Much better than Haley or Noem.
I saw Tom's comments on Tulsi and agree she should be under consideration as a top VP choice. I think Tulsi brings some intangibles to the table to a greater degree than other candidates (like Ben Carson or Byron Donald):
1) Tulsi is a traditional middle of the road Democrat who has walked away because of the extreme leftward shift of the Democratic base. As such, she appeals to many traditional Democrats and independents who feel the same way and are most comfortable with a middle of the road candidate and approach.
2) With Tulsi, Trump could message "we need to listen to both Dems and Republicans to address the challenges we're facing and work together to find solutions." This would help with the soccer moms who hate his "mean tweets" and provide some assurance that he is more moderate that he is being protrayed by the media and the Dems (another Hitler)
3) Tulsi is not a neocon and has a long established track record in that regard. As an active military reservist & VP it would enable her to guard Trump's flank against the neocon, deep state attacks that will surely come. She also would be an insurance policy for a Trump presidency. (Nikki Haley would be the opposite as the deep state would no doubt make a quick move to remove Trump)
4) Tulsi would significantly nullify any Dem benefits from a Michelle Obama switcheroo at the top. She's more experienced and articulate and a woman of color. I also believe that Tulsi could help Trump attract some of the Nikki Haley wing (although most are Dems crossing over during the primaries). I believe that Michelle would decide to sit out the 24 campaign if Tulsi were on the ticket and leave Newsome to take one for the team when there's a switch.
That all being said, Trump can capitalize on the Iowa momentum (historic 30 point win) and announce Tulsi soon. it would remove the little bit of wind in Nikki Haley's sails. They could start campaigning together and do some A/B testing of messaging, approach, etc.
But our betters have determined we don't know what is good for us.
They all agree among themselves that democracy is dangerous and leads to tyranny, or at least to a tyranny that is not theirs.
But they've got to keep up appearances; after all, the party that controls the US government inside and out is called the "Democrat" party, with rump Republicans.
So to keep up appearances, they plot and plot and plot. Sometimes bringing in the National Guard, and if need be they will bring in the Praetorian Guard.
She used to be a regular on Tucker. She walked away from the Marxist Dems. She’s made it on to Hillary’s enemies list. Would make it interesting if nothing else.
I don't trust Tom's judgement here - IIRC, he once said that Janet Yellen could be a presidential candidate. His commentary on Ukraine and Gaza has been stellar, but sometimes I find that he often suggests quite left field solutions in order to capture the conversation.
He didn't want Yellen as a Presidential candidate. He said that the Senate would have approved her for VP if Harris resigned. That then would have put her in the catbird seat for Prez if Doltin' Joe signed his resignation papers accidentally (or otherwise).
Ben Carson is great, but he is great in the same way as Clarence Thomas / Thomas Sowell / Walter Williams. You don't have to look far to see a genuinely racist savaging of this "type" of black American by whites and blacks alike. IMHO he wouldn't lock up the black vote.
Bingo. It's younger black men who are drifting away from Dems. They're not all of a sudden tuning into what these genuinely great black men are saying. They're disillusioned with Woke politics. They like Trump, they're not shifting to older black conservatives.
I'm no political genius as I've been so wrong thinking Romney would win, Donald would be reelected (probably was but that's another story) and thinking 2022 would be a red wave which turned out to be a red ripple.
Having said that, I think we're in a realignment. The Dems and Reps have kind of merged, in my opinion, at least at the federal level. Sure they disagree on gun control, abortion and LGBT issues, but probably only because they can't afford to lose their respective bases.
A populist party over time might become a major party, with a lot of Ds and Rs merging into the Uniparty that we all know and dislike.
Sadly, the only woman who could help is a pro-abort. As Frances notes below, women still believe things like Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape of whats-her-name who had two doors installed.
And even if only 1% of women believe those lies, the media will be paid to scream so loud, and a cast of thousands will be paid to wear red robes and white hats and stand silently in front of every capitol in America, so that when the election is stolen again, we'll be told it's because 99% of women believe the lies so the lies must be true, and has Trump stopped raping women yet?
Ben Carson, in my opinion, is a very interesting pick, for a cabinet post. He's now a bit of a relic having been on the scene for awhile while not drumming up much of a broader following beyond the traditional conservative circle and would not move the needle for Trump. The black vote is already drifting away from the Dems so why pick a black guy when you can get a more appealing pick that might bring back a lost demographic such as the suburban women vote and the younger voter? One of the things many of us in the 60+ crowd who read this blog have to consider is who will capture the 59 and younger voter? These people are going to still be around when many of us begin leaving for the great beyond. These are the same people who may not despise Trump, but have issues with his advanced age. Just MHO.
I agree with much of what you say, Frances I am just not convinced, despite his great character, that he would bring the older black vote for the reasons cited above by another commenter and Mark. You write, "you will not pick up many women no matter what you do unless there is a change in the right to abortion issue. The Dems have that issue locked up." Sadly the Republicans played this badly and seem to let the Dems control this issue and it undercuts their appeal to the younger generation who are not thinking of families like past generations for many reasons. I have long said this issue always comes down to semantics and we get stuck in the pro-life/pro-choice paradigm. It's been my sense that if we shifted to a pro-choice stance then you can control the choice.......pro-death or pro-life, but you offer the choice. Perhaps then we can get out of this trap we keep laying for ourselves with out abandoning our principals.
If the Republican Party walks away from pro-life, they'd lose enough of their voters to lose big time. I acknowledge the wins in red states about abortion. But let's remember abortion has a lot of money behind it as well as the media.
Arguing for the life of the baby is morally right. We who are anti-abortion have to accept that we need to change the culture regarding the sanctity of life. That said, it's the Dems who are the extremists, anti-life, anti-birth, anti-freedom. Stop being afraid to address abortion honestly and point out where the Dems stand. People don't support paying for abortions, partial-birth abortions and selling aborted baby parts. We have to take the wins we can and continue to pray for a Christian revival in the nation.
That's why you have to make a new argument. You could return to the time when pregnancies came to term and the unwanted child was left to die abandoned in the wilderness (or in the modern world tossed in the trash, by some trash mother). No one wants that either.
I want to like Tulsi, which is why I cant support her. Controlled opposition is what keeps roiling around in my gut,and I trust my gut. Sadly,I fear we can not count on a compromised government to right itself. It is going to take an overwhelming flood of political outsiders, the people.
Nimrata’s one county came from a university centric location, so yes “dem-ish”. I like Tulsi, not as VP, I don’t trust her enough, but certainly in a visible Trump cabinet position.
I hesitate to comment as I don't have a dog in this fight (I am English and live in England*). But, actually, I do and so does the whole world.
I was delighted when Trump beat Hillary, purely because of who she is, and because it shut up all the screeching bourgeoises for a day or two. But ultimately it made the Democrat party doubly virulent because of their sense of lost time. I hope they are never re-elected, for the good of this planet.
Frances L says: "They obviously would prefer the Dems win. But on the other hand if they let Trump win THEN crash the currency, start a World War, launch a plague, fire up their crazies, ALL at once they could blame the ensuing nightmare on Trump."
This seems very very likely to me.
It would be amusing to watch the UK's heir-apparent Keir Starmer,* a virtue-signalling ponce who makes Justine Trudeau appear sincere, deciding how to approach relations with the US. I expect he will cave and grovel just like virtue-signalling ponces always do.
* I apologise Mark and fellow readers for the off-colour language, believe me this is very certainly toned-down. I asterisked England and Starmer because I am not British (Grenadier Guards, landed gentry, disgusting history of oppresion right across the globe) and I will not bow to anyone, nor recognise any Sir, Lord, Dame etc.
On the abortion question. I am a Buddhist and believe that life begins (or continues, if you accept the notion of rebirth) at conception. The first precept is not to take the life of any living creature. At the same time I totally recognise that the decision to seek abortion is entirely that of the woman who has conceived. That will be her kamma. I'll add, and end with, the observation that in a different time-line I would be, but am not, the parent of a 40 year old.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/11/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/
In addition to the use of pills, it's fact that most contraceptives are abortifacient. So, millions per year is probably correct.
As the saying goes, “it’s a long way to Election Day and a lot of things can happen”.
And I would add that 2024 is destined to be
a year when those “things” that happen will be on steroids. As active as the first two weeks of the month have been, I think we may look back at this time as the lull before the storm.
I still like Lake, she has proven to be tougher than a 2.00 steak, she gives as good as she gets and I’m pretty sure that if you asked her if a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man you’d get the short answer and it would probably be a little earthy! Be sure that you file this in the “for what it’s worth” folder :-)
If he chooses Haley for his VP, a lot of people are going to stay home next Nov. In general, I think folks here are putting a lot of faith in one man. Trump at best will give us a short tea break from the dystopian collapse, but no human can fix the irretrievably broken wreck that is the West. And as a commenter on Market Ticker said, his campaign consists of promising to do all the things he was supposed to do in his first term.
I'd still vote for Trump if he chose Haley as VP. If he does choose Haley, it would tell me that he hasn't learned his lesson about the Deep State. I think that he has learned his lesson and won't choose her.
You're correct that he is one man and can't do it alone. He represents a movement that has been brewing for a long time, think of Ross Perot and later the Tea Party. The movement is big enough to include small business owners and union workers, pro-lifers and not pro-life, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists.
The cause is freedom. Trump doesn't own the movement and when he is wrong, like on the vaccine, the movement doesn't kowtow to him.
I can't say for certain, but am hopeful that we take the country back from the oligarchists, the anarchists and the elite.
Trump needs to choose wisely otherwise he will be an assassination target. There are few VP picks who the deep state would not prefer over Trump. I am not sure Tulsi qualifies.
Trump and Gabbard could certainly be the cure to what is ailing military recruiting, specifically the failure of young white males to volunteer.
My view is that whoever Trump picks as VP, that selection will be Trump's nod to who he thinks should carry the party forward after he is gone. When he said, and I paraphrase, no election has ever been won based on who was the VP pick, he meant it. That gives him the room to select his successor who he believes will continue his MAGA movement while still popular with the majority of his supporters.
Trump has learned a lot about DC politics since he was last elected. Pence was more of a sop to the GOP establishment than a fellow traveler to turn the country around. I don't believe he'll make that same mistake again knowing that the establishment RINOs are as much a political enemy as the democrats.
Solid, solid arguments! 100% agree.
Let's hope he has learnt something.
She is not perfect politically, but I think she is likely to buoy his candidacy.
She has supported abortion and gay marriage, but I believe in the past she was against both of those. Maybe she altered her position based upon the need to fit in with the leftist Democrat position. She seems to be opposed to radical trans thinking. Most people appear not to be 100% pro-life and not 100% pro-abortion, so she might fit in neatly with a large swath of society. Based upon my reading of her, I don't think she is personally an advocate of abortion, and certainly not an extremist.
She is not a Christian. I saw a video of her and her husband Christmas carolling and she seemed to truly appreciate and respect the spirit of Christmas. I give her high marks for that.
I think that she is fairly genuine and supports the rule of law. Much better than Haley or Noem.
She is Winnie-the-Pooh, stuffed with fluff.
I respectfully disagree.
I saw Tom's comments on Tulsi and agree she should be under consideration as a top VP choice. I think Tulsi brings some intangibles to the table to a greater degree than other candidates (like Ben Carson or Byron Donald):
1) Tulsi is a traditional middle of the road Democrat who has walked away because of the extreme leftward shift of the Democratic base. As such, she appeals to many traditional Democrats and independents who feel the same way and are most comfortable with a middle of the road candidate and approach.
2) With Tulsi, Trump could message "we need to listen to both Dems and Republicans to address the challenges we're facing and work together to find solutions." This would help with the soccer moms who hate his "mean tweets" and provide some assurance that he is more moderate that he is being protrayed by the media and the Dems (another Hitler)
3) Tulsi is not a neocon and has a long established track record in that regard. As an active military reservist & VP it would enable her to guard Trump's flank against the neocon, deep state attacks that will surely come. She also would be an insurance policy for a Trump presidency. (Nikki Haley would be the opposite as the deep state would no doubt make a quick move to remove Trump)
4) Tulsi would significantly nullify any Dem benefits from a Michelle Obama switcheroo at the top. She's more experienced and articulate and a woman of color. I also believe that Tulsi could help Trump attract some of the Nikki Haley wing (although most are Dems crossing over during the primaries). I believe that Michelle would decide to sit out the 24 campaign if Tulsi were on the ticket and leave Newsome to take one for the team when there's a switch.
That all being said, Trump can capitalize on the Iowa momentum (historic 30 point win) and announce Tulsi soon. it would remove the little bit of wind in Nikki Haley's sails. They could start campaigning together and do some A/B testing of messaging, approach, etc.
My 2 cents.
Trump is still a hit with normal people.
But our betters have determined we don't know what is good for us.
They all agree among themselves that democracy is dangerous and leads to tyranny, or at least to a tyranny that is not theirs.
But they've got to keep up appearances; after all, the party that controls the US government inside and out is called the "Democrat" party, with rump Republicans.
So to keep up appearances, they plot and plot and plot. Sometimes bringing in the National Guard, and if need be they will bring in the Praetorian Guard.
She used to be a regular on Tucker. She walked away from the Marxist Dems. She’s made it on to Hillary’s enemies list. Would make it interesting if nothing else.
She deflated Harris' ego and image in real time during one of the debates. You could just see Harris shrinking. Psssssssss
I don't trust Tom's judgement here - IIRC, he once said that Janet Yellen could be a presidential candidate. His commentary on Ukraine and Gaza has been stellar, but sometimes I find that he often suggests quite left field solutions in order to capture the conversation.
He didn't want Yellen as a Presidential candidate. He said that the Senate would have approved her for VP if Harris resigned. That then would have put her in the catbird seat for Prez if Doltin' Joe signed his resignation papers accidentally (or otherwise).
I'll take your word for it, Jeff. It was a while back.
He makes you think, which is becoming a bit of a crime these days.
“FDR democrat and antiwar”
That is oxymoronic.
Ben Carson is great, but he is great in the same way as Clarence Thomas / Thomas Sowell / Walter Williams. You don't have to look far to see a genuinely racist savaging of this "type" of black American by whites and blacks alike. IMHO he wouldn't lock up the black vote.
Bingo. It's younger black men who are drifting away from Dems. They're not all of a sudden tuning into what these genuinely great black men are saying. They're disillusioned with Woke politics. They like Trump, they're not shifting to older black conservatives.
I'm no political genius as I've been so wrong thinking Romney would win, Donald would be reelected (probably was but that's another story) and thinking 2022 would be a red wave which turned out to be a red ripple.
Having said that, I think we're in a realignment. The Dems and Reps have kind of merged, in my opinion, at least at the federal level. Sure they disagree on gun control, abortion and LGBT issues, but probably only because they can't afford to lose their respective bases.
A populist party over time might become a major party, with a lot of Ds and Rs merging into the Uniparty that we all know and dislike.
Sadly, the only woman who could help is a pro-abort. As Frances notes below, women still believe things like Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape of whats-her-name who had two doors installed.
And even if only 1% of women believe those lies, the media will be paid to scream so loud, and a cast of thousands will be paid to wear red robes and white hats and stand silently in front of every capitol in America, so that when the election is stolen again, we'll be told it's because 99% of women believe the lies so the lies must be true, and has Trump stopped raping women yet?
Trump can win without your state. I'll bet he did in 2016--when his pro-life stand was far more of an issue than it will be. He can do it again.
Ben Carson, in my opinion, is a very interesting pick, for a cabinet post. He's now a bit of a relic having been on the scene for awhile while not drumming up much of a broader following beyond the traditional conservative circle and would not move the needle for Trump. The black vote is already drifting away from the Dems so why pick a black guy when you can get a more appealing pick that might bring back a lost demographic such as the suburban women vote and the younger voter? One of the things many of us in the 60+ crowd who read this blog have to consider is who will capture the 59 and younger voter? These people are going to still be around when many of us begin leaving for the great beyond. These are the same people who may not despise Trump, but have issues with his advanced age. Just MHO.
It might, but I am, like others, mystified by how the modern woman thinks, or often doesn't think at all, but relies on emotions to guide them.
I agree with much of what you say, Frances I am just not convinced, despite his great character, that he would bring the older black vote for the reasons cited above by another commenter and Mark. You write, "you will not pick up many women no matter what you do unless there is a change in the right to abortion issue. The Dems have that issue locked up." Sadly the Republicans played this badly and seem to let the Dems control this issue and it undercuts their appeal to the younger generation who are not thinking of families like past generations for many reasons. I have long said this issue always comes down to semantics and we get stuck in the pro-life/pro-choice paradigm. It's been my sense that if we shifted to a pro-choice stance then you can control the choice.......pro-death or pro-life, but you offer the choice. Perhaps then we can get out of this trap we keep laying for ourselves with out abandoning our principals.
If the Republican Party walks away from pro-life, they'd lose enough of their voters to lose big time. I acknowledge the wins in red states about abortion. But let's remember abortion has a lot of money behind it as well as the media.
Arguing for the life of the baby is morally right. We who are anti-abortion have to accept that we need to change the culture regarding the sanctity of life. That said, it's the Dems who are the extremists, anti-life, anti-birth, anti-freedom. Stop being afraid to address abortion honestly and point out where the Dems stand. People don't support paying for abortions, partial-birth abortions and selling aborted baby parts. We have to take the wins we can and continue to pray for a Christian revival in the nation.
Anti-abortionism is non-negotiable. It isn't a political football but a fundamental stand against Evil.
I agree.
S'21 - Sir, you spoke clearly: Truth. We may be a continent and ocean or two apart, but are truly Kindred Spiritually on this. Blessings friend! (Wrh)
You make a good argument here, Frances.
I can't support free birth control. We need to stop teaching people that their luxuries are necessities.
That's why you have to make a new argument. You could return to the time when pregnancies came to term and the unwanted child was left to die abandoned in the wilderness (or in the modern world tossed in the trash, by some trash mother). No one wants that either.