Who should run with Donald Trump in 2024?

WrongHanded

Active member
Dude if you want a moderate, try to get Tulsi back in the fight with the D's and vote for her because the R's can't afford to play footsie anymore.
I'd say the Republicans just need to move more to the center and let the Democrats slide farther left. Then the Republicans will start looking very reasonable to a great many more voters.

The problem is, there are too many sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "lah-lah-lah! I can't hear you!" instead of taking a hard look at the social climate in this country.

Social media manipulations aside, politics follows the people. Not the other way around.
 

roscoe

Active member
This is the thinking that has kept the Republicans from ever doing anything useful.

Republicans have wasted the last quarter century waiting for this magical candidate that is equal parts Ronald Reagan and William F Buckley and as a result end up running useless Quislings like Romney and McCain and now you're arguing that we should do that again.

No we need a street fighter, not an eurodite, well mannered castrato.

That said, the elections are rigged. That's not getting fixed in the next 4 years (if ever).


No the reason that Trump lost is because the election was rigged ... in an unrigged election he would likely have won in a landslide that would dwarf Reagan and Nixon's landslides.

All these people coming up with their theories of how Trump should have done this or that keep ignoring the fact that whatever he did worked were it not for the rigging.

Trump lost by 8 million votes - the biggest margin in US presidential history, and the first time an incumbent lost in 28 years. His own administration called it the cleanest election in history, and he lost 60 straight cases in the courts challenging the election. Also a loser's record.

Trump lost because he blew his chance - he proved himself to be a very poor leader driven entirely by his ego. America finally caught on, and voted accordingly. Hire someone unqualified, fire someone unqualified.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Every time that a Liberal asks anyone to compromise, what they are actually demanding is that you surrender abjectly and apologize profusely for your previous evil thoughts... .

-And, no, politics does not follow the people. The people usually follow the people that shout the same things loudly and repeatedly. Until recently, the people followed the press. I don't know what they're going to follow after the press finishes dying... .
 

roscoe

Active member
There is a reason people like McConnell are leery of Trump - Mitch is a lifelong politician and knows that if the Republican Party follows Trump, it will never win national elections (like the presidency). Trump activated a dormant wing of the right that largely repels middle America. The January 6 attack exposed his true attitudes about power, as well as the people that most strongly support him. He will have a fervent base, but it will always be small, and it will be easy for Democrats to run against him.

If you want a good precedent, look at George Wallace or, to a lesser extent Barry Goldwater. Trump slid in against a very weak Democratic candidate (HRC), losing the popular vote but just barely getting the electoral college. But he couldn't even beat a very elderly, milquetoast Biden. Imagine what a strong Democrat, like Obama, or Bill Clinton would have done to him.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
-And, no, politics does not follow the people. The people usually follow the people that shout the same things loudly and repeatedly. Until recently, the people followed the press. I don't know what they're going to follow after the press finishes dying... .
So you think the Republicans will given up and disolve instead of modifying their policies? They'll do whatever they have to in order to stay relevant, and promise anything they need to promise to get the votes.

But yes, people do usually follow whoever is shouting the loudest. Most recently a large minority followed a loud and obnoxious orange demagogue crying vague promises of an unspecific nature that he would make the country great again. None that followed wanted a plan. None that followed wanted specifics. All they wanted was for things to be awesome, and they really believed he would make things awesome for them. But when he finally got the chance to make things awesome, it turned out he didn't have a plan, and they were no specifics. And he wouldn't listen to any of his advisors because he was too busy tweeting about how awful other people were and how he was the best at everything. So he fired his advisors, and then fired their replacements, and didn't make good on his campaign promises to make things awesome. And he ignored the problems he didn't want to deal with and went to play golf instead. And somehow, even to this day, some people still thing this guy is worth more than a burning sack of dog $#!/ on their porch.
 
Every time that a Liberal asks anyone to compromise, what they are actually demanding is that you surrender abjectly and apologize profusely for your previous evil thoughts... .

-And, no, politics does not follow the people. The people usually follow the people that shout the same things loudly and repeatedly. Until recently, the people followed the press. I don't know what they're going to follow after the press finishes dying... .
This is one of the biggest problems. Both sides are controlled by the extremes of their party, and anytime the word compromise comes up everyone freaks out. Compromise is important to actually get things done.
 

NIGHTLORD40K

Active member
McCain was a treasonous louse ... Romney has shown himself to be little better but he could have won if he'd actually fought. He came out swinging at the first debate and his numbers went through the roof ... but then he decided it was his White Man's burden to not speak in harsh tones to the poor little brown boy so he stopped fighting and all but endorsed Obama purely because of his skin color.

Dude if you want a moderate, try to get Tulsi back in the fight with the D's and vote for her because the R's can't afford to play footsie anymore.
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the very few Dems I have any time for. The D party has swung too far Left, though, to ever seriously consider her again. Hopefully she switches parties.......and brings Joe Manchin and a few others with her.
 

roscoe

Active member
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the very few Dems I have any time for. The D party has swung too far Left, though, to ever seriously consider her again. Hopefully she switches parties.......and brings Joe Manchin and a few others with her.

It's not the Democrats who are under pressure to change. The Republicans lost both houses of Congress and the Presidency, after having controlled all three (until 2018 and 2020). There is sincere panic inside the Republicans because, if they run away from Trump, they lose those most fervent supporters, but if they run towards him, they further marginalize the party to the majority of the country.

There are significant divisions within the Republican party. The religious and 'identity' oriented right (alt-right, plus white supremacy, plus the conspiracy groups) no longer really has any common cause with the old Ronald Reagan/Barry Goldwater libertarian and pro-business Republicans (Goldwater was strongly opposed to the fundamentalists). Hence the more extreme right-wingers calling long-time Republican stalwarts like Mitch McConnell 'rinos'. Ever since the Iron Curtain fell, there hasn't really been enough panic about communism to keep them all rowing together.

But be sure - purification of the Republican party to some sort of ideological minority will assure their long-term irrelevance. Hence the current Republican squirm as Trump tries to mark his spot.
 

wiscoaster

Active member
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the very few Dems I have any time for. ....
Same here. She speaks her mind, not the Demo playbook. She respects the Constitution. She's politically moderate, she's smart, she's strong, she's personable, and, uhm ... she's very photogenic!! :cool:

I don't really know what she's doing in the Demo party, other than maybe you have to be one to get elected in Hawaii.
 
Last edited:

Zundfolge

Member
She respects the Constitution.
Well no...
I don't really know what she's doing in the Demo party
... she's a gun grabber who wants socialism (medicare for all, universal basic income, green new deal, etc). But I don't get the sense that she hates America nor the common American (unlike her fellow Dems that see us as animals to be controlled) and she seems willing to discuss and debate the issues instead of just calling names so at least she's a reasonable opponent. And yes, she's easy on the eyes.
 

wiscoaster

Active member
She's been guest-commenting on Newsmax (or maybe it's OAN - don't remember) and coming across as more conservative and populist than her stated as-Demo-candidate positions. I still think she's got potential.
 

Zundfolge

Member
She's been guest-commenting on Newsmax (or maybe it's OAN - don't remember) and coming across as more conservative and populist than her stated as-Demo-candidate positions. I still think she's got potential.
She gets her head on straight vis-a-vis the 2A and cuts out the socialism and she'll be great.
 

tyrant

Member
The threat of a third “Patriot” party splitting the Republican vote is real. Further, Trump has lots of PAC money from build the wall and stop the steal donations. He will use it to his own skewed ends. A healthy two party system works best. I’m concerned we don’t have that right now.


This is a bad idea.


If Trump were to run again in 2024 he'd lose a lot of Republican votes vs. if he stayed Republican he'd retain a lot more.


I think Nikki Hailey is a poor choice because she is being groomed for a presidential run already and being a VP to Trump could hurt her chances later on.
 

M5-Shogun

New member
Not that I vote, but my picks for VP would be:

Rand Paul, Kristi Noem. I am against establishment picks, especially the likes of Bachmann or others who basically run on ABORTION BAD (Not that I don't agree - I 100% agree, but it's too polarizing and makes them appear 1-dimensional) as their only defining position.
 
Top