Page 32 of 336

Re: 2024

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:30 pm
by Farfromgeneva
Kismet wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:00 pm The lady has a large NEGATIVE rating from both Republicans and Democrats in AZ. Pretty much everyone there dislikes her. She knew she was going to get primaried if she chooses to run for re-election as a Democrat. Not enough $$$$$$ to run as an independent and doubt she wants to see some MAGA idiot win in a three-way race as that would not be good for the donors who support her.

In today's politics EVERYTHING is about LEVERAGE. She had it and won't have as much, if any, going forward. Best bet is she'll opt out of running again and take a multi-million lobbying gig with her pals in Pharma and Banking who she has been taking care of for the past few years.
Wondered about the paid correspondent/expert route but media gigs are going to be tougher to get in the next few years. K street it is!

Re: 2024

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:41 pm
by Farfromgeneva
njbill wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:09 pm There were questions about whether Sinema would run in 2024. This move seems to clearly indicate that she will AND that she doesn’t think she can win the Democratic primary (which at this point seems to be a given).

I haven’t looked at the list recently, but I suspect this seat will be number one on the Republican’s list of seats they think they can flip in two years.

Assuming Arizona doesn’t have ranked choice voting or the 50% rule like Georgia, this development could help the Republicans win the seat. I would see her taking more votes away from the Democrat than the Republican. Of course, who wins will depend heavily on candidate quality as the Squire of Kentucky likes to say. Will the Republicans finally wake up and start running good candidates? If so, they’ll have a good shot at taking the seat. Who will the Democrats run? I don’t know. Hopefully they find somebody of as high quality as Mark Kelly.

Two things will help the Democrats. One, the state is edging bluer. Two, the crazies still seem to control the Republican party there.
First look: The U.S. cities where immigrants are moving and thriving

Stef W. Kight
Stef W. Kight

Axios on facebook

Axios on twitter

Axios on linkedin

Axios on email

Data: The George W. Bush Institute; Map: Alice Feng/Axios; Note: This map has been corrected to show Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA in the right location.
Immigrants already in the U.S. who decide to move are disproportionately heading for Sun Belt metros, according to a new study by the Bush Institute.

Why it matters: In recent decades, immigrants in the U.S. have increasingly chosen to live in smaller cities and more suburban areas — spreading demographic and social change across the country.

Immigration into the U.S. is critical for population and economic growth — and will be more so as the U.S. population continues to age.
Metro areas "experiencing large inflows of foreign born people are benefiting tremendously by attracting these people," said Cullum Clark, director of the economic growth initiative at the George W. Bush Institute-SMU.
By the numbers: Immigrants who decide to move within the U.S. gravitate toward fast-growing, suburban counties in metro areas with relatively affordable housing and policies that help businesses grow, according to the report, which analyzed foreign born populations in the U.S. between 2010-2020.

Of the top 25 metro areas for this kind of secondary migration, 15 are in the Sun Belt.
Six are in Florida and three are in South Carolina, with two each in Texas, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
Major city metro areas still have some of the highest rates of people immigrating from abroad. But places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami have seen more immigrants moving out than in from other parts of the U.S. since 2010, according to the report.
What to watch: Top destinations for newly arrived immigrants like New York and Miami also rank poorly as places where immigrants thrive, according to the report, which measured immigrant well-being by looking at a composite of several factors — including housing costs, income and education.

Out of the 100 largest metro areas, those ranked highest for immigrant well-being included several expected tech hubs with high immigration rates such as San Jose, San Francisco and Seattle, according to the report.
But the best destinations for immigrants also included more surprising metros, including Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Detroit.
"If immigrants are doing well in a city, it's probably a high-opportunity place for newcomers in general. If they’re not, the city is on a troubling path," the report argues.
Meanwhile, seven of America's 10 largest metros — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Miami, and Phoenix — rank in the middle of the pack or toward the bottom for places immigrants are prospering.
Between the lines: The study argues state and local governments should adopt policies that are more welcoming toward immigrants.

It also calls on Congress to pass federal legislation that would expand pathways for foreign workers.
The top 10 metro areas for immigrants' well-being:

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, Maryland
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, California
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC/Maryland/Virginia
St. Louis, Missouri/Illinois
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina
Jackson, Mississippi
Cincinnati, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana

Re: 2024

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:43 pm
by Farfromgeneva
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:28 pm
jhu72 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:10 pm
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:39 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:23 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:52 am
RedFromMI wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:41 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:55 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:35 am Get paid

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema Leaves Democratic Party

Lawmaker from Arizona had often disagreed with leadership on major legislation

Eliza CollinsDec. 9, 2022 7:00 am ET

”I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington,” she wrote in an opinion article in the Arizona Republic. “I registered as an Arizona independent.”

The news sent a jolt through Washington just days after Democrats won their 51st seat in the chamber after winning a special election in Georgia, and the move raised questions about whether she would continue to caucus with the party, like independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Ms. Sinema had sometimes forced changes to major party policies, and had faced regular criticism from Democratic activists.

Ms. Sinema was elected to the Senate in 2018 after serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and in Arizona’s state legislature. She was the first Democrat to win the state in 30 years. But her stances on major Democratic priorities had raised the possibility of a primary challenger.
Positioning herself early for the reelection run. She would have been primaried by a Democrat, so she is staking out the "Independent" geography to avoid the fight and split the vote in the general. She only does strategic things aimed at herself.
It is doubtful she will win as an independent - she is roundly hated within D circles in AZ, and running as an independent will only lead to a three way race in which she has a good chance of finishing third...
I don't disagree. She has alienated most Democrats, and is not palatable to the AZ GOP (maybe the craziest State apparatus in the Country), and kind of stands for nothing in particular.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 4895201281
I don't get why she's so loathed for being a moderate/middle-ish democrat. Yes, she's an attention you know what "focused internally" person, but so is every national politician as meglomaniacs tend to be. But is she supposed to be dogmatic and monolithic to progressive positions?

I prefer Manchin of the two as he seems to represent his folks more than she does, but this position feeds further into the tribalism that's infected, polluted and ultimately corrupted to the core the Republican party I had embraced my entire life. Do we want to "eye for an eye" this s**t?
I think what was frustrating to Dems these past 2 years wasn't so much that she is moderate, not getting on board with the most progressive policies, but rather that, unlike Manchin, they had enormous difficulty getting her to tell them what it would take, what compromise would be required, to move legislation. Manchin was typically more clear about what it would take, and he'd propose specific compromises...not what some Dems wanted, but at least they knew. She withheld. And this made them look inept and ineffective. Bad look.

And what became particularly predictable was that she was going to back the carried interest crowd and protect big pharma...and other than donations, it wasn't based on any particular rationale that was understandable.

So, rolling back the most egregious aspects of the Trump/McConnell tax cuts never got done...she was the key vote preventing.

Likewise, the blocking of voting reform...was it 'moderate' or something else?
That’s fair but then why did so many on the left lump her and Manchin together as indistinguishable (at least publicly)?
... think she was/is a hard person to understand her motivations, and was easily typed as a Manchin, because it was something they knew. I think she is just a loner, not a joiner, not comfortable inside a larger organization where you have to compromise -- there are people like that. Square peg in a round hole environment.
I think that's probably correct, though her capture by big Pharma is not equivalent to Manchin and carbon, far as I know...does she actually have voters there who care about protecting big Pharma and carried interest or just national donors?

But to Geneva's question, she was lumped in with Manchin because they were the two predictable hold out possibilities on many issue where the rest of the party was willing to sign on. As previously noted, she drew more ire because she kept making noises like things were possible, but then wouldn't provide any path to compromise. She's not a problem solver...Manchin is much more so.
Well then that's lazy on the part of the majority of the left and their failure to articulate and understand this.

Re: 2024

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:51 pm
by jhu72
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:28 pm
jhu72 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:10 pm
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:39 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:23 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:52 am
RedFromMI wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:41 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:55 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:35 am Get paid

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema Leaves Democratic Party

Lawmaker from Arizona had often disagreed with leadership on major legislation

Eliza CollinsDec. 9, 2022 7:00 am ET

”I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington,” she wrote in an opinion article in the Arizona Republic. “I registered as an Arizona independent.”

The news sent a jolt through Washington just days after Democrats won their 51st seat in the chamber after winning a special election in Georgia, and the move raised questions about whether she would continue to caucus with the party, like independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Ms. Sinema had sometimes forced changes to major party policies, and had faced regular criticism from Democratic activists.

Ms. Sinema was elected to the Senate in 2018 after serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and in Arizona’s state legislature. She was the first Democrat to win the state in 30 years. But her stances on major Democratic priorities had raised the possibility of a primary challenger.
Positioning herself early for the reelection run. She would have been primaried by a Democrat, so she is staking out the "Independent" geography to avoid the fight and split the vote in the general. She only does strategic things aimed at herself.
It is doubtful she will win as an independent - she is roundly hated within D circles in AZ, and running as an independent will only lead to a three way race in which she has a good chance of finishing third...
I don't disagree. She has alienated most Democrats, and is not palatable to the AZ GOP (maybe the craziest State apparatus in the Country), and kind of stands for nothing in particular.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 4895201281
I don't get why she's so loathed for being a moderate/middle-ish democrat. Yes, she's an attention you know what "focused internally" person, but so is every national politician as meglomaniacs tend to be. But is she supposed to be dogmatic and monolithic to progressive positions?

I prefer Manchin of the two as he seems to represent his folks more than she does, but this position feeds further into the tribalism that's infected, polluted and ultimately corrupted to the core the Republican party I had embraced my entire life. Do we want to "eye for an eye" this s**t?
I think what was frustrating to Dems these past 2 years wasn't so much that she is moderate, not getting on board with the most progressive policies, but rather that, unlike Manchin, they had enormous difficulty getting her to tell them what it would take, what compromise would be required, to move legislation. Manchin was typically more clear about what it would take, and he'd propose specific compromises...not what some Dems wanted, but at least they knew. She withheld. And this made them look inept and ineffective. Bad look.

And what became particularly predictable was that she was going to back the carried interest crowd and protect big pharma...and other than donations, it wasn't based on any particular rationale that was understandable.

So, rolling back the most egregious aspects of the Trump/McConnell tax cuts never got done...she was the key vote preventing.

Likewise, the blocking of voting reform...was it 'moderate' or something else?
That’s fair but then why did so many on the left lump her and Manchin together as indistinguishable (at least publicly)?
... think she was/is a hard person to understand her motivations, and was easily typed as a Manchin, because it was something they knew. I think she is just a loner, not a joiner, not comfortable inside a larger organization where you have to compromise -- there are people like that. Square peg in a round hole environment.
I think that's probably correct, though her capture by big Pharma is not equivalent to Manchin and carbon, far as I know...does she actually have voters there who care about protecting big Pharma and carried interest or just national donors?

But to Geneva's question, she was lumped in with Manchin because they were the two predictable hold out possibilities on many issue where the rest of the party was willing to sign on. As previously noted, she drew more ire because she kept making noises like things were possible, but then wouldn't provide any path to compromise. She's not a problem solver...Manchin is much more so.
... no question she doesn't have a problem trading with big money interests. Don't think for a second she was looking after her constituent's interests. Her drawing ire due to interactions around legislating I think fits perfectly my read of being a loner - the people skills just not there.

Re: 2024

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 9:37 am
by dislaxxic

Re: 2024

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2022 9:19 pm
by Brooklyn
Walker in 2024!


Who would be an ideal VP running mate? ;)

Re: 2024

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2022 1:46 pm
by Brooklyn
Judge tosses Kari Lake's election-challenge in Arizona governor's race


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge ... a4d97d3cb5


A judge on Saturday dismissed Republican Kari Lake’s election challenge and affirmed Democrat Katie Hobbs’ election as governor two days after a trial in which he said Lake failed to prove her case.

Maricopa County Judge Peter Thompson, who oversaw the two-day trial, ruled that Lake’s legal team never offered clear and convincing evidence showing the election was rigged against her.

Lake can appeal the case before Hobbs is expected to be sworn into office Jan. 2. Because of the tight timetable, the case may move swiftly to the Arizona Supreme Court.




It appears that Lake would be an ideal running mate for Walker in 2024. ;)

Re: 2024

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:42 am
by Seacoaster(1)
Opinion piece in the Times today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/opin ... -2024.html

"When President Biden gives his State of the Union address on Tuesday, he will have a lot to boast about.

He’s presided over record job creation and the lowest unemployment rate in over 50 years. Whereas Donald Trump’s infrastructure weeks were a running joke, Biden signed the largest infusion of federal funds into infrastructure in more than a decade. His Inflation Reduction Act made a historic investment in clean energy; the head of the International Energy Agency called it the most important climate action since the 2015 Paris climate accord. (And incidentally, inflation is finally coming down.) Biden rallied Western nations to support Ukraine against Russia’s imperialist invasion and ended America’s long, fruitless war in Afghanistan, albeit with an ugly and ignominious exit. His administration capped insulin prices for seniors, codified federal recognition of gay marriage and shot down that spy balloon everyone was freaking out about. He’s on track to appoint more federal judges than Trump.

Biden can also take a victory lap for Trump’s declining influence. Lots of pundits rolled their eyes when Biden sought to make the midterms a referendum on the MAGA movement’s threat to American democracy. Voters didn’t. Even more than Trump’s defeat in 2020, the loss of Trumpist candidates like Arizona’s Kari Lake and Georgia’s Herschel Walker in 2022 convinced many Republicans they need to move on from their onetime hero.

In other words, Biden has been a great president. He’s made good on an uncommon number of campaign promises. He should be celebrated on Tuesday. But he should not run again.

It’s been widely reported that Biden plans to use the State of the Union to set up his case for re-election. There’s a rift in the Democratic Party about whether this is wise for an 80-year-old to do. Democratic officials are largely on board, at least publicly, but the majority of Democratic voters are not. “Democrats say he’s done a good job but he’s too old,” said Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump Republican strategist who conducts regular voter focus groups. “He’ll be closer to 90 than 80 by the end of his second term.” Perhaps reflecting this dynamic, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that while 78 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents approved of the job Biden has done as president, 58 percent of them wanted a different candidate next year.

The arguments for sticking with Biden are not trivial. In addition to his successful record, he has the benefit of incumbency. Primaries are expensive, exhausting, bruising affairs. If only Biden were just a few years younger, it would not be worth the Democratic Party enduring one.

But it’s hard to ignore the toll of Biden’s years, no matter how hard elected Democrats try. In some ways, the more sympathetic you are to Biden, the harder it can be to watch him stumble over his words, a tendency that can’t be entirely explained by his stutter. Longwell said Democrats in her focus group talked about holding their breath every time he speaks. And while Biden was able to campaign virtually in 2020, in 2024 we will almost certainly be back to a grueling real-world campaign schedule, which he would have to power through while running the country. It’s a herculean task for a 60-year-old and a near impossible one for an octogenarian.

If Biden faces Trump, who will be 78 next year, that might not matter. It is worrying that in the Washington Post/ABC poll, Trump was slightly ahead in a hypothetical rematch, but Trump’s negatives tend to go up the more he’s in the public eye, and a presidential campaign would give him plenty of chances to remind Americans of his unique malignancy. But with many polls showing Trump’s popularity slipping and with the deep-pocketed Koch network lining up against him, chances are good that Biden’s competitor will be someone much younger, like Ron DeSantis, who will be 46 in 2024. Barring some radical shift in the national mood, the candidates will be vying for leadership of a deeply dissatisfied country desperate for change. For Democrats, the visual contrast alone could be devastating.

Plenty of Democrats worry that if Biden steps aside, the nomination will go to Vice President Kamala Harris, who polls poorly. But Democrats have a deep bench, including politicians who’ve won in important purple states, like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia. Biden said he wanted to be a bridge to the next generation of Democrats. There are quite a few promising people qualified to cross it. A primary will give Democrats the chance to find the one who is suited for this moment.

The last time I wrote about Biden being too old, he was at a low moment in his presidency, with inflation soaring and his Build Back Better agenda stalled. Had he decided not to run for re-election then, it probably would have looked like an admission of failure. Now his political legacy seems more secure. He’ll cement it if he has the uncommon wisdom to know when the time has come for a valediction, not a relaunch."

Re: 2024

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:43 am
by Seacoaster(1)
Nikki Haley announces. Imagine the excitement!!!

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/stat ... 6061221888

Re: 2024

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2023 12:05 pm
by youthathletics
Looking like Fulton County DA is going to indict Trump....I suppose one could argue this pumps his slow going campaign with adrenaline and gives him free press and interviews. It's like déjà vu all over again.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/13/politics ... index.html

Re: 2024

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:10 am
by Seacoaster(1)
A little commentary on Nikki Haley:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/02/opin ... ident.html

"Astonishingly, some people still see Nikki Haley as one of the “good” Trump cabinet members, the future of a more tolerant and accepting Republican Party. Like those anti-Trumpers who willfully interpreted each casual flick of Melania’s wrist as a prospect of rebellion, Haley hopefuls want to believe that a conscience might yet emerge from Trump’s Team of Liars, that the G.O.P’s latest showcasing of a Can-Do Immigrant Success Story can somehow undo years of xenophobia.

This requires listening to only half of what Haley says.

But if you listen to the full spectrum of her rhetoric, Haley clearly wants to capture the base that yearns for Trumpism — and to occupy the moral high ground of the post-Trump era. She wants to tout the credential of having served in a presidential cabinet (she was Trump’s U.N. ambassador) — and bask in recognition for having left of her own accord. She wants to criticize Americans’ obsession with identity politics — and highlight her own identity as a significant qualification.

There are plenty of reasons to approach Haley with wariness: her middle-school-cafeteria style of meting out revenge, her robotic “I have seen evil” presidential campaign announcement video, the P.T.A. briskness with which she dismisses a bothersome fact. But most alarming is her untroubled insistence on having her cake and eating it too. Even in short-term-memory Washington, rife as it is with wafflers and flip-floppers, the serene hypocrisy of Nikki Haley stands out. She wants it both ways — and she wants it her way most of all.

Take a glance at the inconvenient record. Here is Rebranded Republican Nikki Haley, who told Politico she was “triggered” by the 2015 slaughter of nine parishioners inside Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, that she was disgusted by Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential candidacy, that she was disgusted by Trump’s treatment of Mike Pence. And here also is Red-blooded Republican Haley, who in earlier interviews for the same 2021 Politico magazine profile rolls her eyes at the possibility of Trump’s impeachment, warmly recalls checking in on the disconsolate former president — a man she called her “friend” — and emphasizes “the good that he built.”

Haley is accustomed to internal contradiction, having been plucked from the South Carolina governorship to serve as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, a position Trump reportedly chose her for because it removed her from the governorship. Soon after Madam Ambassador arrived in New York in 2017, she appeared at the Council on Foreign Relations, an event I attended and remember well. Even members of the council, a nonpartisan group accustomed to hosting dignitaries both friendly and hostile, thrummed in anticipation of its first visiting cabinet member from the Trump administration.

Despite a reputation for intuitive political acumen, Haley seemed wholly incapable of reading the room. “This is an intimidating crowd, I’ve got to tell you. It really is,” she said, otherwise placid in her unpreparedness for a role grappling with urgent complexities in Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. She proceeded to share folksy anecdotes about how family members were adjusting to life in the big city. Later, she wove past questions from the council’s president, Richard Haass, at one point breaking into giggles. “It’s like you want me to answer it a certain way,” she admonished him. “That was too funny in the way you worded that.”

There as elsewhere, Haley emphasized where she came from: “In South Carolina, I was the first minority governor and — a real shock to the state — the first girl governor as well.” As discordant as this blushing Southern girlishness was from a senior administration official, it fit in with Haley’s “You go, girl!” notion of female empowerment. Haley may be the last American woman to champion “leaning in” à la Sheryl Sandberg — and on Sean Hannity’s TV show, of all places — without even a smidge of irony.

In a similar vein, the kicker to her campaign announcement speech was not only stunningly literal — “And when you kick back, it hurts them more if you’re wearing heels” — it also came from the regressive stilettoed playbook of Melania-Ivanka-Kellyanne. As Haley declared in her 2022 book, “If You Want Something Done: Leadership Lessons From Bold Women,” when people try to tell her what she can and can’t do, her strategy is to push back harder: “Your life — the life you want — is worth fighting for.”

Throughout her career, Haley has enjoyed the image of herself as an underdog and outsider willing to stand up to her party. But exposing and exploiting racism in the Republican Party isn’t the same as confronting it head on. Nor has she risked doing so except in rare moments. While governor of South Carolina in 2015, Haley called for the Confederate flag to be removed from the state capitol — but only after the murderous rampage of an avowed white nationalist. A 2010 video recently shown by CNN reveals this less as a moment of principled bravery than of political expediency. In that video, she defended the display of the Confederate flag and the observance of Confederate History Month. Asked how she would respond to those who objected, she replied, “I will work to talk to them about the heritage and how this is not something that’s racist.” She repeated this defense again in 2019 in an interview with Glenn Beck in which she described the flag as a symbol of “service, sacrifice and heritage.”

With equally dexterous flair, Haley emphasizes her relative youth at 51 (“a new generation of leadership”), her identity as a woman and her Indian heritage as the child of immigrants while repeatedly condemning identity politics. “I don’t believe in that,” she said while campaigning recently in South Carolina, before neatly wrapping up with “As I set out on this new journey, I will simply say this — may the best woman win.”

According to a recent poll, Haley is one point ahead of Pence, currently exciting about 5 percent of Republican voters. In all likelihood, she will wind up Sarah Palin-ed into the vice-presidential candidate pool. But with her long-shot win of the South Carolina governorship, Haley has previously proved the unbelievers wrong. She may be hoping that a record of equivocation will be perceived as one of mediation, and her brand of hypocrisy mistaken for one of moderation. It’s on voters to decide, when choosing between her and those Republican candidates who are ideological to their core, whether they prefer a candidate with no core at all."

Re: 2024

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:30 am
by Kismet
Former Republican MD Governor Larry Hogan just opted out of the 2024 Presidential primary race.

Nikki Haley got heckled by the MAGA crowd at CPAC.

The transition of the party of Lincoln is complete - “I am your retribution” was the quote of the day on the anniversary of Lincoln’s second inaugural address in which he said he proclaimed “with malice toward none with charity for all.”

Re: 2024

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:22 am
by Seacoaster(1)
Most prominent Republicans have already committed to "supporting the nominee." My own Governor, desperately trying to boost his centrist, pragmatic image, calls Trump insane...but will support him if he's the nominee. McConnell, others, essentially the same.

Here is the most recent transcript:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tr ... transcript

This is the person they might support.

Thoughtful on immigration:

"The sinister forces trying to kill America have done everything they can to stop me, to silence you, and to turn this nation into a socialist dumping ground for criminals, junkies, Marxists, thugs, radicals, and dangerous refugees that no other country wants. No other country wants them. If those opposing us succeed, our once beautiful USA will be a failed country that no one will even recognize. A lawless, open borders, crime-ridden, filthy, communist nightmare. That’s what it’s going and that’s where it’s going. I used to say that we will never be a socialist country. I said it oftentimes. I said it once at the State of the Union address and people didn’t understand what I was saying. But I’d shout it out loud and I was right because that train has passed the station long ago of socialism. It never even came close to stopping, frankly."

On civil service reform:

"We started something that was America. We’re going to complete the mission. We’re going to see this battle through to ultimate victory. We’re going to make America great again. With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers. They are people that don’t get it, although, in some cases, they get it. They get it for their wallets, but we can’t do that. We can’t let that happen. We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists. We will throw off the political class that hates our country. They actually hate our country. No walls, no borders, bad elections, no voter ID. We will beat the Democrats. We will route the fake news media. We will expose and appropriately deal with the RINOs."

On coordination with NATO:

"We’re taking care of the problems of the rest of the world that they’re not taking care of themselves. They have us put up the money. You know what I’m talking about. If you look at Ukraine, and we all feel so badly about it, but why isn’t NATO putting up dollar for dollar with us? We put up $140 billion and they put up just a tiny fraction of that. And we all want to see success, but it’s far more important to them than it is to us because of that location. We are never going to be a country ruled by entrenched political dynasties in both parties. Rotten special interests, China-loving politicians, of which there are many. You listening to this, Mitch McConnell? You listening? And a militant left wing news media that’s either frightened of telling the truth or is truly evil and bad. I don’t know. I think in many ways they’re frightened, but you never really know which. We are not going back to this mindset, not now, not ever, not ever."

Thoughtful dialogue on people on the margins and who think differently than one another:

"I arrested the Marxists to topple statues of our great heroes in Washington, DC. We arrested them. They were knocking down the most beautiful artwork, the most beautiful statues of great heroes. They didn’t even know who they were doing. They just wanted anarchy. And I passed and signed an executive order. Anybody that that gets 10 years in jail with no negotiation. It’s not 10, but it turns into three months.

And it’s an incredible thing that stopped right away. They were heading to the Jefferson Memorial. They wanted to take out Thomas Jefferson. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think we’re going to let that happen. But we passed it. It was a very old law that we founded. One of my very good legal people, along with Steven Miller, they found it. They said, “sir, I don’t know if you want to try and bring this back.” I said, “I do.” And as soon as we passed it, that was the end that just stopped. It’s amazing. It’s a miracle. We banned transgender insanity from our military and signed the world’s first ban on critical race theory long before anybody had even heard of the term. It was all banned, everything was good."

On the rule of law and the independence of the Executive and Judicial Branches, and, well, some other stuff:

"And as I did for four incredible years, I will put America first every single time, every single day. From the beginning, we have been attacked by a sick and sinister opposition, the radical left communists, the bureaucrats, the fake news media, the big money special interests, the corrupt Democrat prosecutors. Oh, they’re after me for so many things. Oh, those prosecutors. Some are racists. Some hate our country. They all hate me. They’ll get me for anything, anything. You put a comma in this paragraph. Why did you do that? I don’t really know. The partisan and often corrupt intelligence agencies, the George Soros money machine that spends a lot of money on the prosecutors, by the way. The Antifa thugs who are allowed to roam the streets while we have people that in many cases are great patriots, great, great patriots, sing prayers every night, playing our national anthem every day. And they’re sitting in a jail nearby, rotting away, and being treated so unfairly like nobody’s probably ever been treated in this country before, except maybe me."

On support in Congress:

"And Marjorie, you’ve been so fantastic on that issue. Where’s Marjorie? You’ve been so fantastic on that issue. And Elise and Matt, people that love our country, people that love our country have been so great on that issue. And the perverts who use the names of Washington and Lincoln to buy millions of dollars in ads to say bad, lifeless, and incorrect things about us. I didn’t know this was a rally, Matt. It really is a rally. And by the way, thank you for that beautiful straw poll. That was a big win, thank you. Our enemies are lunatics and maniacs."

On sacrifice, as the bedrock foundation for public service:

"At the end of the day, anyone else will be intimidated, bought off, blackmailed, or ripped to shreds. I alone will never retreat. And that is why we must stand together and charge. We have to charge full speed ahead. I had a beautiful life before I did this. I lived in luxury. I had everything. People said to me, “Are you sure you want to do it, sir?” I said, “Oh, this will be so amazing.” What the hell did you get me into? I didn’t know the word subpoena. I didn’t know the word grand jury, those words, grand jury. I didn’t know that they want to lynch you for doing nothing wrong. I didn’t know they want to lynch you for doing a great job. I didn’t know they want to put you away because your poll numbers are better than anybody they’ve seen in years."

But wait, there's more on civil service reform...and party unity:

"I will fire the unelected bureaucrats and shadow forces who have weaponized our justice system like it has never been weaponized before, these are sick people, and I will put the people back in charge of this country again, the people will be back in charge of our country. The Biden administration is the most corrupt administration in American history. Hunter Biden is a criminal, and nothing happened to him, nothing happened. Joe Biden is a criminal and nothing ever seems to happen to him, because you know, say what you want, but the Democrats stick together. They don’t have Mitt Romney, they don’t have guys like that, they stick together. How’s Mitt Romney doing? Not too good. I could name plenty of others too, but they do stick together whether you like them or not, and many of us don’t, but maybe someday we get together."

More on NATO and treaty commitments:

"And I said to him, “Either you pay or we’re not going to protect you.” And a man stood up, a president of a country stood up, and he said, “Sir, could I ask you a question?” This was a round table with nobody in the room, but the presidents, prime ministers, and dictators, okay? Some of them are all the same, but they stood up and he stood up and said, “Sir, can I ask you a question? If we don’t pay up and if we get attacked by Russia, will you protect us, sir?” I said, “Now you’re not paid up, right?” “That’s right.” “You’re delinquent, right?” “Yes.” I will not protect you from Russia.” “Sir, we’ll send you a check tomorrow, sir. We’ll send you a check tomorrow. It’ll be sent by overnight mail, sir, I promise you’ll have it tomorrow.”

Now, if I said like the stupid politicians say, “Absolutely. Article 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, where you’re supposed to do it? But those articles all suppose that you’re supposed to be paid up. But let’s say I said the opposite, “Yes, we will always protect you.” And I took a lot of heat because they said, “I’m not a good member.” Actually, NATO wouldn’t even exist if I didn’t get them to pay up, but they paid up $449 billion or something, and that’s the money they use."

And this:

"You ever see television? It used to be we’d build our military. We were proud of it. We’d be doing all things. All you see on the thing, investigation, investigation, investigation. Now, with that being said, you got to look at Hunter. I mean how crooked is that deal? But it’s not something I really … I’d like to get back to building our country and making our country great again, but it’s time to start talking about greatness for our country."

This is the guy.

Re: 2024

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:47 am
by Farfromgeneva
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:22 am Most prominent Republicans have already committed to "supporting the nominee." My own Governor, desperately trying to boost his centrist, pragmatic image, calls Trump insane...but will support him if he's the nominee. McConnell, others, essentially the same.

Here is the most recent transcript:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tr ... transcript

This is the person they might support.

Thoughtful on immigration:

"The sinister forces trying to kill America have done everything they can to stop me, to silence you, and to turn this nation into a socialist dumping ground for criminals, junkies, Marxists, thugs, radicals, and dangerous refugees that no other country wants. No other country wants them. If those opposing us succeed, our once beautiful USA will be a failed country that no one will even recognize. A lawless, open borders, crime-ridden, filthy, communist nightmare. That’s what it’s going and that’s where it’s going. I used to say that we will never be a socialist country. I said it oftentimes. I said it once at the State of the Union address and people didn’t understand what I was saying. But I’d shout it out loud and I was right because that train has passed the station long ago of socialism. It never even came close to stopping, frankly."

On civil service reform:

"We started something that was America. We’re going to complete the mission. We’re going to see this battle through to ultimate victory. We’re going to make America great again. With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers. They are people that don’t get it, although, in some cases, they get it. They get it for their wallets, but we can’t do that. We can’t let that happen. We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists. We will throw off the political class that hates our country. They actually hate our country. No walls, no borders, bad elections, no voter ID. We will beat the Democrats. We will route the fake news media. We will expose and appropriately deal with the RINOs."

On coordination with NATO:

"We’re taking care of the problems of the rest of the world that they’re not taking care of themselves. They have us put up the money. You know what I’m talking about. If you look at Ukraine, and we all feel so badly about it, but why isn’t NATO putting up dollar for dollar with us? We put up $140 billion and they put up just a tiny fraction of that. And we all want to see success, but it’s far more important to them than it is to us because of that location. We are never going to be a country ruled by entrenched political dynasties in both parties. Rotten special interests, China-loving politicians, of which there are many. You listening to this, Mitch McConnell? You listening? And a militant left wing news media that’s either frightened of telling the truth or is truly evil and bad. I don’t know. I think in many ways they’re frightened, but you never really know which. We are not going back to this mindset, not now, not ever, not ever."

Thoughtful dialogue on people on the margins and who think differently than one another:

"I arrested the Marxists to topple statues of our great heroes in Washington, DC. We arrested them. They were knocking down the most beautiful artwork, the most beautiful statues of great heroes. They didn’t even know who they were doing. They just wanted anarchy. And I passed and signed an executive order. Anybody that that gets 10 years in jail with no negotiation. It’s not 10, but it turns into three months.

And it’s an incredible thing that stopped right away. They were heading to the Jefferson Memorial. They wanted to take out Thomas Jefferson. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think we’re going to let that happen. But we passed it. It was a very old law that we founded. One of my very good legal people, along with Steven Miller, they found it. They said, “sir, I don’t know if you want to try and bring this back.” I said, “I do.” And as soon as we passed it, that was the end that just stopped. It’s amazing. It’s a miracle. We banned transgender insanity from our military and signed the world’s first ban on critical race theory long before anybody had even heard of the term. It was all banned, everything was good."

On the rule of law and the independence of the Executive and Judicial Branches, and, well, some other stuff:

"And as I did for four incredible years, I will put America first every single time, every single day. From the beginning, we have been attacked by a sick and sinister opposition, the radical left communists, the bureaucrats, the fake news media, the big money special interests, the corrupt Democrat prosecutors. Oh, they’re after me for so many things. Oh, those prosecutors. Some are racists. Some hate our country. They all hate me. They’ll get me for anything, anything. You put a comma in this paragraph. Why did you do that? I don’t really know. The partisan and often corrupt intelligence agencies, the George Soros money machine that spends a lot of money on the prosecutors, by the way. The Antifa thugs who are allowed to roam the streets while we have people that in many cases are great patriots, great, great patriots, sing prayers every night, playing our national anthem every day. And they’re sitting in a jail nearby, rotting away, and being treated so unfairly like nobody’s probably ever been treated in this country before, except maybe me."

On support in Congress:

"And Marjorie, you’ve been so fantastic on that issue. Where’s Marjorie? You’ve been so fantastic on that issue. And Elise and Matt, people that love our country, people that love our country have been so great on that issue. And the perverts who use the names of Washington and Lincoln to buy millions of dollars in ads to say bad, lifeless, and incorrect things about us. I didn’t know this was a rally, Matt. It really is a rally. And by the way, thank you for that beautiful straw poll. That was a big win, thank you. Our enemies are lunatics and maniacs."

On sacrifice, as the bedrock foundation for public service:

"At the end of the day, anyone else will be intimidated, bought off, blackmailed, or ripped to shreds. I alone will never retreat. And that is why we must stand together and charge. We have to charge full speed ahead. I had a beautiful life before I did this. I lived in luxury. I had everything. People said to me, “Are you sure you want to do it, sir?” I said, “Oh, this will be so amazing.” What the hell did you get me into? I didn’t know the word subpoena. I didn’t know the word grand jury, those words, grand jury. I didn’t know that they want to lynch you for doing nothing wrong. I didn’t know they want to lynch you for doing a great job. I didn’t know they want to put you away because your poll numbers are better than anybody they’ve seen in years."

But wait, there's more on civil service reform...and party unity:

"I will fire the unelected bureaucrats and shadow forces who have weaponized our justice system like it has never been weaponized before, these are sick people, and I will put the people back in charge of this country again, the people will be back in charge of our country. The Biden administration is the most corrupt administration in American history. Hunter Biden is a criminal, and nothing happened to him, nothing happened. Joe Biden is a criminal and nothing ever seems to happen to him, because you know, say what you want, but the Democrats stick together. They don’t have Mitt Romney, they don’t have guys like that, they stick together. How’s Mitt Romney doing? Not too good. I could name plenty of others too, but they do stick together whether you like them or not, and many of us don’t, but maybe someday we get together."

More on NATO and treaty commitments:

"And I said to him, “Either you pay or we’re not going to protect you.” And a man stood up, a president of a country stood up, and he said, “Sir, could I ask you a question?” This was a round table with nobody in the room, but the presidents, prime ministers, and dictators, okay? Some of them are all the same, but they stood up and he stood up and said, “Sir, can I ask you a question? If we don’t pay up and if we get attacked by Russia, will you protect us, sir?” I said, “Now you’re not paid up, right?” “That’s right.” “You’re delinquent, right?” “Yes.” I will not protect you from Russia.” “Sir, we’ll send you a check tomorrow, sir. We’ll send you a check tomorrow. It’ll be sent by overnight mail, sir, I promise you’ll have it tomorrow.”

Now, if I said like the stupid politicians say, “Absolutely. Article 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, where you’re supposed to do it? But those articles all suppose that you’re supposed to be paid up. But let’s say I said the opposite, “Yes, we will always protect you.” And I took a lot of heat because they said, “I’m not a good member.” Actually, NATO wouldn’t even exist if I didn’t get them to pay up, but they paid up $449 billion or something, and that’s the money they use."

And this:

"You ever see television? It used to be we’d build our military. We were proud of it. We’d be doing all things. All you see on the thing, investigation, investigation, investigation. Now, with that being said, you got to look at Hunter. I mean how crooked is that deal? But it’s not something I really … I’d like to get back to building our country and making our country great again, but it’s time to start talking about greatness for our country."

This is the guy.
We took him out in Ga once and we will do it again soon. Never fear Atlanta is here.

Re: 2024

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:43 am
by Seacoaster(1)
I put this in the 2024 thread just to make Pence feel good. And so here he is, commenting on the impending indictment (believe it when I see I it, BTW), and trying to thread the needle with the cult:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1637457551678754816

Where are the backbones stored? Anyone?

Re: 2024

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:02 am
by Farfromgeneva
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:43 am I put this in the 2024 thread just to make Pence feel good. And so here he is, commenting on the impending indictment (believe it when I see I it, BTW), and trying to thread the needle with the cult:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1637457551678754816

Where are the backbones stored? Anyone?
Rebekah Mercer and Rupert Murdoch's closets?

Re: 2024

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:09 am
by Seacoaster(1)
Chris Sununu, in his relentless effort to have someone remember him later, has made his vertebrae deposit:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1637440892205256704

Re: 2024

Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:11 am
by Seacoaster(1)
Advice from the Right...that the cult won't heed:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/ ... -or-trump/

"Conservative Americans must choose. Do they want Donald Trump to play a central role in Republican politics, or do they want to win elections and achieve the policy outcomes that supposedly inspired them to get involved in politics in the first instance? My question is literal, not rhetorical. Conservatives must choose. They cannot have both of these things. They must pick only one.

As president, Donald Trump delivered some welcome conservative victories. He is not going to do so again. In fact, the opposite is true. If Trump is allowed to stick around, he will remain what he has already become: a massive drag on the fortunes and the efficacy of the political Right. Electorally, Trump is a bust. Ideologically, he is a mess. And as an agent of persuasion . . . well, let’s just say that, at this point, the GOP might be better off asking Charles Manson to serve as the chief representative of its brand. A Republican Party that features Trump as its star attraction is a Republican Party that will stay at the margins of federal office and watch impotently as progressives continue to accrete power. The bureaucracy will grow. Taxes will increase. Entitlement spending will spiral. The border will remain porous. The Supreme Court will be flipped back. That, and not the handful of salutary reforms that were achieved between 2017 and 2021, will be Trump’s legacy.

Trump is not going to win elections going forward. He won in 2016 because he ran against Hillary Clinton — and, even then, he secured only 46.1 percent of the vote. In 2018, he was a drag on the Republican ticket. In 2020, he lost reelection by 7 million votes. In 2022, he almost single-handedly demolished the GOP’s chance to retake the Senate. If Trump is nominated in 2024, he will lose once again. The same goes for 2028, 2032, 2036, and every election season in between. Trump is a poor candidate; he has become worse, not better, over time; and his time in the wilderness has turned him into King Lear.

Nor is Trump going to help other conservatives to win office or to thrive. We can, of course, debate who is and who is not a “conservative,” just as we can argue over which sort of conservatives we would like to lead the movement going forward. But that is not the endeavor in which Donald Trump is engaged. Rather, Trump habitually divides the world into two groups — one full of people he likes, one full of people he does not — and then backfills his reasoning on the fly. For Trump, there is nothing important in American politics besides the one-way personal loyalty that other Republicans exhibit toward him and his ambitions. Why are Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik and Dr. Oz held up as desirable conservatives? Answer: Because McCarthy and Stefanik are willing to prostrate themselves before him. Why, by contrast, are Brian Kemp, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and, increasingly, Ron DeSantis deemed problematic? Answer: Because, in one way or another, they are unwilling to toe his line. Given a choice between advancing his own interests and burning down the entire American conservative movement, Trump would light a match.

If pushed, Trump will suggest that he is now synonymous with American conservatism — that, as a practical matter, his interests and its interests are inextricable. This is false. Across the board, Trump’s existence within the debate is making it more difficult to sell conservatism than it was before he arrived. Conservatives believe in the importance of institutions, of delayed gratification, and of exhibiting humility about what we do not — and, perhaps, cannot — know. Donald Trump believes in none of these things. Conservatives believe that politics exists to facilitate civil society, and they insist that the idea that “everything is political” represents the first step toward totalitarianism. Donald Trump sits at the head of a cult of personality and subordinates all political and moral questions to his whim. Conservatives cherish the American constitutional order, and they understand that its constraints will not always line up with the transient wishes of the majority. Like contemporary progressives, Donald Trump expresses a desire to abolish any portion of the system that temporarily inconveniences him.

This infantile impatience is applied universally, because, at root, Donald Trump believes in nothing. Sensing a fleeting political advantage, Trump has begun to throw the entire Democratic playbook at Ron DeSantis, who, because he has noticed that our federal entitlements are insolvent, has been labeled a “wheelchair off the cliff kind of guy.” This is not helpful. Desperate to divert blame for the performance of his ridiculous candidates in 2022, Trump insisted that it was Republicans’ position on abortion — one he once adopted himself — that had cost them the Senate. This is not helpful. Blinded by the cameras after the massacre at Parkland in 2018, Trump responded to Mike Pence’s demand that any changes to the law must “allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled” by declaring, “I like taking the guns early” and, “take the guns first, go through due process second.” This is not helpful.

As a famous man once said, “We have come to a time for choosing.” Unlike in 2020, Donald Trump’s nomination in 2024 is not a fait accompli, and the question before conservatives is not whether they would prefer a second Trump term to the prospect of Joe Biden. The question now is whether, with the advantage of a great universe of alternative options before them, conservatives would prefer to take concrete steps to advance their political goals or to sacrifice everything to feed the ego of a maniac. Those are our two choices — and they are not going to change."

Remember: it is not a cult: https://twitter.com/jasonselvig/status/ ... 54/photo/1

Re: 2024

Posted: Mon May 22, 2023 7:46 pm
by CU88a
Worth noting that the #2 GOP senator is expected to endorse Tim Scott:


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1bub0D

Re: 2024

Posted: Mon May 22, 2023 8:45 pm
by NattyBohChamps04
CU88a wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 7:46 pm Worth noting that the #2 GOP senator is expected to endorse Tim Scott:


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1bub0D
I'm sure I've heard his name at some point. But does the public know or care who John Thune is?

We're still at the stage of "if Trump is the nominee, I'll support him no matter what."