TRHLIM

thethe said:
You will get Vance as your president and you will live the results. I’d expect some standard bitching though form you two.
Click to expand...
The Republican primary will be interesting.

Vance is definitely the guy best able to retain the Trump coalition. I think policy wise he fits the best, he knows and can relate to the coalition culturally, and he’s been loyal as VP.

RDS has the strongest track record of governing and would be a more comfortable pick for traditional conservatives. Where others have been tossing verbal firebombs he has been putting points on the scoreboard.

Marco might be the guy in the middle who is traditional enough for conservatives to like, Trump adjacent enough for the MAGA crowd to turn out for, and able to expand the gains among Hispanics.

All three should be able to embarrass anyone from the Dem side in a debate, all three should be less obnoxious and hard to like, all three should be free of the Epstein type of baggage.

I have a hard time thinking of anyone else who should bother running. Maybe Abbott, but I don’t think he would even win Texas. Maybe Hawley if he’s hoping to become more visible for the future or be the VP pick.
 
Jaw said:
Some might call it loyal. I’ve certainly had bosses who it was my job to support even though I disagreed with them. I think anyone who has ever been in a management role probably has.
Click to expand...
Well ever since he started to buddy up to Trump he completely reversed all of the values he preached before in his book and as a senator pre-VP campaign. I don’t love my leaders changing their values just to get ahead. It’s gross. A real leader stands up to their boss when they know they are wrong.
 
Jaw said:
The Republican primary will be interesting.

Vance is definitely the guy best able to retain the Trump coalition. I think policy wise he fits the best, he knows and can relate to the coalition culturally, and he’s been loyal as VP.

RDS has the strongest track record of governing and would be a more comfortable pick for traditional conservatives. Where others have been tossing verbal firebombs he has been putting points on the scoreboard.

Marco might be the guy in the middle who is traditional enough for conservatives to like, Trump adjacent enough for the MAGA crowd to turn out for, and able to expand the gains among Hispanics.

All three should be able to embarrass anyone from the Dem side in a debate, all three should be less obnoxious and hard to like, all three should be free of the Epstein type of baggage.

I have a hard time thinking of anyone else who should bother running. Maybe Abbott, but I don’t think he would even win Texas. Maybe Hawley if he’s hoping to become more visible for the future or be the VP pick.
Click to expand...
Marco is the most electable of those three. His speech this week was tremendous.

A bit too hawkish for my personal taste, but who isn’t these days on the right
 
Last edited:
Marco or RDS I could possibly get behind depending how the campaigns go. I liked Marco in the past. I like RDS because he never caved to Trump but he doesn’t really have the charisma that the populous usually gets behind
 
zbhargrove said:
Marco or RDS I could possibly get behind depending how the campaigns go. I liked Marco in the past. I like RDS because he never caved to Trump but he doesn’t really have the charisma that the populous usually gets behind
Click to expand...
Probably true about RDS, but Vance isn’t exactly Robert Redford himself scolding everyone for being mean.

Republicans have always had this problem, especially when the parties best ideas involve saying “no” a lot. Ruthlessly competent doesn’t campaign well.
 
Garmel said:
Says the person who defended Chase Oliver. lol
Click to expand...
I’d ask what Oliver similarly got wrong on the Constitution, but not sure I want to derail the thread given his irrelevance. No one voted for him, including me, and he’s not the VP of the United States, or the presumed front-runner for POTUS in 2028.

Is there anything in that community note of Vance that you actually disagree with?
 
chop2chip said:
Probably true about RDS, but Vance isn’t exactly Robert Redford himself scolding everyone for being mean.

Republicans have always had this problem, especially when the parties best ideas involve saying “no” a lot. Ruthlessly competent doesn’t campaign well.
Click to expand...
Agreed… I honestly don’t get the Vance love at all but the cult base loves him
 
acesfull86 said:
I’d ask what Oliver similarly got wrong on the Constitution, but not sure I want to derail the thread given his irrelevance. No one voted for him, including me, and he’s not the VP of the United States, or the presumed front-runner for POTUS in 2028.

Is there anything in that community note of Vance that you actually disagree with?
Click to expand...

Dude, you defended that ass clown who's really a democrat in disguise.

One thing I do find peculiar is that Vance is right in the president is in charge of imports but at the same time can't touch tariffs is a strange contradiction.

I do find it reassuring the most right leaning conservatives on the court went against the libs and the 3 who go left on many issues went with the libs again.

In the long run will it matter? Hard to say. There are 6 more laws that Trump can use and they will be much harder to overturn.

Trump picking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was a bad one to go with.
 
acesfull86 said:
So...nothing. Good point.
Click to expand...

He defended child transitioning which will soon be illegal so how about that? Maybe not dealing with the Constitution but a dumb idea.

A president Ignoring laws he doesn't like (drug laws) is unconstitutional.

Let's not go into all the really terrible ideas he supports that might not be illegal but are awful for the country.

Also, a little hard to say he has gotten wrong with the Constitution since he's never held office. That's a clown point, man.

Seriously, with your mouth, bro it's really hard for me not to tell you to go fuck yourself. lol
 
Last edited:
acesfull86 said:
A clown point that you made! Who dragged Chase Oliver into a discussion about JD Vance not knowing the Constitution?
Click to expand...

I just said that you defended Oliver and then you brought all of the Constitutional stuff into it. I never mentioned that. The guy is full of bad ideas.

Yes, Vance's opinion on this lines up with the right-leaning Conservatives on the court, not with the libs or RINOs.

Vance is right when he says that it makes no sense that the prez is responsible for taking care of imports but now can't take care of tariffs using the IEEPA.

Makes absolutely no sense.

I'm willing to bet the other 6 laws that give the prez power to do tariffs won't all be knocked down.

This ruling is just for the use of the IEEPA and tariffs, nothing more. The courts did not say all tariffs by the prez is illegal.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
He defended child transitioning which will soon be illegal so how about that? Maybe not dealing with the Constitution but a dumb idea.

A president Ignoring laws he doesn't like (drug laws) is unconstitutional.

Let's not go into all the really terrible ideas he supports that might not be illegal but are awful for the country.

Also, a little hard to say he has gotten wrong with the Constitution since he's never held office. That's a clown point, man.

Seriously, with your mouth, bro it's really hard for me not to tell you to go fuck yourself. lol
Click to expand...
LOLOLOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top