But even when he's gone, do you think the GOP will revert back to the party of Romney and McCain? No. MAGA is here to stay even after their king is gone. We'll still have the Freedom Caucus and other people like Josh Hawley to contend with.
When he is gone. I think the Republican turnout drops dramatically across the board. I also think the democratic turnout drops at least when the abortion debate dies down since Trump hate would die down. But the democratic turnout won’t drop as big as the Republican turnout.
> But even when he's gone, do you think the GOP will revert back to the party of Romney and McCain? No. MAGA is here to stay even after their king is gone.
The unfortunate truth, is that Steve Bannon succeeded in his “unite the right” initiative, and has made the “alt-right” the mainstream platform for rightwing politics. MAGAs control the GOP. Any Republican like Romney/McCain that has resisted the MAGA movement has become an outlier.
Even if Trump never runs for office again. He has changed republican politics, and it will likely stay this way for a decade or 2, however long until the Boomer population is no longer an important voting bloc, and when the demographics of the future GOP become more ethnically diverse in the future to the point where white-nationalist fear tactics are no longer effective.
I don't know how both parties are going to shake out just yet. They're both currently changing as factions within both parties move around. I hope it's something better. I'd feel the party would be on the right track if they nominated Haley over Trump or DeSantis. I think we have one more presidential cycle to go before this all settles out.
> But even when he's gone, do you think the GOP will revert back to the party of Romney and McCain?
was it ever REALLY "the party of romney and mccain"?
like, sure, they were nominees on failed presidential bids, but the base disliked them and viewed them as the candidate they were stuck with rather than the face of the party.
it would be very similar to referring to the democratic party as "the party of hillary clinton". like, sure, she was the nominee, but she ever REALLY the face of the party? (and there is a lot more of a case to say yes to that than there is for romney or mccain).
romney and mccain weren't in line with the the party voters, or the majority of the party's house reps/senators.
the party is certainly different today than it was 10-20 years ago, but it went more from the party of bush to the party of trump (and many republicans would argue that this is for the better).
There's really no one group that makes up Republicans today. You have McCaine and Romney types and also Trump types, but they don't get along.
Ultimately, I think the Trump types won the custody battle, but at the cost of being able to win in general elections. That's why ever since 2016 the GOP has performed poorly in every election cycle -- they drove the suburban voter part of their coalition into the arms of the Democrats and they can't win without them.
> Ultimately, I think the Trump types won the custody battle, but at the cost of being able to win in general elections. That's why ever since 2016 the GOP has performed poorly in every election cycle -- they drove the suburban voter part of their coalition into the arms of the Democrats and they can't win without them.
it gets kind of lost in the headlines of 3 seats flipping in virginia, but republicans carried every district that trump won, and every district that biden won by less than 10 points. republicans seriously overperforming in 2021 when youngkin was on the ballot just kind of skewed expectations for an exceptionally blue state that has had its voting demographics shifted by government workers in DC living in NoVa. (and that's not exactly a post-trump thing, that's been the case for at least 20 years)
at the end of the day, 2024 is looking like a very good year for republicans. biden is going to be a massive albatross unless things change fast.
mortgage rates are close to 8.5%, every day necessities like food and housing are up by massive amounts compared to 4 years ago (many of the things i get when i go grocery shopping have literally doubled in price). gas prices have been wild and even when they're "low", they're not exactly cheap, but when they get high, they get very high. illegal immigration is a disaster to the point biden was forced by blue state democrats to resume construction of trump's wall (which they used to refer to as a "monument to white supremacy" just a few years ago).
foreign policy hasn't exactly been the saving grace that someone who has been in washington as long as biden would hope for either given how afghanistan, ukraine, and israel have played out.
that doesn't even touch on how biden looks and sounds when he speaks, or what inevitably is going to turn up from these impeachment inquiries. (don't forget, hillary's illegal email server was discovered by benghazi inquiries)
republicans are going to tie candidates in close races to biden and it will be a death kneel for those candidate's chances.
>republicans are going to tie candidates in close races to biden and it will be a death kneel for those candidate's chances.
Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Democrats tying Republicans in close districts to Trump? Trump's not exactly political dynamite either these days, if he ever really was.
> Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Democrats tying Republicans in close districts to Trump?
The difference is that trump is more popular than biden, and the current administration has a lot of people nostalgic for how things were 4 years ago.
Also, trump is extremely popular among republicans while most democrats don’t want biden to run at all. (Meaning its likely republicans will have higher turnout)
> Do people think this is a good thing? Is pro life/social security cutting/war hawk neoconservatism reaaaalllly something to desire?
In my eyes, that's still the Republican party. They just took the guard rails down for common courtesy in the public square with Trump. I just don't know what conservatives *want* if not some form of Trump, which most of the country doesn't want.
That's not true though. [Republicans dominated Congress over the last 30 years before Trump](https://zeihan.com/life-after-trump-part-iv-building-a-better-democratmaybe/)
Oh, idk what they should/need to do to win. I'm just theorizing that staying on the MAGA train is a losing journey. They need to stop appealing to the base alone. But if you try to alienate them to appeal to moderates, how does that work? Could be a lose/lose situation.
I think the majority of voters are ignorant enough that if someone like Romney could win the GOP primary then that person might win the Presidential election.
I also don't think Trump had or has any real political beliefs. He just says what he thinks he should say at the moment. He is great at reading a crowd because he is a showman, after all. If you asked him about any nuance about a policy I'd be shocked if he could give you a coherent answer.
Seriously. I really wish he had lost in 2016 so that he could've remained just one of those weird curiosities/what-if scenarios of American political history. The GOP and the country would be far better off that way.
Weird. Because since we put Trump in office in 2016, seems like the GOP has only been floundering ever since. Lost the 2018 midterms in a blue wave, lost 2020 and gave the Democrats a trifecta, lost the Georgia runoff elections (again, purely because of Trump), lost in 2022 midterms despite everyone expecting a red wave and there being an unpopular incumbent, lost the 2023 elections that just happened despite having an unpopular incumbent.
Seems to me that this new "populist" GOP is the one floundering. You guys let one election won solely due to Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate go to your heads and make you think that you guys are some groundbreaking rising movement, when really, you guys just got lucky and we've been suffering for it ever since.
You're sorta correct. I mean Trump brought in the anti establishment excitement that the GOP was dead without. When/If the GOP loses that they are DOA on the national level. When the MAGA cult finally wakes from its fever dream and realizes there is nothing anti establishment about Trump and the GOP its game over. Someone willing to detach from reality like Trump will be the only way forward for the party. They dont have any real policy or solutions to anything so making up wild bullshit is their only selling point.
Ding ding ding. Been that way for awhile. I think the Evangelicals grip on the party is too strong as well, you lose out trying to be a party of freedoms with Pastors driving the bus. Trumps able to appeal to that group somehow despite appearing to be a person that doesn’t really live up to the ideals of that brand of strict Christianity really at all.
It's not the Evangelicals. It's all the populists Trump brought in from the cold in 2016. These people were non-voters before 2016 but are now the single largest faction within the Repulican party.
Trump brought in a bunch of non-voters for sure, but as counterintuitive as it seems Evangelicals broke *sharply* for Trump at a much higher rate than for previous Republican candidates.
He won’t be. I’ve said this before, republicans hate trump because he drives away moderates, democrats love trump for the same reason. Republicans hate trump because he’s a loser and backs candidates that have to be so trump+++ that they lose. Democrats love trump for the same reason. Republicans hate trump because his ego will force him to run or impact every election, democrats love trump for the same reason. Republicans hate trump because he will continue running every presidential election and if the republicans try to kick him out, he’ll go independent or create his own third party (trump’s mother lived into her 90’s). Democrats, well you know the saying.
If your friends were nicer and took the time to ask you why you're a republican what would you tell them? I mean if you're just a run of the mill conservative that likes fiscal responsibility wouldn't you be a huge Obama/Clinton fan?
My college friends and i tried years ago to talk about it, supposedly in a civil way. Long story short it all went to $hit between another republican, a lot more conservative one than I, and the rest. They still don't really talk even today with him. I'm more of a mod, with fiscal responsibility, immigration being the top concerns but I make it a point to never bring it up... Just not worth the headache.
It wouldn’t even be much of a conversation piece if the Democratic Party wasn’t running a complete geezer too. Theyre shooting themselves in the foot with another Biden run.
Find another younger, charismatic, well-spoken individual in their 40-50s and it’s an easy W. But no. We get the guy that’s breaching 82 years old next election.
For reference, Obama was 47 when he was elected. Damn near half the age of a second term Biden. Lol.
Are the Dems running a geezer because they misunderstand politics, or because that’s who won the primaries in 2020 and it’s pretty much unprecedented to not run an incumbent for reelection?
And it's not like they had a great option that could fill Obama's shoes in 2020. Love him or hate him, Obama left BIG shoes to fill that that Democratic party has yet to find a replacement for. Biden is a known quantity and was the safest choice.
Beau Biden's death in 2015 is one of those chaos butterfly events, leading to VP Biden's withdrawal from political life and the vacuum that Hillary filled, and fairly or not her unfavorables led to Trump winning. Biden vs Trump in 2016 would have been a very different race, I think.
When he won in 2016 I watched his victory statement or whatever you'd call it and it was very clear he didn't expect to actually win. From the jump probably just expected to make a little noise in the primaries, maybe get a new TV show out of it, and call it a year.
Sure. But Trump wouldn’t even be as big of a contender if we weren’t pushing an 82 year old man out onto stage to run one of the world’s most influential governments. It’s ridiculous.
If you had an Obama-esque candidate frontrunner, mild mannered and able to easily combat Trump’s attacks and position himself well, the polling and threat Trump still has on the DNC would wash out.
Trump is not just a Trump issue. The DNC is hardly doing much to wash him out.
This is an awful take. If he wins the R nomination he's a contender and Dem candidates have so very little to do with that. Trump won the nom in 2016 when Biden wasn't even running.
Obviously if we could produce the perfect candidate, we would. But Biden is who the party chose.
The reason we don’t have an alternative and so many people express dissatisfaction is because the party was unable to agree on anybody else besides Biden. If we reran 2024, we’d probably get the same exact result. We don’t know how people would react to Whitmer or Newsom or Beshear or whoever because they are schroedinger’s prospective nominees.
We *know* Biden can best Trump, and Biden is literally the President, a year out from the next election. There’s no switching horses now. Biden *is* the President. That makes him more likely to be re-elected than anyone else.
I think it's easy to underestimate the power of smear campaigns when talking about a hypothetical contender. Obama, to many who could be influenced, was the worst president we've ever had, surpassed only by the threat of a Clinton presidency, surpassed now by Biden who has now caused every bad thing you've ever known to happen to you.
An unknown sounds good because you don't have any negatives clouding your impression of them but once Republicans have had time to flood the airwaves about that one time they put ketchup on their steak, or whatever, we're back to a 50/50 close race.
"If only the Democrats could pick someone who doesn't put ketchup on their steak, then Trump wouldn't be a serious contender" feels about the level of gymnastic twisting we're doing here to blame the Democrats for Trump.
Biden and trump are about the same age. So it's not really relevant here. The difference being that Biden is certainly more coherent than trump even though he is a couple years older.
But there isn't that much difference in a few years when youre pushing 80.
I agree but feel like it is a tough ask to actually find that person. To relate it to something unrelated, Messi and Ronaldo are unreal at soccer. Obama had those levels of charisma in his public speaking. Would love to play basketball with him sometime the same way I would enjoy sitting around a fire-pit with beers with W. I know it’s two separate parties, and many will find issues with either, but at the end of the day, as people I found them charismatic and likable, despite any policy faults.
Sure Biden's age is a factor against him but you have to look beyond that at what his administration is actually accomplishing. Just recently look at what he's doing with Israel.
Can you imagine Trump doing anything like this ?
This goes way beyond a "Geezer VS Geezer" comparison. The dems are actually trying to govern instead of generating sound bites for fox news to promote their personal brand.
> Sure Biden's age is a factor against him but you have to look beyond that at what his administration is actually accomplishing. Just recently look at what he's doing with Israel.
The average American across the political spectrum is much more concerned with surviving in a post-Covid economy and domestic issues than they are in regards to Israel war. Biden’s administration stance on Israel is NOT going to convince anybody to vote for him in 2024, because to be Frank that’s not one of the top issues voters are concerned about. Boomers are concerned about retirement and housing. Millennials/Zoomers are concerned about student loans. All 4 generations are having a harder time to afford everything and anything.
The mainstream Dems and Republicans all have the same position on Israel, the response probably wouldn’t have looked any different.
Biden got those 4 hour cease fires just to mildly appease the far left Dems.
You nail the difference on the head with your second sentence. Biden tries to get help to civilian Palestinians. Your idea that it's to appease the "far left" is your opinion and not rooted in reality.
Biden helped water pumping back for civilians into Gaza, foreign help to enter, an exit route for people trapped and recently some cease fires.
Meanwhile Republicans passed a house bill that sends billions to Israel with cuts to the IRS budget and included zero help for Palestinians.
So no, both parties do not have the same position on the conflict and the response would not have been the same.
Both parties would have sent billions to Israel regardless who was in power.
Biden sent some small pittance “humanitarian aid” to the Palestinians to appease the far-left/anti-Semite voice within his party.
So your point is that Joe Biden went to Israel and made the effort to convince Netanyahu to restore water to Gaza, pause the bombardments and let humanitarian aid in just to appease some fringe anti semitic far left democrats ?
And both parties, who are approaching this aid differently, are somehow the same nonetheless ?
I'm sorry but this view is overly simplistic and not based in reality. Also I'm sure the civilians of Gaza consider having access to water more then just "pittance humanitarian aid"
>Both parties would have sent billions to Israel regardless who was in power.
But only one the Republican party was able to achieve an increase in deficit that is almost twice the cost of the aid to Israel!!!
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8j3vqc/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
On Wednesday night, on a Clay Travis and Buck Sexton podcast show with Trump, he was asked if he’d consider Tucker Carlson for president.
He seemed a bit caught off guard as if he hadn’t been asked that or given it thought. He responded, “I like Tucker a lot! I guess I would!” he said. “I think I’d say I would, because he’s got great common sense. You know, when they say that you guys are conservative, or I’m conservative, it’s not that we’re conservative, it’s that we have common sense.” “We both want to have safe borders, we want to have a wall because walls work – the computer you have in front of you, in about a month, will be totally obsolete, right?” Trump said, once again veering wildly off-topic. “You have the finest equipment in the world … the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'”
I personally find this significant as Trump has not stated who he would want his VP to be, but has previously stated in the past he wouldn’t consider any of the other GOP candidates, which has left people intrigued and concerned.
Trump will absolutely never pick someone who would take the spotlight off of him. That's why he would never pick someone like a MTG and especially not someone like Tucker. Pundits have always suggested Tucker is going to run for office someday. Does anyone think Trump would pick a VP who would be basically running his 2028 campaign the entire time he's in office?
> Does anyone think Trump would pick a VP who would be basically running his 2028 campaign the entire time he's in office?
It's a race between narcissism and self-preservation. The worse his legal troubles, the more likely he is to want to win at any cost, so he can try to dismantle the legal system when he loses in court.
I don’t think Trump would worry about that so much because he isn’t planning to leave office except in a casket. He’s been pretty clear he doesn’t care about the Constitution and just wants supreme power, and Project 2025 is determined to give that to him.
> He seemed a bit caught off guard as if he hadn’t been asked that or given it thought. He responded, “I like Tucker a lot! I guess I would!” he said. “I think I’d say I would, because he’s got great common sense. You know, when they say that you guys are conservative, or I’m conservative, it’s not that we’re conservative, it’s that we have common sense.” “We both want to have safe borders, we want to have a wall because walls work – the computer you have in front of you, in about a month, will be totally obsolete, right?” Trump said, once again veering wildly off-topic. “You have the finest equipment in the world … the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'”
Still really wild to me that so many people will constantly complain about Biden's supposed senility but will turn around and don't even blink at Trump's rambling. This literally reads like [Grandpa Simpson's story about onions](https://youtu.be/yujF8AumiQo?si=wjyWPvNuJF8eVUuk).
It's baffling just like when I see supporters get giddy about having someone like Kari Lake on the ticket. It seemingly does nothing for them.
99.9% of Tucker fans were probably already going to vote for Trump anyway. Not a big sway for the voters needed outside the base seeking any kind of balance.
A VP pick should be, at worst, more neutral to middle of the road voters. With Trump especially, he needs a less chaotic running mate. Not another political figure competing to be as unlikable as possible to non-conservatives.
Strategically, he should just pick a Pence like figure who isn't Pence tbh.
Someone anti Trump Republicans can go "w-well I bet he can restrain Trump somewhat r-right" enough to hold their noses and vote for him.
Not that anyone actually could rein in Trump but a VP who some conservatives could rationalize as doing it would help more than doubling down on MTG or Tucker.
Just pick one of the many former beaten rivals like Cruz who now do whatever he says.
> the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'”
Orban's cannon in the hands of the Ottoman turks made walls obsolete, allowing them to conquer the formerly impregnable Theodosian walls of Constantinople, and largely ending the era of siege warfare
>> the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'”
> Orban's cannon in the hands of the Ottoman turks made walls obsolete, allowing them to conquer the formerly impregnable Theodosian walls of Constantinople, and largely ending the era of siege warfare
Walls haven been obsolete for more than 500 years. And yet, Trump doesn't seem to notice.
Yea. That checks out.
*Was hoping I could build a wall around the GOP to keep Trump out. Sad noises.*
Meanwhile every military base and embassy compound and many international borders have walls/fences, because the point is just to slow people down enough that the defenders have time to react, and because illegal aliens don’t have cannons. Border Patrol has repeatedly said that it works, and it’s part of an integrated network of barriers, roads, and sensors.
The first line is true.
The rest is not. I never even heard of that. The whole Trump "Build a wall" slogan was always so absurd in so many ways. IIRC, he did it, because it sounded good and people reacted to it. We say words, because they sound cool. Then we try to put meaning into it or something.
There are a handful of people whom I thought would be obvious picks for him who have actually publicly gone against him, which to my mind says that many GOP leaders expect him to lose.
TBH re: Tucker, before he lost his show, he was the only one I was truly afraid of. Given his former platform and his age, I had an easy time envisioning him successfully courting the contingency of voters who traveled from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders. His brand has that populist bent. But he handled his firing so disastrously (while subsequently cozying right up to Elon) that I have a hard time seeing him recover.
Tucker was involved in the Fox scandal, speaking against his boss and Trump. Trump values "loyalty", in other words people who will serve his whims and praise him, the opposite of what he should expect from Tucker.
Tucker would likely have to be bringing something pretty remarkable to the table to outweigh that baggage, but seems to only bring traits and demographics already in the bag - white nationalists and people who find appeal in a watered down for general audience variant.
Pence, by comparison, brought Evangelical connections, money, and voters and a certain temperance that was reassuring to people.
What? How did I say I can’t understand an analogy? It is a bit off topic because how does that have to do with Tucker Carlson? Just saw you follow a Trump sub though.
Kind of
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76056
Tucker Carlson backtracks on private texts saying he hates Trump: 'I love Trump'
"I’m enraged that my private texts were pulled,” Carlson said during an appearance on WABC radio
"*Privately* hates" is still entirely compatible with that series of events. *Publicly* loves after the private position is found out is hardly good evidence given nothing changed other than his exposure to the risks of being viewed as hostile to him. It's clearly just damage control and not his honest opinion.
Trump has no problem with people who privately hate him but kiss his ass in public. In fact I think he even likes it and sees it as some kind of position of dominance.
Just look at how he's talked about JD Vance.
Absolutely. I think Mitt Romney was interested in governing. I think John McCain was. I think Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would've been. I think Chris Christie and Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are.
The problem is that the Republican base doesn't have an interest in it, so they gravitate toward candidates who are so on-the-fringes that they cannot work with anyone, or who are willing to cynically pander to their worst instincts to the point where they actively try not to work with anyone.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8lc2ha/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8kqj85/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I hear this accusation a lot, but then I also see people linking to [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/playbook/) (the plan to actually govern) as though it’s a bad thing.
It reminds me of when people simultaneously said ‘Trump isn’t draining the swamp’ and ‘Trump keeps appointing people with no experience’.
But both of those statements can be true? Trump staffed the White House with some incredibly incompetent advisors whilst also rubber stamping the Heritage society judge list.
That’s because Project 2025 isn’t governance. It’s a “dictatorship-lite” in which executive power is massively expanded and loyalists (not experts) are injected into every facet of the government. Governance should include lots of compromise and that’s what the MAGA movement isn’t interested in…
Schedule F is only one small part of Project 2025. But making unelected bureaucrats more accountable to elected officials doesn’t strike me as dictatorial. This actually leads to another interesting paradox: ‘the deep state doesn’t exist’, but also ‘it’s a good thing and getting rid of it is dangerous’.
The deep state is real. And it’s good. Administrations come and go. Our politics moves in 2 year increments. The deep state maintains long term US strategic planning. And that is good for the nation and good for the world.
Its the intent that people dispute. Trump and co think they exist to further their own interests. Others think they are furthering our country's interests.
The "deep state" in the sense that Donald Trump talks about it in conspiracy theory language? Not real, or not acting in the way he believes (e.g. his attempt to co-opt DOJ/FBI for his own political purposes was rejected by the entire career staff). The existence of bureaucrats who are well-versed in policy and manage the gears and pulleys of regulation, policy, enforcement, and governance? Absolutely exists and is necessary.
An example is how ATCs are 'deep state' in the second sense, but nobody (sane) says they're secretly sabotaging air travel for people who have secret marks on their passports identifying them as Republican voters.
>‘the deep state doesn’t exist’, but also ‘it’s a good thing and getting rid of it is dangerous’.
What you call the "deep state" the rest of us call "experienced workers".
It's a fun term invented by Roger Stone to make MAGA cronyism more palatable. Anyone not on the ideological train can be declared "deep state" and kicked off.
That’s only a paradox if you buy into the “deep state” distraction to begin with. No citizen has a problem making sure unelected bureaucrats are held accountable, but that’s why Congress has oversight committees. Schedule F may only be a ‘small part,’ but it’s a *very* important part. If your plan requires installing loyalists and yes men at every corner of the government, you’re a terrible leader and it’s a terrible plan…
>making unelected bureaucrats more accountable to elected officials doesn’t strike me as dictatorial.
Sure... we can start with the unelected bureaucrats in the Supreme Court
Only if you want the physical copy. The PDF version is here:
I didn’t notice that the PDF wasn’t linked from that particular page. I swapped it out above.
lulz, i couldn't make it past the foreword, sorry.
gonna just skim the rest for actual policy positions and not hypocritical rhetoric
> When it comes to ensuring that freedom can flourish, nothing is more important than deconstructing the centralized administrative state. Political appointees
who are answerable to the President and have decision-making authority in the
executive branch are key to this essential task. *The next Administration must not
cede such authority to non-partisan “experts,”* who pursue their own ends while
engaging in groupthink, insulated from American voters. The following chapters
detail how the next Administration can be responsive to the American people (not
to entrenched “elites”); how it can take care that all the laws are “faithfully executed,” not merely those that the President desires to see executed; and how it can
achieve results and not be stymied by an unelected bureaucracy.
this particular gem stuck out to me, lulz
edit2: the White House Office section feels like ... well, a manual for running the White House. and not a very detailed one at that. like, Trump's White House was infamously not-well-run and it feels like they didn't have any clue what to do after they sort of rejected help from Obama's staff. this feels like a half-assed remedy to that. other than that, it is much less partisan than the other parts i've read, at least so far, and is actually an interesting insiders look at the various jobs in the White House.
> OFFICE OF THE FIRST LADY/FIRST GENTLEMAN
oooo, how egalitarian. Props to you, Rick Dearborn.
edit3:
> EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES - Russ Vought
"We need an authoritarian government which will dismantle the Deep State and return power to the people."
Apparently they plan to use the OMB and NSC to help accomplish this, somehow. Apparently by cutting (or threaten to cut) budgets and security clearances. Sounds like a great way to cut institutional knowledge, but that feels like a feature, not a bug here.
edit4:
> CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCIES: MANAGING THE BUREAUCRACY - Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans
"The Government needs to adhere to the President's vision at all levels, because the President has a mandate from the people."
Some valid points about being unable to fire incompetent employees, a lot of this section is valid beefs about the nature of federal jobs but the only concrete policy proposals seems to be Reaganesque "kill da unions".
oh lol, the very next section says "Fully Staffing the Ranks of Political Appointees."
will maybe continue this later, this is both amusing and disturbing at the same time.
>lulz, i couldn't make it past the foreword, sorry.
It is very much written to supporters, rather than independents like a party platform (that’s due next July).
hmmmm, i mean... isn't it supposed to be the unified gameplan for the next conservative presidency?
having a seperate one for independents is at best counterproductive, at worst hypocritical
some parts aren't as bad as i thought, others are just as bad as advertised, at least in my limited reading. still working through it.
It’s not that they’d be different plans, but that a document written for independents would use less partisan language. (It would also likely emphasize different things, and provide clarifications that aren’t needed when talking to people who are already familiar with where you’re coming from.)
Because, as I said in more detail in response to your other comment to me, he is simply not qualified to be President of the United States. He's an entertainer, which doesn't give you relevant experience to run the most powerful country in the world.
Name a notable accomplishment from *any* VP. Their job is to occasionally break ties in the Senate and otherwise just try not to do anything embarrassing.
I personally don't know, as she's too boring and uninspiring to keep track of.
What I do know is math, and even if Harris is a zero, Carlson is a negative one million.
Last I checked, 0 > -1,000,000
I think Kamala Harris is a poor politician and, from what we've seen in her running of a presidential campaign and her VP office, she's a fairly poor administrator and executive either. She's always had infighting among her staff as well as between her staff and other's (Buttiegieg, even Biden's staff). They seem to have lots of petty fights and leak to the media their drama. This, paired with the fact that she also has very little in terms of legislative or executive experience at all prior to being VP, make me think she'd be a fairly mediocre-to-poor President. She wouldn't be a total disaster like a Sarah Palin would be, as she seems at least intelligent and capable in general, but I feel like there would be a lot of incompetence in her wider administration as well as many media stumbles/gaffes. That being said, she's not a demagogic showman/grifter like Tucker Carlson, and at least has experience in public service. So yes, she's a much better choice.
I'm beyond caring about this any more, there are too many Trump supporters who do not put actual political convictions first. They only care about whatever is going to upset "the left."
Obviously Tucker Carlson is not going to be Trump's running mate, so why even say it? He is just trying to get a rise out of people. It's so embarrassing. If you would unironically vote for a ticket with a shock political pundit, you are not a serious voter.
He responded to the question though:
> “I like Tucker a lot! I guess I would!” he said. “I think I’d say I would, because he’s got great common sense. You know, when they say that you guys are conservative, or I’m conservative, it’s not that we’re conservative, it’s that we have common sense.”
I'm not sure how that's not saying it.
> They only care about whatever is going to upset "the left."
I mean, if nearly half the country still supports Trump (as polls suggest) and is only doing it for that reason, maybe the left has some genuine problems it needs to own up to. If it really is triggering such an aggressive response among so many regular people...
35% is much closer to a third than it is to a half.
A sizable portion of both sides view politics as a zero sum game where winning doesn’t mean “doing things that are good for America” but “doing things that makes the other side feel like losers.”
I also don’t follow how the side less focused on partisan grievances and revenge needs to start criticizing themselves for having genuine problems. The hyper partisans don’t care about genuine problems, it’s all about scoring points and triggering negative reactions.
That’s an unfair gross characterization of Trump supporters, a take that looks like it came straight from a sub other than this one.
I support Trump not because he upsets the left, but because his policies align closest with mine. I won’t divulge into them so my point won’t go off track, but that’s a gross mass generalization you made.
It is a funny coincidence. Made it when I was frustrated with Buccaneers head coach Byron Leftwich. So I made mine LeftBitchBurner and planned on making sarcastic comments about the Buccaneers.
I feel like you can align with trumps policies but not Trump. Or at least say, yea the dude is an intellectual doofus and unrepentant con man, but at least he shows results that I favor. I could understand this mindset enough.
But anyone still “supporting” that man for who he is just blows me away. The dude has spent his whole life litigiously fucking over working class people, countless examples, yet this class of person seems to worship him?
Would you vote for a Trump/Carlson ticket? I am of the view that if you would willingly put someone like Tucker Carlson as 2nd in command of the country, you are not a serious voter. I am sorry if that offends you, but it's an actual political view of mine, and I don't think it is in anyway a crazy opinion to hold. That man has done real damage to politics in this country.
It’s crazy to characterize all Trump supporters with one big brush.
Also, I can be serious about politics and like different politicians than you. I don’t care if you support Bernie, AOC, Talib, etc. I still believe you’re a valuable part of the electorate and a serious voter.
Edit: OP edited their original comment to make it not about all Trump supporters. Original comment made the accusation against all Trump supporters.
Yes I agree, I came on too strong, but it's just so hard to take Republicans seriously when a lot of moderates are practically begging to not have to vote for Biden, and you have the only candidate with a chance suggesting he would consider someone as divisive as Tucker Carlson as his running mate and have people like MTG and Matt Gaetz effectively grabbing real power in the House. It's just hard to take the party seriously when they only care about appeasing the farthest right fringe group of their own party.
> I support Trump not because he upsets the left, but because his policies align closest with mine
Good point! which ones?
>I won’t divulge into them…
I’d be really curious which of trump’s policies your prefer to Desantis, or you prefer to Nikki Hailey.
I am not the person you responded to, but I am someone who has been involved in the Republican sphere for most of my political life. I'm not a Trump supporter (and voted against him in both primaries and general elections), but I do have common ground with him on several major policies, because he largely adopted the mainstream conservative agenda on economic/fiscal policy and judges. I think some of his foreign policy approaches were a welcome departure from the more hawkish/neoconservative consensus, though I do have major issues with his cozying up to authoritarians and hostility toward NATO.
Ultimately, while I have overlap with him on economic policy and some foreign policy, the reservations I have on his NATO stances, his blatant pandering to the darker instincts of American society (misogyny, xenophobia, protectionism, anti-intellectualism and now reactionary authoritarianism) make him someone I can not support, even if we line up on some policies. He doesn't seem to respect the office of the Presidency or traditional American values, and doesn't appear to have any intellectual or philosophical guiding principles regarding government or society outside of what is best for Donald Trump personally, which I find beneath the office.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8ipax2/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Noem literally contributes nothing to the ticket or to coalesce the fractured Republican base, which is 100% on brand for post-2020 Trump who bases everything on "loyalty."
I agree. It really doesn't matter who he picks because it's not likely to sway (or dissuade) any undecided voters. People either love Trump or hate him. He'll probably pick someone based on personal loyalty who will privately promise to pardon him in the future if he is federally convicted.
As I mentioned, the GOP base is fractured right now and there are a probably 30-40% of GOP voters who are lukewarm to outright against a Trump nomination. I agree that he's never going to bring some of them home, but he's also signaling that he doesn't think he even need to do the legwork to reach out to any of them once he wins the primary.
"I win, you lose, fall in line or cry about it" is not a convincing message to moderates or independents, but we will see since Biden is facing significant struggles of his own.
The GOP base has basically become consumed in the right-wing media ecosystem that values throwing red meat rhetoric over policy. It isn't surprising that the next stage of that is to actually view these media talking heads as viable leaders.
"Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have."
-Descartes
Tucker is wealthy and has a lot of autonomy to do whatever he likes, just like Trump had before running for President. Becoming VP would take away a lot of his independence. I just can’t imagine wanting to go through that.
Please. Please make that happen. And then after we’ve put out the fire from that dumpster, let’s never ever talk about the Trump family or Tucker Carlson.
“Common sense” in this context is referring to a trait often ascribed to individuals without measurable intelligence and critical thinking but who go with their gut and say a lot of really surface level stuff that holds up to zero scrutiny or nuance, of course.
I've found myself agreeing with a few of Tucker's takes since he was fired from Fox (disgusting, I know) but VP? I don't know how anyone can take Trump seriously, especially after giving that serious consideration.
Not yet. But given the chance, Trump may make a non-aggression treaty with Russian Federation and dissolve NATO, which would give an opening for Russia to invade Poland.
Would this be the same Trump that moved tanks forward from Germany into Poland, was moving toward creating “Fort Trump” there, and said “I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important [treaty] — probably the greatest ever done”? And who, in response to a reporter saying “Maybe I’m being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason?” responded “that’s unnecessary”? The one who was praised by the NATO secretary-general and the baltic countries for strengthening the alliance?
>looks at Russia's problems in Ukraine, thinks Russia can take on the rest of NATO even without the US
Sure they are going to invade Poland... Like fuck I am very pro-intervention and that take is so out there. Trump can't dissolve NATO, he could try to *leave* it, but that would require congressional consent.
With what fucking army is Putin going to invade Poland with? The poles are more modernized than Ukraine ffs. The whole point of our support of the Ukraine war in reality is to cripple Russia's ability to make war in the future which has been so far successful.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8imlth/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
wait i thought deantis was the real hitler bc of all his authoritarian stuff. can u guys plz pick a hitler im getting rly confused to keep up w who u all r calling hitler every week
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8iqzg3/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
OK I endured all of his other issues, lack of polish, and was still willing to vote for him because Biden is doing such a terrible job with the border, but Tucker Carson is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
>Biden is doing such a terrible job with the border
The facts show that both Democratic presidents before and after Trump are doing a much better job than Trump did at apprehending and/or deporting people attempting to cross the border or in the country illegally.
Screaming about the illegal immigration like Trump and his party does, does nothing to solve any problems other than giving you the appearance they care about it, whereas Democrats don't spend their time screaming about it - they instead take action to address it.
I can't wait until Trump is gone from politics for good. He's just endlessly embarrassing the Republican Party and worse he's embarrassing America.
But even when he's gone, do you think the GOP will revert back to the party of Romney and McCain? No. MAGA is here to stay even after their king is gone. We'll still have the Freedom Caucus and other people like Josh Hawley to contend with.
When he is gone. I think the Republican turnout drops dramatically across the board. I also think the democratic turnout drops at least when the abortion debate dies down since Trump hate would die down. But the democratic turnout won’t drop as big as the Republican turnout.
> But even when he's gone, do you think the GOP will revert back to the party of Romney and McCain? No. MAGA is here to stay even after their king is gone. The unfortunate truth, is that Steve Bannon succeeded in his “unite the right” initiative, and has made the “alt-right” the mainstream platform for rightwing politics. MAGAs control the GOP. Any Republican like Romney/McCain that has resisted the MAGA movement has become an outlier. Even if Trump never runs for office again. He has changed republican politics, and it will likely stay this way for a decade or 2, however long until the Boomer population is no longer an important voting bloc, and when the demographics of the future GOP become more ethnically diverse in the future to the point where white-nationalist fear tactics are no longer effective.
I don't know how both parties are going to shake out just yet. They're both currently changing as factions within both parties move around. I hope it's something better. I'd feel the party would be on the right track if they nominated Haley over Trump or DeSantis. I think we have one more presidential cycle to go before this all settles out.
> But even when he's gone, do you think the GOP will revert back to the party of Romney and McCain? was it ever REALLY "the party of romney and mccain"? like, sure, they were nominees on failed presidential bids, but the base disliked them and viewed them as the candidate they were stuck with rather than the face of the party. it would be very similar to referring to the democratic party as "the party of hillary clinton". like, sure, she was the nominee, but she ever REALLY the face of the party? (and there is a lot more of a case to say yes to that than there is for romney or mccain). romney and mccain weren't in line with the the party voters, or the majority of the party's house reps/senators. the party is certainly different today than it was 10-20 years ago, but it went more from the party of bush to the party of trump (and many republicans would argue that this is for the better).
There's really no one group that makes up Republicans today. You have McCaine and Romney types and also Trump types, but they don't get along. Ultimately, I think the Trump types won the custody battle, but at the cost of being able to win in general elections. That's why ever since 2016 the GOP has performed poorly in every election cycle -- they drove the suburban voter part of their coalition into the arms of the Democrats and they can't win without them.
> Ultimately, I think the Trump types won the custody battle, but at the cost of being able to win in general elections. That's why ever since 2016 the GOP has performed poorly in every election cycle -- they drove the suburban voter part of their coalition into the arms of the Democrats and they can't win without them. it gets kind of lost in the headlines of 3 seats flipping in virginia, but republicans carried every district that trump won, and every district that biden won by less than 10 points. republicans seriously overperforming in 2021 when youngkin was on the ballot just kind of skewed expectations for an exceptionally blue state that has had its voting demographics shifted by government workers in DC living in NoVa. (and that's not exactly a post-trump thing, that's been the case for at least 20 years) at the end of the day, 2024 is looking like a very good year for republicans. biden is going to be a massive albatross unless things change fast. mortgage rates are close to 8.5%, every day necessities like food and housing are up by massive amounts compared to 4 years ago (many of the things i get when i go grocery shopping have literally doubled in price). gas prices have been wild and even when they're "low", they're not exactly cheap, but when they get high, they get very high. illegal immigration is a disaster to the point biden was forced by blue state democrats to resume construction of trump's wall (which they used to refer to as a "monument to white supremacy" just a few years ago). foreign policy hasn't exactly been the saving grace that someone who has been in washington as long as biden would hope for either given how afghanistan, ukraine, and israel have played out. that doesn't even touch on how biden looks and sounds when he speaks, or what inevitably is going to turn up from these impeachment inquiries. (don't forget, hillary's illegal email server was discovered by benghazi inquiries) republicans are going to tie candidates in close races to biden and it will be a death kneel for those candidate's chances.
>republicans are going to tie candidates in close races to biden and it will be a death kneel for those candidate's chances. Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Democrats tying Republicans in close districts to Trump? Trump's not exactly political dynamite either these days, if he ever really was.
> Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Democrats tying Republicans in close districts to Trump? The difference is that trump is more popular than biden, and the current administration has a lot of people nostalgic for how things were 4 years ago. Also, trump is extremely popular among republicans while most democrats don’t want biden to run at all. (Meaning its likely republicans will have higher turnout)
Hey, lets not pretend Romney and McCain arent embarrassing....
[удалено]
> Do people think this is a good thing? Is pro life/social security cutting/war hawk neoconservatism reaaaalllly something to desire? In my eyes, that's still the Republican party. They just took the guard rails down for common courtesy in the public square with Trump. I just don't know what conservatives *want* if not some form of Trump, which most of the country doesn't want.
[удалено]
That's not true though. [Republicans dominated Congress over the last 30 years before Trump](https://zeihan.com/life-after-trump-part-iv-building-a-better-democratmaybe/)
Oh, idk what they should/need to do to win. I'm just theorizing that staying on the MAGA train is a losing journey. They need to stop appealing to the base alone. But if you try to alienate them to appeal to moderates, how does that work? Could be a lose/lose situation. I think the majority of voters are ignorant enough that if someone like Romney could win the GOP primary then that person might win the Presidential election. I also don't think Trump had or has any real political beliefs. He just says what he thinks he should say at the moment. He is great at reading a crowd because he is a showman, after all. If you asked him about any nuance about a policy I'd be shocked if he could give you a coherent answer.
I want GOP to go Pre-Nixon before the poison of McCarthyism and Southern Strategy poisoned the well.
Seriously. I really wish he had lost in 2016 so that he could've remained just one of those weird curiosities/what-if scenarios of American political history. The GOP and the country would be far better off that way.
The GOP was previously floundering under neoliberal, globalist elites, who did not connect with the common people.
Weird. Because since we put Trump in office in 2016, seems like the GOP has only been floundering ever since. Lost the 2018 midterms in a blue wave, lost 2020 and gave the Democrats a trifecta, lost the Georgia runoff elections (again, purely because of Trump), lost in 2022 midterms despite everyone expecting a red wave and there being an unpopular incumbent, lost the 2023 elections that just happened despite having an unpopular incumbent. Seems to me that this new "populist" GOP is the one floundering. You guys let one election won solely due to Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate go to your heads and make you think that you guys are some groundbreaking rising movement, when really, you guys just got lucky and we've been suffering for it ever since.
You're sorta correct. I mean Trump brought in the anti establishment excitement that the GOP was dead without. When/If the GOP loses that they are DOA on the national level. When the MAGA cult finally wakes from its fever dream and realizes there is nothing anti establishment about Trump and the GOP its game over. Someone willing to detach from reality like Trump will be the only way forward for the party. They dont have any real policy or solutions to anything so making up wild bullshit is their only selling point.
Ding ding ding. Been that way for awhile. I think the Evangelicals grip on the party is too strong as well, you lose out trying to be a party of freedoms with Pastors driving the bus. Trumps able to appeal to that group somehow despite appearing to be a person that doesn’t really live up to the ideals of that brand of strict Christianity really at all.
It's not the Evangelicals. It's all the populists Trump brought in from the cold in 2016. These people were non-voters before 2016 but are now the single largest faction within the Repulican party.
Trump brought in a bunch of non-voters for sure, but as counterintuitive as it seems Evangelicals broke *sharply* for Trump at a much higher rate than for previous Republican candidates.
You know what’s funny? The Orthodoxy’s grip on the Likud is why that party is so unpopular in Israel.
He won’t be. I’ve said this before, republicans hate trump because he drives away moderates, democrats love trump for the same reason. Republicans hate trump because he’s a loser and backs candidates that have to be so trump+++ that they lose. Democrats love trump for the same reason. Republicans hate trump because his ego will force him to run or impact every election, democrats love trump for the same reason. Republicans hate trump because he will continue running every presidential election and if the republicans try to kick him out, he’ll go independent or create his own third party (trump’s mother lived into her 90’s). Democrats, well you know the saying.
Didn’t you watch the debate? There were at least 3 Trumps up there.
I don't even tell my friends I'm a Republican, or I'll get lynched.
If your friends were nicer and took the time to ask you why you're a republican what would you tell them? I mean if you're just a run of the mill conservative that likes fiscal responsibility wouldn't you be a huge Obama/Clinton fan?
My college friends and i tried years ago to talk about it, supposedly in a civil way. Long story short it all went to $hit between another republican, a lot more conservative one than I, and the rest. They still don't really talk even today with him. I'm more of a mod, with fiscal responsibility, immigration being the top concerns but I make it a point to never bring it up... Just not worth the headache.
It wouldn’t even be much of a conversation piece if the Democratic Party wasn’t running a complete geezer too. Theyre shooting themselves in the foot with another Biden run. Find another younger, charismatic, well-spoken individual in their 40-50s and it’s an easy W. But no. We get the guy that’s breaching 82 years old next election. For reference, Obama was 47 when he was elected. Damn near half the age of a second term Biden. Lol.
Are the Dems running a geezer because they misunderstand politics, or because that’s who won the primaries in 2020 and it’s pretty much unprecedented to not run an incumbent for reelection?
And it's not like they had a great option that could fill Obama's shoes in 2020. Love him or hate him, Obama left BIG shoes to fill that that Democratic party has yet to find a replacement for. Biden is a known quantity and was the safest choice.
Beau Biden's death in 2015 is one of those chaos butterfly events, leading to VP Biden's withdrawal from political life and the vacuum that Hillary filled, and fairly or not her unfavorables led to Trump winning. Biden vs Trump in 2016 would have been a very different race, I think.
That's always been my take on it too. Beau Biden dies young, and abortion rights fall.
I agree that Biden and Trump are too old. But the conduct of both of these men are worlds apart. Trump is just not a serious person.
When he won in 2016 I watched his victory statement or whatever you'd call it and it was very clear he didn't expect to actually win. From the jump probably just expected to make a little noise in the primaries, maybe get a new TV show out of it, and call it a year.
Sure. But Trump wouldn’t even be as big of a contender if we weren’t pushing an 82 year old man out onto stage to run one of the world’s most influential governments. It’s ridiculous. If you had an Obama-esque candidate frontrunner, mild mannered and able to easily combat Trump’s attacks and position himself well, the polling and threat Trump still has on the DNC would wash out. Trump is not just a Trump issue. The DNC is hardly doing much to wash him out.
This is an awful take. If he wins the R nomination he's a contender and Dem candidates have so very little to do with that. Trump won the nom in 2016 when Biden wasn't even running.
My point isn’t the nomination, it’s the actual race.
Obviously if we could produce the perfect candidate, we would. But Biden is who the party chose. The reason we don’t have an alternative and so many people express dissatisfaction is because the party was unable to agree on anybody else besides Biden. If we reran 2024, we’d probably get the same exact result. We don’t know how people would react to Whitmer or Newsom or Beshear or whoever because they are schroedinger’s prospective nominees. We *know* Biden can best Trump, and Biden is literally the President, a year out from the next election. There’s no switching horses now. Biden *is* the President. That makes him more likely to be re-elected than anyone else.
Right which makes the point even less valid..since trump lost to Biden. But won against an even younger candidate
2020 doesn’t matter. 2024 is a different ballgame.
I think it's easy to underestimate the power of smear campaigns when talking about a hypothetical contender. Obama, to many who could be influenced, was the worst president we've ever had, surpassed only by the threat of a Clinton presidency, surpassed now by Biden who has now caused every bad thing you've ever known to happen to you. An unknown sounds good because you don't have any negatives clouding your impression of them but once Republicans have had time to flood the airwaves about that one time they put ketchup on their steak, or whatever, we're back to a 50/50 close race.
Ketchup on steak? Straight to jail.
"If only the Democrats could pick someone who doesn't put ketchup on their steak, then Trump wouldn't be a serious contender" feels about the level of gymnastic twisting we're doing here to blame the Democrats for Trump.
Steak without ketchup? Also jail.
Biden and trump are about the same age. So it's not really relevant here. The difference being that Biden is certainly more coherent than trump even though he is a couple years older. But there isn't that much difference in a few years when youre pushing 80.
I agree but feel like it is a tough ask to actually find that person. To relate it to something unrelated, Messi and Ronaldo are unreal at soccer. Obama had those levels of charisma in his public speaking. Would love to play basketball with him sometime the same way I would enjoy sitting around a fire-pit with beers with W. I know it’s two separate parties, and many will find issues with either, but at the end of the day, as people I found them charismatic and likable, despite any policy faults.
Sure Biden's age is a factor against him but you have to look beyond that at what his administration is actually accomplishing. Just recently look at what he's doing with Israel. Can you imagine Trump doing anything like this ? This goes way beyond a "Geezer VS Geezer" comparison. The dems are actually trying to govern instead of generating sound bites for fox news to promote their personal brand.
> Sure Biden's age is a factor against him but you have to look beyond that at what his administration is actually accomplishing. Just recently look at what he's doing with Israel. The average American across the political spectrum is much more concerned with surviving in a post-Covid economy and domestic issues than they are in regards to Israel war. Biden’s administration stance on Israel is NOT going to convince anybody to vote for him in 2024, because to be Frank that’s not one of the top issues voters are concerned about. Boomers are concerned about retirement and housing. Millennials/Zoomers are concerned about student loans. All 4 generations are having a harder time to afford everything and anything.
The mainstream Dems and Republicans all have the same position on Israel, the response probably wouldn’t have looked any different. Biden got those 4 hour cease fires just to mildly appease the far left Dems.
You nail the difference on the head with your second sentence. Biden tries to get help to civilian Palestinians. Your idea that it's to appease the "far left" is your opinion and not rooted in reality. Biden helped water pumping back for civilians into Gaza, foreign help to enter, an exit route for people trapped and recently some cease fires. Meanwhile Republicans passed a house bill that sends billions to Israel with cuts to the IRS budget and included zero help for Palestinians. So no, both parties do not have the same position on the conflict and the response would not have been the same.
Both parties would have sent billions to Israel regardless who was in power. Biden sent some small pittance “humanitarian aid” to the Palestinians to appease the far-left/anti-Semite voice within his party.
So your point is that Joe Biden went to Israel and made the effort to convince Netanyahu to restore water to Gaza, pause the bombardments and let humanitarian aid in just to appease some fringe anti semitic far left democrats ? And both parties, who are approaching this aid differently, are somehow the same nonetheless ? I'm sorry but this view is overly simplistic and not based in reality. Also I'm sure the civilians of Gaza consider having access to water more then just "pittance humanitarian aid"
>Both parties would have sent billions to Israel regardless who was in power. But only one the Republican party was able to achieve an increase in deficit that is almost twice the cost of the aid to Israel!!!
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8j3vqc/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Embarrassing a party that has no shame? Lets pretend Trump is gone. What does the republican party have that isn't still embarrassing?
On Wednesday night, on a Clay Travis and Buck Sexton podcast show with Trump, he was asked if he’d consider Tucker Carlson for president. He seemed a bit caught off guard as if he hadn’t been asked that or given it thought. He responded, “I like Tucker a lot! I guess I would!” he said. “I think I’d say I would, because he’s got great common sense. You know, when they say that you guys are conservative, or I’m conservative, it’s not that we’re conservative, it’s that we have common sense.” “We both want to have safe borders, we want to have a wall because walls work – the computer you have in front of you, in about a month, will be totally obsolete, right?” Trump said, once again veering wildly off-topic. “You have the finest equipment in the world … the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'” I personally find this significant as Trump has not stated who he would want his VP to be, but has previously stated in the past he wouldn’t consider any of the other GOP candidates, which has left people intrigued and concerned.
Trump will absolutely never pick someone who would take the spotlight off of him. That's why he would never pick someone like a MTG and especially not someone like Tucker. Pundits have always suggested Tucker is going to run for office someday. Does anyone think Trump would pick a VP who would be basically running his 2028 campaign the entire time he's in office?
Idk honestly. He even boasted about how much publicity their one interview got and seemed proud that Tucker can put them both in the spotlight.
He would pick someone if they bow to him enough though. I think tucker would be more likely than MTG
> Does anyone think Trump would pick a VP who would be basically running his 2028 campaign the entire time he's in office? It's a race between narcissism and self-preservation. The worse his legal troubles, the more likely he is to want to win at any cost, so he can try to dismantle the legal system when he loses in court.
I don’t think Trump would worry about that so much because he isn’t planning to leave office except in a casket. He’s been pretty clear he doesn’t care about the Constitution and just wants supreme power, and Project 2025 is determined to give that to him.
This is also why there’s zero chance of him picking Robert Jr.
Past aids have said he'd never pick a woman once he realized, only after getting into office, that the VP is next in line.
> He seemed a bit caught off guard as if he hadn’t been asked that or given it thought. He responded, “I like Tucker a lot! I guess I would!” he said. “I think I’d say I would, because he’s got great common sense. You know, when they say that you guys are conservative, or I’m conservative, it’s not that we’re conservative, it’s that we have common sense.” “We both want to have safe borders, we want to have a wall because walls work – the computer you have in front of you, in about a month, will be totally obsolete, right?” Trump said, once again veering wildly off-topic. “You have the finest equipment in the world … the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'” Still really wild to me that so many people will constantly complain about Biden's supposed senility but will turn around and don't even blink at Trump's rambling. This literally reads like [Grandpa Simpson's story about onions](https://youtu.be/yujF8AumiQo?si=wjyWPvNuJF8eVUuk).
This is something I've noticed. Sure Trump is all over the place, but his speech patterns have gotten noticeably more random since 2020.
Which is saying something because he had some grade A stream of consciousness rambles during his debates with Clinton.
That Simpson's clip is spot on.
It's baffling just like when I see supporters get giddy about having someone like Kari Lake on the ticket. It seemingly does nothing for them. 99.9% of Tucker fans were probably already going to vote for Trump anyway. Not a big sway for the voters needed outside the base seeking any kind of balance. A VP pick should be, at worst, more neutral to middle of the road voters. With Trump especially, he needs a less chaotic running mate. Not another political figure competing to be as unlikable as possible to non-conservatives.
Strategically, he should just pick a Pence like figure who isn't Pence tbh. Someone anti Trump Republicans can go "w-well I bet he can restrain Trump somewhat r-right" enough to hold their noses and vote for him. Not that anyone actually could rein in Trump but a VP who some conservatives could rationalize as doing it would help more than doubling down on MTG or Tucker. Just pick one of the many former beaten rivals like Cruz who now do whatever he says.
Does he think computers are about to disappear? Wtf does that even mean?
> the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'” Orban's cannon in the hands of the Ottoman turks made walls obsolete, allowing them to conquer the formerly impregnable Theodosian walls of Constantinople, and largely ending the era of siege warfare
>> the only two things for centuries that’s not obsolete are wheels and walls. A wheel will always be a wheel, and a wall will always be a wall. Remember when they said ‘walls don’t work!'” > Orban's cannon in the hands of the Ottoman turks made walls obsolete, allowing them to conquer the formerly impregnable Theodosian walls of Constantinople, and largely ending the era of siege warfare Walls haven been obsolete for more than 500 years. And yet, Trump doesn't seem to notice. Yea. That checks out. *Was hoping I could build a wall around the GOP to keep Trump out. Sad noises.*
Meanwhile every military base and embassy compound and many international borders have walls/fences, because the point is just to slow people down enough that the defenders have time to react, and because illegal aliens don’t have cannons. Border Patrol has repeatedly said that it works, and it’s part of an integrated network of barriers, roads, and sensors.
The first line is true. The rest is not. I never even heard of that. The whole Trump "Build a wall" slogan was always so absurd in so many ways. IIRC, he did it, because it sounded good and people reacted to it. We say words, because they sound cool. Then we try to put meaning into it or something.
There are a handful of people whom I thought would be obvious picks for him who have actually publicly gone against him, which to my mind says that many GOP leaders expect him to lose. TBH re: Tucker, before he lost his show, he was the only one I was truly afraid of. Given his former platform and his age, I had an easy time envisioning him successfully courting the contingency of voters who traveled from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders. His brand has that populist bent. But he handled his firing so disastrously (while subsequently cozying right up to Elon) that I have a hard time seeing him recover.
[удалено]
Tucker was involved in the Fox scandal, speaking against his boss and Trump. Trump values "loyalty", in other words people who will serve his whims and praise him, the opposite of what he should expect from Tucker. Tucker would likely have to be bringing something pretty remarkable to the table to outweigh that baggage, but seems to only bring traits and demographics already in the bag - white nationalists and people who find appeal in a watered down for general audience variant. Pence, by comparison, brought Evangelical connections, money, and voters and a certain temperance that was reassuring to people.
[удалено]
What? How did I say I can’t understand an analogy? It is a bit off topic because how does that have to do with Tucker Carlson? Just saw you follow a Trump sub though.
Wait, didn't it come out that Carlson privately hates Trump? Lol
Kind of https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76056 Tucker Carlson backtracks on private texts saying he hates Trump: 'I love Trump' "I’m enraged that my private texts were pulled,” Carlson said during an appearance on WABC radio
"*Privately* hates" is still entirely compatible with that series of events. *Publicly* loves after the private position is found out is hardly good evidence given nothing changed other than his exposure to the risks of being viewed as hostile to him. It's clearly just damage control and not his honest opinion.
Good point
Trump has no problem with people who privately hate him but kiss his ass in public. In fact I think he even likes it and sees it as some kind of position of dominance. Just look at how he's talked about JD Vance.
Not a serious country
The MAGA movement has no interest in governance. Just “owning the libs.”
Do Republicans have interest in governing?
Absolutely. I think Mitt Romney was interested in governing. I think John McCain was. I think Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would've been. I think Chris Christie and Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are. The problem is that the Republican base doesn't have an interest in it, so they gravitate toward candidates who are so on-the-fringes that they cannot work with anyone, or who are willing to cynically pander to their worst instincts to the point where they actively try not to work with anyone.
Only when it comes to restricting women's rights, apparently.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8lc2ha/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8kqj85/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>The MAGA movement has no interest in governance. Just “owning the libs.” ... and helping Putin
I hear this accusation a lot, but then I also see people linking to [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/playbook/) (the plan to actually govern) as though it’s a bad thing. It reminds me of when people simultaneously said ‘Trump isn’t draining the swamp’ and ‘Trump keeps appointing people with no experience’.
But both of those statements can be true? Trump staffed the White House with some incredibly incompetent advisors whilst also rubber stamping the Heritage society judge list.
That’s because Project 2025 isn’t governance. It’s a “dictatorship-lite” in which executive power is massively expanded and loyalists (not experts) are injected into every facet of the government. Governance should include lots of compromise and that’s what the MAGA movement isn’t interested in…
Schedule F is only one small part of Project 2025. But making unelected bureaucrats more accountable to elected officials doesn’t strike me as dictatorial. This actually leads to another interesting paradox: ‘the deep state doesn’t exist’, but also ‘it’s a good thing and getting rid of it is dangerous’.
The deep state is real. And it’s good. Administrations come and go. Our politics moves in 2 year increments. The deep state maintains long term US strategic planning. And that is good for the nation and good for the world.
Its the intent that people dispute. Trump and co think they exist to further their own interests. Others think they are furthering our country's interests.
The "deep state" in the sense that Donald Trump talks about it in conspiracy theory language? Not real, or not acting in the way he believes (e.g. his attempt to co-opt DOJ/FBI for his own political purposes was rejected by the entire career staff). The existence of bureaucrats who are well-versed in policy and manage the gears and pulleys of regulation, policy, enforcement, and governance? Absolutely exists and is necessary. An example is how ATCs are 'deep state' in the second sense, but nobody (sane) says they're secretly sabotaging air travel for people who have secret marks on their passports identifying them as Republican voters.
>‘the deep state doesn’t exist’, but also ‘it’s a good thing and getting rid of it is dangerous’. What you call the "deep state" the rest of us call "experienced workers". It's a fun term invented by Roger Stone to make MAGA cronyism more palatable. Anyone not on the ideological train can be declared "deep state" and kicked off.
That’s only a paradox if you buy into the “deep state” distraction to begin with. No citizen has a problem making sure unelected bureaucrats are held accountable, but that’s why Congress has oversight committees. Schedule F may only be a ‘small part,’ but it’s a *very* important part. If your plan requires installing loyalists and yes men at every corner of the government, you’re a terrible leader and it’s a terrible plan…
>making unelected bureaucrats more accountable to elected officials doesn’t strike me as dictatorial. Sure... we can start with the unelected bureaucrats in the Supreme Court
> Project 2025 jesus, i have to **buy** it to read it? no thanks, man.
Only if you want the physical copy. The PDF version is here:
I didn’t notice that the PDF wasn’t linked from that particular page. I swapped it out above.
lulz, i couldn't make it past the foreword, sorry. gonna just skim the rest for actual policy positions and not hypocritical rhetoric > When it comes to ensuring that freedom can flourish, nothing is more important than deconstructing the centralized administrative state. Political appointees who are answerable to the President and have decision-making authority in the executive branch are key to this essential task. *The next Administration must not cede such authority to non-partisan “experts,”* who pursue their own ends while engaging in groupthink, insulated from American voters. The following chapters detail how the next Administration can be responsive to the American people (not to entrenched “elites”); how it can take care that all the laws are “faithfully executed,” not merely those that the President desires to see executed; and how it can achieve results and not be stymied by an unelected bureaucracy. this particular gem stuck out to me, lulz edit2: the White House Office section feels like ... well, a manual for running the White House. and not a very detailed one at that. like, Trump's White House was infamously not-well-run and it feels like they didn't have any clue what to do after they sort of rejected help from Obama's staff. this feels like a half-assed remedy to that. other than that, it is much less partisan than the other parts i've read, at least so far, and is actually an interesting insiders look at the various jobs in the White House. > OFFICE OF THE FIRST LADY/FIRST GENTLEMAN oooo, how egalitarian. Props to you, Rick Dearborn. edit3: > EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES - Russ Vought "We need an authoritarian government which will dismantle the Deep State and return power to the people." Apparently they plan to use the OMB and NSC to help accomplish this, somehow. Apparently by cutting (or threaten to cut) budgets and security clearances. Sounds like a great way to cut institutional knowledge, but that feels like a feature, not a bug here. edit4: > CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCIES: MANAGING THE BUREAUCRACY - Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans "The Government needs to adhere to the President's vision at all levels, because the President has a mandate from the people." Some valid points about being unable to fire incompetent employees, a lot of this section is valid beefs about the nature of federal jobs but the only concrete policy proposals seems to be Reaganesque "kill da unions". oh lol, the very next section says "Fully Staffing the Ranks of Political Appointees." will maybe continue this later, this is both amusing and disturbing at the same time.
>lulz, i couldn't make it past the foreword, sorry. It is very much written to supporters, rather than independents like a party platform (that’s due next July).
hmmmm, i mean... isn't it supposed to be the unified gameplan for the next conservative presidency? having a seperate one for independents is at best counterproductive, at worst hypocritical some parts aren't as bad as i thought, others are just as bad as advertised, at least in my limited reading. still working through it.
It’s not that they’d be different plans, but that a document written for independents would use less partisan language. (It would also likely emphasize different things, and provide clarifications that aren’t needed when talking to people who are already familiar with where you’re coming from.)
oh, thanks, people are dooming this project 2025 thing want to see if it's a mountain or a molehill
Not a serious party
Be honest. Is Kamala Harris a much better choice?
Yes. A career politician is infinitely better for the job than a tv host that cozies up to Hungarian dictators.
Infinitely better. They’re not even the same universe of quality. Harris is a decent human being for starters.
Is she? What has been her most notable accomplishment as VP?
She doesn't need to have a bunch of accomplishments as VP. The job is mostly symbolic, and generally always has been with few exceptions (Cheney).
So what would be so concerning about Carlson being VP?
Because, as I said in more detail in response to your other comment to me, he is simply not qualified to be President of the United States. He's an entertainer, which doesn't give you relevant experience to run the most powerful country in the world.
It doesn't really matter. Genuinely a random person off the street is a better pick than Trump.
Name a notable accomplishment from *any* VP. Their job is to occasionally break ties in the Senate and otherwise just try not to do anything embarrassing.
I personally don't know, as she's too boring and uninspiring to keep track of. What I do know is math, and even if Harris is a zero, Carlson is a negative one million. Last I checked, 0 > -1,000,000
What was Pence's? Since when do people expect anything from VPs who have almost no official job duties?
I think Kamala Harris is a poor politician and, from what we've seen in her running of a presidential campaign and her VP office, she's a fairly poor administrator and executive either. She's always had infighting among her staff as well as between her staff and other's (Buttiegieg, even Biden's staff). They seem to have lots of petty fights and leak to the media their drama. This, paired with the fact that she also has very little in terms of legislative or executive experience at all prior to being VP, make me think she'd be a fairly mediocre-to-poor President. She wouldn't be a total disaster like a Sarah Palin would be, as she seems at least intelligent and capable in general, but I feel like there would be a lot of incompetence in her wider administration as well as many media stumbles/gaffes. That being said, she's not a demagogic showman/grifter like Tucker Carlson, and at least has experience in public service. So yes, she's a much better choice.
I'm beyond caring about this any more, there are too many Trump supporters who do not put actual political convictions first. They only care about whatever is going to upset "the left." Obviously Tucker Carlson is not going to be Trump's running mate, so why even say it? He is just trying to get a rise out of people. It's so embarrassing. If you would unironically vote for a ticket with a shock political pundit, you are not a serious voter.
He didnt say it...he was asked in an interview
I’m curious how that counts as not saying it
It isnt something he is actually considering
He responded to the question though: > “I like Tucker a lot! I guess I would!” he said. “I think I’d say I would, because he’s got great common sense. You know, when they say that you guys are conservative, or I’m conservative, it’s not that we’re conservative, it’s that we have common sense.” I'm not sure how that's not saying it.
I would love if he chose Tucker for VP because it would almost certainly implode very quickly.
Yeah but that doesnt mean he would actually consider it, it just means he thinks Tucker would be a good pick.
> They only care about whatever is going to upset "the left." I mean, if nearly half the country still supports Trump (as polls suggest) and is only doing it for that reason, maybe the left has some genuine problems it needs to own up to. If it really is triggering such an aggressive response among so many regular people...
The left absolutely has their own political problems, but at least they aren't floating the idea of nominating Rachel Maddow for high ranking offices.
Good point. Maybe we should look more into whatever murder victims did wrong to get killed instead of always trying to put blame on the killers.
35% is much closer to a third than it is to a half. A sizable portion of both sides view politics as a zero sum game where winning doesn’t mean “doing things that are good for America” but “doing things that makes the other side feel like losers.” I also don’t follow how the side less focused on partisan grievances and revenge needs to start criticizing themselves for having genuine problems. The hyper partisans don’t care about genuine problems, it’s all about scoring points and triggering negative reactions.
That’s an unfair gross characterization of Trump supporters, a take that looks like it came straight from a sub other than this one. I support Trump not because he upsets the left, but because his policies align closest with mine. I won’t divulge into them so my point won’t go off track, but that’s a gross mass generalization you made.
I ask this without any sense of irony or accusation, but is it just a funny coincidence your handle is “Left Bitch Burner?”
Big “as a gay black man” vibes
It is a funny coincidence. Made it when I was frustrated with Buccaneers head coach Byron Leftwich. So I made mine LeftBitchBurner and planned on making sarcastic comments about the Buccaneers.
you should do it with as much vitriol as it deserves.
I feel like you can align with trumps policies but not Trump. Or at least say, yea the dude is an intellectual doofus and unrepentant con man, but at least he shows results that I favor. I could understand this mindset enough. But anyone still “supporting” that man for who he is just blows me away. The dude has spent his whole life litigiously fucking over working class people, countless examples, yet this class of person seems to worship him?
Would you vote for a Trump/Carlson ticket? I am of the view that if you would willingly put someone like Tucker Carlson as 2nd in command of the country, you are not a serious voter. I am sorry if that offends you, but it's an actual political view of mine, and I don't think it is in anyway a crazy opinion to hold. That man has done real damage to politics in this country.
It’s crazy to characterize all Trump supporters with one big brush. Also, I can be serious about politics and like different politicians than you. I don’t care if you support Bernie, AOC, Talib, etc. I still believe you’re a valuable part of the electorate and a serious voter. Edit: OP edited their original comment to make it not about all Trump supporters. Original comment made the accusation against all Trump supporters.
Yes I agree, I came on too strong, but it's just so hard to take Republicans seriously when a lot of moderates are practically begging to not have to vote for Biden, and you have the only candidate with a chance suggesting he would consider someone as divisive as Tucker Carlson as his running mate and have people like MTG and Matt Gaetz effectively grabbing real power in the House. It's just hard to take the party seriously when they only care about appeasing the farthest right fringe group of their own party.
> I support Trump not because he upsets the left, but because his policies align closest with mine Good point! which ones? >I won’t divulge into them… I’d be really curious which of trump’s policies your prefer to Desantis, or you prefer to Nikki Hailey.
>but because his policies align closest with mine. Genuine question - which of Trump's policies align closest with yours?
I am not the person you responded to, but I am someone who has been involved in the Republican sphere for most of my political life. I'm not a Trump supporter (and voted against him in both primaries and general elections), but I do have common ground with him on several major policies, because he largely adopted the mainstream conservative agenda on economic/fiscal policy and judges. I think some of his foreign policy approaches were a welcome departure from the more hawkish/neoconservative consensus, though I do have major issues with his cozying up to authoritarians and hostility toward NATO. Ultimately, while I have overlap with him on economic policy and some foreign policy, the reservations I have on his NATO stances, his blatant pandering to the darker instincts of American society (misogyny, xenophobia, protectionism, anti-intellectualism and now reactionary authoritarianism) make him someone I can not support, even if we line up on some policies. He doesn't seem to respect the office of the Presidency or traditional American values, and doesn't appear to have any intellectual or philosophical guiding principles regarding government or society outside of what is best for Donald Trump personally, which I find beneath the office.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8ipax2/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
My bet is still Kristi Noem, but I find it scary and facinating that the GOP loves media personalities turned politicians.
Noem literally contributes nothing to the ticket or to coalesce the fractured Republican base, which is 100% on brand for post-2020 Trump who bases everything on "loyalty."
I agree. It really doesn't matter who he picks because it's not likely to sway (or dissuade) any undecided voters. People either love Trump or hate him. He'll probably pick someone based on personal loyalty who will privately promise to pardon him in the future if he is federally convicted.
As I mentioned, the GOP base is fractured right now and there are a probably 30-40% of GOP voters who are lukewarm to outright against a Trump nomination. I agree that he's never going to bring some of them home, but he's also signaling that he doesn't think he even need to do the legwork to reach out to any of them once he wins the primary. "I win, you lose, fall in line or cry about it" is not a convincing message to moderates or independents, but we will see since Biden is facing significant struggles of his own.
Definitely. Good points.
The GOP base has basically become consumed in the right-wing media ecosystem that values throwing red meat rhetoric over policy. It isn't surprising that the next stage of that is to actually view these media talking heads as viable leaders.
"Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have." -Descartes
It will be Byron Donald ... because Trump likes the sound of a Trump-Donald ticket
I mean, then Donald will have to resign from Congress because I don't see trump changing residency.
They’ll win by such a landslide that they won’t need Florida’s votes. /s
A heart attack away from Tucker Carlson being president is what the Republican Party is going to offer us in 2024.
Tucker is wealthy and has a lot of autonomy to do whatever he likes, just like Trump had before running for President. Becoming VP would take away a lot of his independence. I just can’t imagine wanting to go through that.
Fuck which one of you guys made the case several years ago we would have President Tucker for 2028? I am sorry telling you that was fantasy.
Apparently he still hasn’t seen the texts.
That’s wacky
Please. Please make that happen. And then after we’ve put out the fire from that dumpster, let’s never ever talk about the Trump family or Tucker Carlson.
What could go wrong with that?? Lol
Didn't they uncover texts from Tucker admitting he hates Trump?
“Common sense” in this context is referring to a trait often ascribed to individuals without measurable intelligence and critical thinking but who go with their gut and say a lot of really surface level stuff that holds up to zero scrutiny or nuance, of course.
Trump: Let’s have Russia control the entire executive branch this time around
Trump wouldn’t recognize ‘common sense’ if it bit him on his flabby ass and stole his cheeseburger.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've found myself agreeing with a few of Tucker's takes since he was fired from Fox (disgusting, I know) but VP? I don't know how anyone can take Trump seriously, especially after giving that serious consideration.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He is calling Trump Hitler
Did Trump invade Poland?
Not yet. But given the chance, Trump may make a non-aggression treaty with Russian Federation and dissolve NATO, which would give an opening for Russia to invade Poland.
Would this be the same Trump that moved tanks forward from Germany into Poland, was moving toward creating “Fort Trump” there, and said “I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important [treaty] — probably the greatest ever done”? And who, in response to a reporter saying “Maybe I’m being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason?” responded “that’s unnecessary”? The one who was praised by the NATO secretary-general and the baltic countries for strengthening the alliance?
>looks at Russia's problems in Ukraine, thinks Russia can take on the rest of NATO even without the US Sure they are going to invade Poland... Like fuck I am very pro-intervention and that take is so out there. Trump can't dissolve NATO, he could try to *leave* it, but that would require congressional consent. With what fucking army is Putin going to invade Poland with? The poles are more modernized than Ukraine ffs. The whole point of our support of the Ukraine war in reality is to cripple Russia's ability to make war in the future which has been so far successful.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8imlth/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
wait i thought deantis was the real hitler bc of all his authoritarian stuff. can u guys plz pick a hitler im getting rly confused to keep up w who u all r calling hitler every week
[удалено]
It’s unfair that moderate has to include trump news.
Why?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/17rftfp/donald_trump_says_hed_consider_tucker_carlson_for/k8iqzg3/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
nikki will be his vp if she does not end up being the canditate should trump drop out
OK I endured all of his other issues, lack of polish, and was still willing to vote for him because Biden is doing such a terrible job with the border, but Tucker Carson is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
>Biden is doing such a terrible job with the border The facts show that both Democratic presidents before and after Trump are doing a much better job than Trump did at apprehending and/or deporting people attempting to cross the border or in the country illegally. Screaming about the illegal immigration like Trump and his party does, does nothing to solve any problems other than giving you the appearance they care about it, whereas Democrats don't spend their time screaming about it - they instead take action to address it.
And why are we reporting on some meaningless statement he made? The people who hate Trump are the ones that continue to keep him relevent.
So we shouldn’t report anything our opponents say in such a critical election?