Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I see a lot of younger people with cars, going on vacations, and other things that took my wife and I 20 years to achieve. Flying a family of five on a vacation to Hawaii? For the first 20 years vacations were car trips to visit family The number of young people flying? I ask every time I travel how can they afford that at 32? If it wasn't work, flying was a special occasion. Wanting to live in a certain City. We went where the work was until we could get to where we wanted. Now people just won't move.

---

Don't confuse the rise of SINK/DINK Epicureans with a stable society, prosperity, or a future.

America is doomed as a nation because it lacks the basic fundamentals of a successful one: a secure border, a stable currency, a shared language, and a shared culture. We had those things once.

Things are deteriorating to the point that I recommend learning a second language to accurately discuss ideas free of political correctness and have accurate sources of information.

---

Great post Reality.

FLbear's wife was probably a stay at home mom. That's a good thing! But impossible in today's climate unless you win the lottery.

I wouldnt mind the loss in quality of life if it felt like a sacrifice towards a more unified culture, instead our culture has been burnt to the ground along with our quality of life and nothing was received back in return.

Whiskey Pete said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

He's probably not wrong

🚨 Trump believes it's likely he'll be convicted, and is bracing for the possibility he'll be the first convicted felon to represent a major party. His team thinks the indictments have been good for the campaign, and a conviction could bring a lift in donations and polls.

— Axios (@axios) February 3, 2024

---

Recent polls suggest that a conviction is going to tank his presidency.

That of course won't prevent posters like whiterock from putting their faith in this re-tread loser.

MAGA is filled with a bunch of buffoons.

---

at this point, not a single lawsuit looks on pace to finish before November..

People see the law suits for what they are.. all of them have had setbacks in Trumps favor recently.

---

I agree that the important ones won't finish by November. Trump, if he wins, will sweep them away.

There is a significant portion of the population that see the lawsuits as warranted. Unfortunately, they come from a Party that outnumbers the GOP. I don't know what circles you run, but in day to day life I meet more people not liking Trump than liking him. Many are only voting for him because there is no choice. Not a very stable place to be.

But we will see.

---

Democrats don't outnumber the GOP. They're roughly the same:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split-2022-shift-gop.aspx

---

Looks like everything is lining up. Only 4th time since 1991 GOP has more registered voters. Should be no excuses for a clean sweep.

---

Didn't say your boogey man would win, just merely pointed out that you weren't right.

---

I was agreeing with you. Do you have to be a dick even when someone agrees?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

He's probably not wrong

🚨 Trump believes it's likely he'll be convicted, and is bracing for the possibility he'll be the first convicted felon to represent a major party. His team thinks the indictments have been good for the campaign, and a conviction could bring a lift in donations and polls.

— Axios (@axios) February 3, 2024

---

Recent polls suggest that a conviction is going to tank his presidency.

That of course won't prevent posters like whiterock from putting their faith in this re-tread loser.

MAGA is filled with a bunch of buffoons.

---

at this point, not a single lawsuit looks on pace to finish before November..

People see the law suits for what they are.. all of them have had setbacks in Trumps favor recently.

---

I agree that the important ones won't finish by November. Trump, if he wins, will sweep them away.

There is a significant portion of the population that see the lawsuits as warranted. Unfortunately, they come from a Party that outnumbers the GOP. I don't know what circles you run, but in day to day life I meet more people not liking Trump than liking him. Many are only voting for him because there is no choice. Not a very stable place to be.

But we will see.

---

Democrats don't outnumber the GOP. They're roughly the same:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split-2022-shift-gop.aspx

---

Looks like everything is lining up. Only 4th time since 1991 GOP has more registered voters. Should be no excuses for a clean sweep.

---

Didn't say your boogey man would win, just merely pointed out that you weren't right.

---

I was agreeing with you. Do you have to be a dick even when someone agrees?

---

Sorry, took your post as sarcasm. My apologies.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I see a lot of younger people with cars, going on vacations, and other things that took my wife and I 20 years to achieve. Flying a family of five on a vacation to Hawaii? For the first 20 years vacations were car trips to visit family The number of young people flying? I ask every time I travel how can they afford that at 32? If it wasn't work, flying was a special occasion. Wanting to live in a certain City. We went where the work was until we could get to where we wanted. Now people just won't move.

---

Don't confuse the rise of SINK/DINK Epicureans with a stable society, prosperity, or a future.

America is doomed as a nation because it lacks the basic fundamentals of a successful one: a secure border, a stable currency, a shared language, and a shared culture. We had those things once.

Things are deteriorating to the point that I recommend learning a second language to accurately discuss ideas free of political correctness and have accurate sources of information.

---

Great post Reality.

FLbear's wife was probably a stay at home mom. That's a good thing! But impossible in today's climate unless you win the lottery.

I wouldnt mind the loss in quality of life if it felt like a sacrifice towards a more unified culture, instead our culture has been burnt to the ground along with our quality of life and nothing was received back in return.

---

My wife is an RN. She has worked the floor in patient care for 33 years. She worked nights, risking health, when the kids were in school so they had someone home. Got our home with a VA mortgage. I deployed for 6 months during Desert Storm. Went and got a Masters at Baylor because BS was not enough to get a decent job. Maintained a higher than comfortable debt load to pay for Catholic School because it was worth the better education. Never took a vacation that wasn't visiting family until 20th wedding anniversary. Moved 7 times.

Is this special? NO. It was normal people do and have done forever. A multitude has done more and done it better. A multitude has not or done it worse. Bottomline is it does not impact me and my family, just do.

The expectation that it should all be easy is a rather recent viewpoint. Most of the US generations have thought the opposite, life, marriage, raising kids is work. There are always challenges and every generation has had to overcome them. There is no one "golden" generation that had everything their way. There are always going to be political issues beyond our control, how you live your life is up to you and make the best of what you can.

If worrying about the Border, the stability of the US dollar, and the fact some speak different languages is preventing you from living. You need to step away from the news and get a little perspective.

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I see a lot of younger people with cars, going on vacations, and other things that took my wife and I 20 years to achieve. Flying a family of five on a vacation to Hawaii? For the first 20 years vacations were car trips to visit family The number of young people flying? I ask every time I travel how can they afford that at 32? If it wasn't work, flying was a special occasion. Wanting to live in a certain City. We went where the work was until we could get to where we wanted. Now people just won't move.

---

Don't confuse the rise of SINK/DINK Epicureans with a stable society, prosperity, or a future.

America is doomed as a nation because it lacks the basic fundamentals of a successful one: a secure border, a stable currency, a shared language, and a shared culture. We had those things once.

Things are deteriorating to the point that I recommend learning a second language to accurately discuss ideas free of political correctness and have accurate sources of information.

---

Great post Reality.

FLbear's wife was probably a stay at home mom. That's a good thing! But impossible in today's climate unless you win the lottery.

I wouldnt mind the loss in quality of life if it felt like a sacrifice towards a more unified culture, instead our culture has been burnt to the ground along with our quality of life and nothing was received back in return.

---

My wife is an RN. She has worked the floor in patient care for 33 years. She worked nights, risking health, when the kids were in school so they had someone home. Got our home with a VA mortgage. I deployed for 6 months during Desert Storm. Went and got a Masters at Baylor because BS was not enough to get a decent job. Maintained a higher than comfortable debt load to pay for Catholic School because it was worth the better education. Never took a vacation that wasn't visiting family until 20th wedding anniversary. Moved 7 times.

Is this special? NO. It was normal people do and have done forever. A multitude has done more and done it better. A multitude has not or done it worse. Bottomline is it does not impact me and my family, just do.

The expectation that it should all be easy is a rather recent viewpoint. Most of the US generations have thought the opposite, life, marriage, raising kids is work. There are always challenges and every generation has had to overcome them. There is no one "golden" generation that had everything their way. There are always going to be political issues beyond our control, how you live your life is up to you and make the best of what you can.

If worrying about the Border, the stability of the US dollar, and the fact some speak different languages is preventing you from living. You need to step away from the news and get a little perspective.

---

I think the issue is up until this point most generations at least expected their children to have a better life than they did. However, for the first time in American history I can say I would expect my children's generation, the children being born today, to have a lower quality of life, lower standard of living, and less freedoms than my generation had,

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I see a lot of younger people with cars, going on vacations, and other things that took my wife and I 20 years to achieve. Flying a family of five on a vacation to Hawaii? For the first 20 years vacations were car trips to visit family The number of young people flying? I ask every time I travel how can they afford that at 32? If it wasn't work, flying was a special occasion. Wanting to live in a certain City. We went where the work was until we could get to where we wanted. Now people just won't move.

---

Don't confuse the rise of SINK/DINK Epicureans with a stable society, prosperity, or a future.

America is doomed as a nation because it lacks the basic fundamentals of a successful one: a secure border, a stable currency, a shared language, and a shared culture. We had those things once.

Things are deteriorating to the point that I recommend learning a second language to accurately discuss ideas free of political correctness and have accurate sources of information.

---

Great post Reality.

FLbear's wife was probably a stay at home mom. That's a good thing! But impossible in today's climate unless you win the lottery.

I wouldnt mind the loss in quality of life if it felt like a sacrifice towards a more unified culture, instead our culture has been burnt to the ground along with our quality of life and nothing was received back in return.

---

My wife is an RN. She has worked the floor in patient care for 33 years. She worked nights, risking health, when the kids were in school so they had someone home. Got our home with a VA mortgage. I deployed for 6 months during Desert Storm. Went and got a Masters at Baylor because BS was not enough to get a decent job. Maintained a higher than comfortable debt load to pay for Catholic School because it was worth the better education. Never took a vacation that wasn't visiting family until 20th wedding anniversary. Moved 7 times.

Is this special? NO. It was normal people do and have done forever. A multitude has done more and done it better. A multitude has not or done it worse. Bottomline is it does not impact me and my family, just do.

The expectation that it should all be easy is a rather recent viewpoint. Most of the US generations have thought the opposite, life, marriage, raising kids is work. There are always challenges and every generation has had to overcome them. There is no one "golden" generation that had everything their way. There are always going to be political issues beyond our control, how you live your life is up to you and make the best of what you can.

If worrying about the Border, the stability of the US dollar, and the fact some speak different languages is preventing you from living. You need to step away from the news and get a little perspective.

---

I think the issue is up until this point most generations at least expected their children to have a better life than they did. However, for the first time in American history I can say I would expect my children's generation, the children being born today, to have a lower quality of life, lower standard of living, and less freedoms than my generation had,

---

Well, I guess there are several points there.

First, this may be a bit of a Libertarian view, but isn't it up to the families and the people to make their life better? The ingredients are all there. The world is what you make it. My Dad couldn't afford a house in Queens, so we moved to Long Island he commuted 30 miles one way. That was 1969.

Second, whose to say it won't be? Just the quality of products and health care will be better. My 72 Monte Carlo can't hold a candle to my F150. Diseases that used to be a death sentence are now treatable. My kids have access to information I could only dream of in 1975. Educational access to better yourself is much more accessible. So, I am not sure I buy that.

Third, what is the definition of better? As i said, that expectation may not have changed, but it seems it is expected earlier. People 3 years on the job after college complaining they can't buy a house.

I don't know, I see alot of younger people doing very well. If the expectation is that you can leave HS go to a factory and buy a 4 BR home? Yeah, that may not be happening. Or, like the past you have to move to certain locations.

Less freedoms? What freedoms have you lost?? Seriously, what can't we do now that we used to be able to do?

Gen Z is choosing to "work to live'' rather than "live to work," like previous generations, because they're reaping fewer rewards for their hard work, per BI.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 5, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

Gen Z is choosing to "work to live'' rather than "live to work," like previous generations, because they're reaping fewer rewards for their hard work, per BI.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 5, 2024

---

The issue there is that they then complain they don't have the assets the previous Generations have.

Also, nobody "lives to work". The number of people that would do their job without pay is extraordinarily small. People "work to afford the life they want".

boognish_bear said:

---

Gen Z is choosing to "work to live'' rather than "live to work," like previous generations, because they're reaping fewer rewards for their hard work, per BI.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 5, 2024

---

I mean I totally get it.

As a millennial I'm stuck into between both viewpoints. I make pretty damn good money for my age, top 5%, but it's ridiculous hours and stress. At the end of the day my money is taxed to hell and the cost of living is outrageous.

If you're just now looking to buy your first home at $450k with current rates and property taxes it's like $3500+ a month. Add in insurance, phone/internet, car payment/s, insurance, grocery bills and all other essentials…you're paying out the ass.

You could find a $300k home, but to commute to a high paying job is gonna be like an hour and a half or it's going be close with a ****ty house and bad neighborhood.

Lots of people choosing not to enter the status economy and live minimalist lives instead.

Doc Holliday said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Gen Z is choosing to "work to live'' rather than "live to work," like previous generations, because they're reaping fewer rewards for their hard work, per BI.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 5, 2024

---

I mean I totally get it.

As a millennial I'm stuck into between both viewpoints. I make pretty damn good money for my age, top 5%, but it's ridiculous hours and stress. At the end of the day my money is taxed to hell and the cost of living is outrageous.

If you're just now looking to buy your first home at $450k with current rates and property taxes it's like $3500+ a month. Add in insurance, phone/internet, car payment/s, insurance, grocery bills and all other essentials…you're paying out the ass.

You could find a $300k home, but to commute to a high paying job is gonna be like an hour and a half or it's going be close with a ****ty house and bad neighborhood.

Lots of people choosing not to enter the status economy and live minimalist lives instead.

---

Minimalist is fine when it is you. Hell, I had a pick up and about a duffle bag worth of stuff when I was in the military. No issues.

The issue comes when you are making your family live minimalist. It has been my experience, if it is just me no issues and the decisions I make are fine. Add in others, it gets complicated. Right now that applies to a boat I didn't want and am stuck with now that the kids are gone. Lots of summer memories, but could I afford it? Probably not by a Financial Planner's metrics, but it was important to wife for kids to have memories of family summers. Try adding that into the ROI.

Glad you are making good salary and you deserve a tip of the cap. I don't know if you have kids, but many live in what you call the status economy to provide stability to kids while they are growing up. It is not all status.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Gen Z is choosing to "work to live'' rather than "live to work," like previous generations, because they're reaping fewer rewards for their hard work, per BI.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 5, 2024

---

I mean I totally get it.

As a millennial I'm stuck into between both viewpoints. I make pretty damn good money for my age, top 5%, but it's ridiculous hours and stress. At the end of the day my money is taxed to hell and the cost of living is outrageous.

If you're just now looking to buy your first home at $450k with current rates and property taxes it's like $3500+ a month. Add in insurance, phone/internet, car payment/s, insurance, grocery bills and all other essentials…you're paying out the ass.

You could find a $300k home, but to commute to a high paying job is gonna be like an hour and a half or it's going be close with a ****ty house and bad neighborhood.

Lots of people choosing not to enter the status economy and live minimalist lives instead.

---

Minimalist is fine when it is you. Hell, I had a pick up and about a duffle bag worth of stuff when I was in the military. No issues.

The issue comes when you are making your family live minimalist. It has been my experience, if it is just me no issues and the decisions I make are fine. Add in others, it gets complicated. Right now that applies to a boat I didn't want and am stuck with now that the kids are gone. Lots of summer memories, but could I afford it? Probably not by a Financial Planner's metrics, but it was important to wife for kids to have memories of family summers. Try adding that into the ROI.

Glad you are making good salary and you deserve a tip of the cap. I don't know if you have kids, but many live in what you call the status economy to provide stability to kids while they are growing up. It is not all status.

---

Yeah I have a toddler. Wife and I both work full time.

Daycare is about $1400/month. House is $3100/month. One car at $600/month. I don't know how households that make less than $100k/yr make it work.

Between state and federal taxes we pay around $50k a year. We make enough to save a healthy amount of money, but taxes being this high is ludicrous. Taxing income is downright evil.

When I say status I mean people buying a $90k BMW when they should be saving an investing instead.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Gen Z is choosing to "work to live'' rather than "live to work," like previous generations, because they're reaping fewer rewards for their hard work, per BI.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 5, 2024

---

I mean I totally get it.

As a millennial I'm stuck into between both viewpoints. I make pretty damn good money for my age, top 5%, but it's ridiculous hours and stress. At the end of the day my money is taxed to hell and the cost of living is outrageous.

If you're just now looking to buy your first home at $450k with current rates and property taxes it's like $3500+ a month. Add in insurance, phone/internet, car payment/s, insurance, grocery bills and all other essentials…you're paying out the ass.

You could find a $300k home, but to commute to a high paying job is gonna be like an hour and a half or it's going be close with a ****ty house and bad neighborhood.

Lots of people choosing not to enter the status economy and live minimalist lives instead.

---

Minimalist is fine when it is you. Hell, I had a pick up and about a duffle bag worth of stuff when I was in the military. No issues.

The issue comes when you are making your family live minimalist. It has been my experience, if it is just me no issues and the decisions I make are fine. Add in others, it gets complicated. Right now that applies to a boat I didn't want and am stuck with now that the kids are gone. Lots of summer memories, but could I afford it? Probably not by a Financial Planner's metrics, but it was important to wife for kids to have memories of family summers. Try adding that into the ROI.

Glad you are making good salary and you deserve a tip of the cap. I don't know if you have kids, but many live in what you call the status economy to provide stability to kids while they are growing up. It is not all status.

---

Yeah I have a toddler. Wife and I both work full time.

Daycare is about $1400/month. House is $3100/month. One car at $600/month. I don't know how households that make less than $100k/yr make it work.

Between state and federal taxes we pay around $50k a year. We make enough to save a healthy amount of money, but taxes being this high is ludicrous. Taxing income is downright evil.

When I say status I mean people buying a $90k BMW when they should be saving an investing instead.

---

Don't get me wrong, I tip my cap to you and your family. I agree with what you say. Nice to see people still finding a path rather than just ***** about it. Try to stay optimistic, even if things can improve. Life is too short to be pissed off all the time.

🚨 JUST IN: Nikki Haley has LOST the Nevada primary to “None of these Candidates” 😂😂🤣

Trump was not on the ballot because the only vote in Nevada that matters is the caucus. That will determine which Republican wins Nevada.

Regardless, this is absolutely HUMILIATING for… pic.twitter.com/jN2lb3f0Q7

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 7, 2024

Michael is deployed serving our country, something you know nothing about. Someone who continually disrespects the sacrifices of military families has no business being commander in chief. https://t.co/AfN3u4AsJc

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) February 10, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

---

That's it! I'm going on an unarmed tour the capital!

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I'm a MAGA guy through and through, but I think speak for most when I say we all still like Ron. No bridges were burned.

His political star has been ascending for years now and he had to capitalize by running for President or risk fading into obscurity. He ran a fairly clean campaign and got out at the right time. He is still in a good place for 2028 unless Tucker decides to run.

---

Trumps VP would be the one in the drivers seat in 2028. That is, if Trump decides to relinquish office at that time.

I suggest you evaluate candidates with respect to qualifications and platform rather than classifying yourself as MAGA.

---

I agree with barBEARian re RDS.

You are also correct that a sitting VP is a very strong position from which to seek the nomination. But it does matter who is that VP. If it's Haley (most likely option at this time), then you would have very establishment/moderate VP "in line" to go next. The base, however you describe it - MAGA or traditional conservatives - will not be enthusiastic and will look for options. Enter RDS. That sets the stage for a very conventional establishment vs. base contest in the 2028 primary.

---

Name VPs that were successful Presidents? Biden and Bush. Every other VP lost and most can't even be remembered. Being Trump's VP did wonders for Pence. Harris is a shoo in, right? RDS and Haley are both better off not tying themselves to Trump.

---

There have been 49 VPs. 12 of them (nearly a quarter) have become President: Addams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Nxon, Ford, Bush 41.

Some might point out that several on that list entered office upon death/resignation of the POTUS. I would respond - yes, that is the point! If you want to be POTUS, being VPOTUS is the catbird seat.

And if we add to the list the number of VPs who have received the Presidential nomination of their party, the list gets substantially longer. Sure, not all VPs who've gotten the nomination have gotten elected POTUS. But that's not the point - the nomination is the point. You have to get the nomination to have a chance to become POTUS. And being VPOTUS is the best inside-track you could have to get your party's nomination for POTUS. No other position is better. You have national rather than just statewide or regional connections. You have experience. You have had 4 years to stack the party with people loyal to you. The outgoing President's fundraising list is also YOUR fundraising list.

No one. NOT ONE of Trump's current or former primary opponent will turn down the offer to be VPOTUS nominee. Yeah, they'll posture that they'd never take it (for along list of reasons that benefit them while in campaign mode) but when the offer actually comes, they will take it. So would you. It's a no-lose proposition. If you win the election, you win and get the VP spot. If you lose the election, you've been showcasing yourself and have national name ID, as well as a scapegoat (the top of the ticket) to blame for the failure.

Trump critics always premise their argument with the "Radioactive Trump" fallacy. No one in their right mind would want to be associated with this guy. In fact, a nominee is a nominee, and a nominee always has a smorgasbord of willing partners eager to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (see above.)

---

You are going to throw in Ford, Truman, Roosevelt, Johnson, Arthur and Coolidge? They became President after a President died or was forced to leave office. They were not elected. You really love paring the data to fit your beliefs. You should read "I was an Economic Hitman".

When you look at an apples to apples comparison, 7 of the 49 were able to become President THROUGH election as their Party's nominee. And since 1900, there have been 2, 3 if you include TR. If we were in the 1820's, your argument makes sense. In the modern era, there have been more that faded to obscurity than have risen to President.

In addition, you think being Trump's VP helps? Ask Pence. He is a pariah because Trump put him in positions that forced him to go against Trump.

---

LOL go read the post. You rather significantly misinterpreted my comments on FTRJAC.

Being a VP does not make one inevitable (as my comments clearly allow). One does have to form a good plan and execute it. Pence misread and misplayed very badly.

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

He's probably not wrong

🚨 Trump believes it's likely he'll be convicted, and is bracing for the possibility he'll be the first convicted felon to represent a major party. His team thinks the indictments have been good for the campaign, and a conviction could bring a lift in donations and polls.

— Axios (@axios) February 3, 2024

---

Recent polls suggest that a conviction is going to tank his presidency.

That of course won't prevent posters like whiterock from putting their faith in this re-tread loser.

MAGA is filled with a bunch of buffoons.

---

the neverTrumpers are even worse.

Pointing out the weaknesses in neverTrump or antTrump arguments is not MAGA. It's just good sense. Trump was always in a strong position to win the primary. His opponents spun the 2020 mid-term outcome against him very effectively, but he recovered and now has a lock on the nomination. Noting all that, which I predicted with 100% accuracy, is not MAGA. It's quite pragmatic.

My position every day has been that I'm going to support the nominee, no matter who, no matter what. I have some I like more than others, but you'll note I didn't criticize anyone except Hutchinson and Christie, who had no chance, no business even being in the race. I pointed out the positives of even the candidates I was personally less-than enthusiastic about.

In would prefer to have RDS as POTUS. He would, as I've said all along, be more effective than Trump at the agenda we need most. But he can't win the primary. And that much has been obvious for a solid 12 months.

Again, pointing all that out doesn't make me MAGA. Makes me a pragmatic conservative Republican who wants to win.

boognish_bear said:

---

---

sounds like a typical campaign speech.. Trump won in 2016 off statements like this.

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

He's probably not wrong

🚨 Trump believes it's likely he'll be convicted, and is bracing for the possibility he'll be the first convicted felon to represent a major party. His team thinks the indictments have been good for the campaign, and a conviction could bring a lift in donations and polls.

— Axios (@axios) February 3, 2024

---

Recent polls suggest that a conviction is going to tank his presidency.

That of course won't prevent posters like whiterock from putting their faith in this re-tread loser.

MAGA is filled with a bunch of buffoons.

---

each of those cases have had setbacks and may not cross the finish line until after November

4th and Inches said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

He's probably not wrong

🚨 Trump believes it's likely he'll be convicted, and is bracing for the possibility he'll be the first convicted felon to represent a major party. His team thinks the indictments have been good for the campaign, and a conviction could bring a lift in donations and polls.

— Axios (@axios) February 3, 2024

---

Recent polls suggest that a conviction is going to tank his presidency.

That of course won't prevent posters like whiterock from putting their faith in this re-tread loser.

MAGA is filled with a bunch of buffoons.

---

each of those cases have had setbacks and may not cross the finish line until after November

---

It's likely the NY state case goes forward and NY gets a conviction before election day. Even Trump himself is apparently telling people close to him he thinks he will be convicted before election day.

boognish_bear said:

---

---

Really? Trump is responsible for Taylor Swift's success. Wow. I wonder if the Chief's called him to thank him for just being him...

NATO has been a 75-year success story. There hasn’t been war in the region because of NATO. It is a massive mistake for Donald Trump to side with a thug like Putin over our allies and it will put troops in harm’s way. pic.twitter.com/LerAtG5jQp

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) February 12, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

Really? Trump is responsible for Taylor Swift's success. Wow. I wonder if the Chief's called him to thank him for just being him...

---

That's right up there with "the border is secure", "you can keep your doctor", "I've never had sexual relations with that woman", and "men can get pregnant"

Whiskey Pete said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

Really? Trump is responsible for Taylor Swift's success. Wow. I wonder if the Chief's called him to thank him for just being him...

---

That's right up there with "the border is secure", "you can keep your doctor", "I've never had sexual relations with that woman", and "men can get pregnant"

---

Now you are getting it. He belongs right in the mix with those...

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

He's probably not wrong

🚨 Trump believes it's likely he'll be convicted, and is bracing for the possibility he'll be the first convicted felon to represent a major party. His team thinks the indictments have been good for the campaign, and a conviction could bring a lift in donations and polls.

— Axios (@axios) February 3, 2024

---

Recent polls suggest that a conviction is going to tank his presidency.

That of course won't prevent posters like whiterock from putting their faith in this re-tread loser.

MAGA is filled with a bunch of buffoons.

---

the neverTrumpers are even worse.

Pointing out the weaknesses in neverTrump or antTrump arguments is not MAGA. It's just good sense. Trump was always in a strong position to win the primary. His opponents spun the 2020 mid-term outcome against him very effectively, but he recovered and now has a lock on the nomination. Noting all that, which I predicted with 100% accuracy, is not MAGA. It's quite pragmatic.

My position every day has been that I'm going to support the nominee, no matter who, no matter what. I have some I like more than others, but you'll note I didn't criticize anyone except Hutchinson and Christie, who had no chance, no business even being in the race. I pointed out the positives of even the candidates I was personally less-than enthusiastic about.

In would prefer to have RDS as POTUS. He would, as I've said all along, be more effective than Trump at the agenda we need most. But he can't win the primary. And that much has been obvious for a solid 12 months.

Again, pointing all that out doesn't make me MAGA. Makes me a pragmatic conservative Republican who wants to win.

---

You defended every one of Trumps lies about DeSantis. I've never seen you say a critical word about Trump. You've pretty much defended his every action as good politics.

I am not sure defending a guy who hurts the party and our ability to win this election is what I would call pragmatic.

I suspect Trump will soon be running against someone other than Biden. It will be interesting to see if Trump fares as well against a candidate not named Biden.

---

Geez. You cannot just post an assessment. You have to spin everything. And what a convenient memory - have noted Trump's weaknesses many times.

Analyzing why Trump's attacks were effective (which they clearly were) is not "defending." I actually like RDS a lot, and have noted often (and recently) that he would likely be a more effective POTUS than Trump at the things of most important to me. I would not have been disappointed if RDS had defeated Trump in the primary, and will likely be a supporter in 2028. None of that is at odds with my consistent prediction that Trump would win the primary, though. And being quite comfortable with Trump as a nominee does not make me a mind-numbed MAGA-head. I'm more dispassionately grounded than them, or you, for that matter.

Trump is most likely to run against Biden, assuming latter is not dead or physically incapacitated (which could very well happen). 2nd most likely opponent is Harris, and she's polling worse than Biden. Big Mike might well be unbeatable but I'm not sure she is going to agree to do it. Axlerod just two days ago categorically ruled it out. The scenarios for bypassing Kamala are, uhm, difficult.

If Kamala ends up having to step in, expect to see "first woman POTUS" stuff ad nausem. and I do think Big Mike would endorse and even campaign a little (way preferrable to running). Also think it would be easier to get the coveted "Taylor Swift endorsement" Team Biden appears to be seeking. Endorsing a senescent old man is just engaging in partisan politics. But getting behind the first woman POTUS, and a minority one at that....well, that is what good girls do!

Nikki Haley hits Trump’s reported endorsements for new RNC leadership:

“His daughter-in-law will be the co-chair. And he is making his campaign manager the officer that runs the party. Think about what's happening right now. Is that how you're gonna try and take an election?” pic.twitter.com/AXqgwaw8EG

— The Recount (@therecount) February 13, 2024

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I'm a MAGA guy through and through, but I think speak for most when I say we all still like Ron. No bridges were burned.

His political star has been ascending for years now and he had to capitalize by running for President or risk fading into obscurity. He ran a fairly clean campaign and got out at the right time. He is still in a good place for 2028 unless Tucker decides to run.

---

Trumps VP would be the one in the drivers seat in 2028. That is, if Trump decides to relinquish office at that time.

I suggest you evaluate candidates with respect to qualifications and platform rather than classifying yourself as MAGA.

---

I agree with barBEARian re RDS.

You are also correct that a sitting VP is a very strong position from which to seek the nomination. But it does matter who is that VP. If it's Haley (most likely option at this time), then you would have very establishment/moderate VP "in line" to go next. The base, however you describe it - MAGA or traditional conservatives - will not be enthusiastic and will look for options. Enter RDS. That sets the stage for a very conventional establishment vs. base contest in the 2028 primary.

---

Name VPs that were successful Presidents? Biden and Bush. Every other VP lost and most can't even be remembered. Being Trump's VP did wonders for Pence. Harris is a shoo in, right? RDS and Haley are both better off not tying themselves to Trump.

---

There have been 49 VPs. 12 of them (nearly a quarter) have become President: Addams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Nxon, Ford, Bush 41.

Some might point out that several on that list entered office upon death/resignation of the POTUS. I would respond - yes, that is the point! If you want to be POTUS, being VPOTUS is the catbird seat.

And if we add to the list the number of VPs who have received the Presidential nomination of their party, the list gets substantially longer. Sure, not all VPs who've gotten the nomination have gotten elected POTUS. But that's not the point - the nomination is the point. You have to get the nomination to have a chance to become POTUS. And being VPOTUS is the best inside-track you could have to get your party's nomination for POTUS. No other position is better. You have national rather than just statewide or regional connections. You have experience. You have had 4 years to stack the party with people loyal to you. The outgoing President's fundraising list is also YOUR fundraising list.

No one. NOT ONE of Trump's current or former primary opponent will turn down the offer to be VPOTUS nominee. Yeah, they'll posture that they'd never take it (for along list of reasons that benefit them while in campaign mode) but when the offer actually comes, they will take it. So would you. It's a no-lose proposition. If you win the election, you win and get the VP spot. If you lose the election, you've been showcasing yourself and have national name ID, as well as a scapegoat (the top of the ticket) to blame for the failure.

Trump critics always premise their argument with the "Radioactive Trump" fallacy. No one in their right mind would want to be associated with this guy. In fact, a nominee is a nominee, and a nominee always has a smorgasbord of willing partners eager to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (see above.)

---

You are going to throw in Ford, Truman, Roosevelt, Johnson, Arthur and Coolidge? They became President after a President died or was forced to leave office. They were not elected. You really love paring the data to fit your beliefs. You should read "I was an Economic Hitman".

When you look at an apples to apples comparison, 7 of the 49 were able to become President THROUGH election as their Party's nominee. And since 1900, there have been 2, 3 if you include TR. If we were in the 1820's, your argument makes sense. In the modern era, there have been more that faded to obscurity than have risen to President.

In addition, you think being Trump's VP helps? Ask Pence. He is a pariah because Trump put him in positions that forced him to go against Trump.

---

LOL go read the post. You rather significantly misinterpreted my comments on FTRJAC.

Being a VP does not make one inevitable (as my comments clearly allow). One does have to form a good plan and execute it. Pence misread and misplayed very badly.

---

Yeah, upholding the oath of office is a real faux pas these days.

As expected, Trump blames everyone but himself for the Republican's loss tonight. Trump claimed Mazi Pilip lost because “she didn't endorse me.”

This is a lie. Pilip said she voted for Trump in 2020 and endorsed him for the 2024 election. #NY03 pic.twitter.com/F0778lyhOc

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 14, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

As expected, Trump blames everyone but himself for the Republican's loss tonight. Trump claimed Mazi Pilip lost because “she didn't endorse me.”

This is a lie. Pilip said she voted for Trump in 2020 and endorsed him for the 2024 election. #NY03 pic.twitter.com/F0778lyhOc

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 14, 2024

---

She was never going to win. Santos put a bad taste in the mouth of those voters for the GOP.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I'm a MAGA guy through and through, but I think speak for most when I say we all still like Ron. No bridges were burned.

His political star has been ascending for years now and he had to capitalize by running for President or risk fading into obscurity. He ran a fairly clean campaign and got out at the right time. He is still in a good place for 2028 unless Tucker decides to run.

---

Trumps VP would be the one in the drivers seat in 2028. That is, if Trump decides to relinquish office at that time.

I suggest you evaluate candidates with respect to qualifications and platform rather than classifying yourself as MAGA.

---

I agree with barBEARian re RDS.

You are also correct that a sitting VP is a very strong position from which to seek the nomination. But it does matter who is that VP. If it's Haley (most likely option at this time), then you would have very establishment/moderate VP "in line" to go next. The base, however you describe it - MAGA or traditional conservatives - will not be enthusiastic and will look for options. Enter RDS. That sets the stage for a very conventional establishment vs. base contest in the 2028 primary.

---

Name VPs that were successful Presidents? Biden and Bush. Every other VP lost and most can't even be remembered. Being Trump's VP did wonders for Pence. Harris is a shoo in, right? RDS and Haley are both better off not tying themselves to Trump.

---

There have been 49 VPs. 12 of them (nearly a quarter) have become President: Addams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Nxon, Ford, Bush 41.

Some might point out that several on that list entered office upon death/resignation of the POTUS. I would respond - yes, that is the point! If you want to be POTUS, being VPOTUS is the catbird seat.

And if we add to the list the number of VPs who have received the Presidential nomination of their party, the list gets substantially longer. Sure, not all VPs who've gotten the nomination have gotten elected POTUS. But that's not the point - the nomination is the point. You have to get the nomination to have a chance to become POTUS. And being VPOTUS is the best inside-track you could have to get your party's nomination for POTUS. No other position is better. You have national rather than just statewide or regional connections. You have experience. You have had 4 years to stack the party with people loyal to you. The outgoing President's fundraising list is also YOUR fundraising list.

No one. NOT ONE of Trump's current or former primary opponent will turn down the offer to be VPOTUS nominee. Yeah, they'll posture that they'd never take it (for along list of reasons that benefit them while in campaign mode) but when the offer actually comes, they will take it. So would you. It's a no-lose proposition. If you win the election, you win and get the VP spot. If you lose the election, you've been showcasing yourself and have national name ID, as well as a scapegoat (the top of the ticket) to blame for the failure.

Trump critics always premise their argument with the "Radioactive Trump" fallacy. No one in their right mind would want to be associated with this guy. In fact, a nominee is a nominee, and a nominee always has a smorgasbord of willing partners eager to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (see above.)

---

You are going to throw in Ford, Truman, Roosevelt, Johnson, Arthur and Coolidge? They became President after a President died or was forced to leave office. They were not elected. You really love paring the data to fit your beliefs. You should read "I was an Economic Hitman".

When you look at an apples to apples comparison, 7 of the 49 were able to become President THROUGH election as their Party's nominee. And since 1900, there have been 2, 3 if you include TR. If we were in the 1820's, your argument makes sense. In the modern era, there have been more that faded to obscurity than have risen to President.

In addition, you think being Trump's VP helps? Ask Pence. He is a pariah because Trump put him in positions that forced him to go against Trump.

---

LOL go read the post. You rather significantly misinterpreted my comments on FTRJAC.

Being a VP does not make one inevitable (as my comments clearly allow). One does have to form a good plan and execute it. Pence misread and misplayed very badly.

---

Yeah, upholding the oath of office is a real faux pas these days.

---

He chickened out on a plan he'd signed on to. He either screwed up by not saying "NO" the day after the election, or by not following thru. (or both).

I don't downplay the momentous nature of the situation he was in. High pressure. High visibility. High stakes. But he tried to straddle the fence and got, er, uh, high centered.