Christie, Scott, Pence, & Burgum need to pack it up and go to the house. This is probably going to come down to Haley, Ramaswamy & DeSantis. Whoever is left from those 3 will face the orange 600 pound gorilla who will promptly kick them so hard, they'll be wearing their ass for a hat.
That said, I think it would be great to see Ramaswamy …
Christie, Scott, Pence, & Burgum need to pack it up and go to the house. This is probably going to come down to Haley, Ramaswamy & DeSantis. Whoever is left from those 3 will face the orange 600 pound gorilla who will promptly kick them so hard, they'll be wearing their ass for a hat.
That said, I think it would be great to see Ramaswamy join the RFK Jr team as VP and see them run as Independents, but I've probably got better odds of catching on fire. Just sayin.....
Why should Scott go home? Polling of Republicans about who they would never vote for? Scott has the lowest number of them all. He's the candidate most Republicans would consider. He should stay for now. I agree, Christie, Pence, and Burgum should withdraw.
Does RFK Jr.’s climate activism give you pause? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for cleaning up rivers, but I wonder about cult-like thinking with him. I do think he’s courageous, though, which is admirable.
Sorry, but there’s no way Gabbard, who has something resembling principles about respecting election results, would stand shoulder to shoulder with a charlatan opportunist like Trump, who respects election results only when he wins.
They are both ridiculously naive in their understanding of the world. 5% of what each one says make sense, the other 95% does not. Unfortunately, neither one understands that he sounds like an adult on 5% of the issues, and like a guileless teenager on the other 95% of the issues. Unfortunately, many would-be voters miss this split as well. As Churchill said, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. [Who seriously supports either one of these gentlemen to run the country] can be added as a 2023 qualifier.
Kennedy seems to me to have a pretty good view of the world, but that's just my opinion. He also shows compassion with what people are struggling with, even in the face of fierce criticism & lies from the corporate media and DNC. I think Ramaswamy would be a good counter balance to him and both could learn from each other. They both come off as individuals who are actually well read on most of the topics they discuss. Neither would be ideal to me in every aspect, but of everyone I've heard so far, I like them both. If Tulsi Gabbard were to jump in, I'd support her too as she is a heterodox thinker. Just my 2 cents.....which is way overvalued BTW :-)
It is vital to elect someone who doesn’t look at slaughter as all in a days work. Ending the proxy war and all the money wasted on it is the first order of business before we can start addressing problems here at home. Nearly all of the current uniparty is tone deaf to their constituents.
Excellent comments. But just can’t abide by RFKJr. His hard drinking, drugging and the sui demise of his last wife and the body nigh yet cold matrimony to his current one—just too much dark drama around him. Besides, he would be the second consecutive Pres with a tragically deceased wife in the White House, if elected. In addition, he’s a climate boil and Green New Deal advocate. That’s a hard no from me.
A personal sanity check that I do is "does this person have some viewpoint that is just so ridiculous and crazy that holding it calls into question their judgement and veracity on other topics". If the answer is yes, I become suspicious of their ability to separate bullshit from reality across the whole range of topics. Usually, this sanity check will involve a topic on which one may have extensive personal expertise beyond an average person. With both RFK and Vivek (and Gabbard) the answer is an emphatic affirmative. All three are ridiculously naive about Russia and Putin and Ukraine. This is a topic on which I have extensive personal expertise, so I am very comfortable using it as a litmus test. My views in this area are not in any way influenced, much less shaped, by any so-called "Western media" but are rather formed over several decades of first-hand interaction, living in that part of the world, speaking the language, knowing the culture, studying the history, and thinking deeply about it since at least 2010. (On a side-note, reading 99% of English writing on this topic is almost physically painful for the lack of understanding and naivete that people display. However, it often works the same way when reading in other languages the stuff people write about the US). In making this judgement, I don't hold their skeptic position against them. There is in fact a cogent argument to be made against US involvement in Ukraine, but none of the three make it. What they do, is fully and uncritically buy into unsophisticated propaganda by people that lie for a living, and repeat it, despite it obviously contradicting facts, and the "laws of physics". The fact that they are so easily fooled into buying into an obviously untrue and made up version of the world makes one question whether they are fit to serve on a city council, much less any serious role in governing the country. (For reference, their views on Russia and Ukraine, as articulated by each one separately, are as ridiculous in their factual basis, as those of the people arguing that the human species has more than two genders. This is not a well thought-through analogy, just trying to illustrate how mind-mindbogglingly naive and almost maliciously-uninformed they sound to someone with a deep understanding of the topic.).
So, if each one of the three is comfortable going around sounding off while being so resoundingly stupidly incorrect, what does that say about their ability to think through and understand deeply other complicated topics involved with managing our country on the world-stage? (Leaving the domestic agenda off of the table for this conversation as it tends to be less clear-cut, at least to me, than international issues of the day).
Well written and articulated. Based on that, good luck finding a candidate who will check your boxes. I'm gonna go with who I think would best serve me and my family, knowing that they will most likely fall short in quite a few other areas.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. Its not so much checking the boxes of the "wants" as checking the box of "can you honestly vote for that person to be President". The last candidate that checked that box with me was Romney, with whose policy positions I disagreed in at least 50% of cases. But I didn't have the sense that he was naive, or disingenuous, or dishonest. It's saddening and exhausting that such a seemingly low bar has become too-strong of a filter.
I try to align those with as much as I can with those in needs and the betterment of our nation as a whole. Hopefully they align, but where they don't/can't, its always with me and my family. I'd imagine its the same with you.
Yes it is. And at the moment I'm leaniing towared not voting. There is no one who represents the goals i have in mind, namely, working for the betterment of those in need, manily the homeless, and the betterment of the nation. They all seem to be out for themselves.
Betterment of the nation is kind of broad. And no president is going to fix the homeless problem, that is a local issue that the cities have screwed up royally.
True about the homeless. But, at least some encouragement and dialogue from the Pres. woild further the converssation. Betterment of the nation in terms of the economy and the federal policies that affect it. As far as fixing any problem, no President can do that on his own, that's why there is a congress. Unfortunately, they have been useless for years.
Yes, congress is a bust. The economy rests on other issues that affect it, energy and the border being two major ones. This current administration is not working.
Christie, Scott, Pence, & Burgum need to pack it up and go to the house. This is probably going to come down to Haley, Ramaswamy & DeSantis. Whoever is left from those 3 will face the orange 600 pound gorilla who will promptly kick them so hard, they'll be wearing their ass for a hat.
That said, I think it would be great to see Ramaswamy join the RFK Jr team as VP and see them run as Independents, but I've probably got better odds of catching on fire. Just sayin.....
Why should Scott go home? Polling of Republicans about who they would never vote for? Scott has the lowest number of them all. He's the candidate most Republicans would consider. He should stay for now. I agree, Christie, Pence, and Burgum should withdraw.
Does RFK Jr.’s climate activism give you pause? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for cleaning up rivers, but I wonder about cult-like thinking with him. I do think he’s courageous, though, which is admirable.
IIf he is a Climate All-Renewables ASAP True Believer, that is indeed a problem for many of us.
Tulsi Gabbard needs to be on a ticket. Not sure she'd throw in with Trump but that would stir things up.
Sorry, but there’s no way Gabbard, who has something resembling principles about respecting election results, would stand shoulder to shoulder with a charlatan opportunist like Trump, who respects election results only when he wins.
This is a question I've wondered about. Tulsi and Vivek are both Hindu. Do you think that will matter to Americans? Seriously pondering...
No
They are both ridiculously naive in their understanding of the world. 5% of what each one says make sense, the other 95% does not. Unfortunately, neither one understands that he sounds like an adult on 5% of the issues, and like a guileless teenager on the other 95% of the issues. Unfortunately, many would-be voters miss this split as well. As Churchill said, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. [Who seriously supports either one of these gentlemen to run the country] can be added as a 2023 qualifier.
ALWAYS extra points for a Churchill quote (or Sowell, for that matter). Both were the stuff of meme-dreams long before the invention of the concept.
Kennedy seems to me to have a pretty good view of the world, but that's just my opinion. He also shows compassion with what people are struggling with, even in the face of fierce criticism & lies from the corporate media and DNC. I think Ramaswamy would be a good counter balance to him and both could learn from each other. They both come off as individuals who are actually well read on most of the topics they discuss. Neither would be ideal to me in every aspect, but of everyone I've heard so far, I like them both. If Tulsi Gabbard were to jump in, I'd support her too as she is a heterodox thinker. Just my 2 cents.....which is way overvalued BTW :-)
It is vital to elect someone who doesn’t look at slaughter as all in a days work. Ending the proxy war and all the money wasted on it is the first order of business before we can start addressing problems here at home. Nearly all of the current uniparty is tone deaf to their constituents.
Excellent comments. But just can’t abide by RFKJr. His hard drinking, drugging and the sui demise of his last wife and the body nigh yet cold matrimony to his current one—just too much dark drama around him. Besides, he would be the second consecutive Pres with a tragically deceased wife in the White House, if elected. In addition, he’s a climate boil and Green New Deal advocate. That’s a hard no from me.
A personal sanity check that I do is "does this person have some viewpoint that is just so ridiculous and crazy that holding it calls into question their judgement and veracity on other topics". If the answer is yes, I become suspicious of their ability to separate bullshit from reality across the whole range of topics. Usually, this sanity check will involve a topic on which one may have extensive personal expertise beyond an average person. With both RFK and Vivek (and Gabbard) the answer is an emphatic affirmative. All three are ridiculously naive about Russia and Putin and Ukraine. This is a topic on which I have extensive personal expertise, so I am very comfortable using it as a litmus test. My views in this area are not in any way influenced, much less shaped, by any so-called "Western media" but are rather formed over several decades of first-hand interaction, living in that part of the world, speaking the language, knowing the culture, studying the history, and thinking deeply about it since at least 2010. (On a side-note, reading 99% of English writing on this topic is almost physically painful for the lack of understanding and naivete that people display. However, it often works the same way when reading in other languages the stuff people write about the US). In making this judgement, I don't hold their skeptic position against them. There is in fact a cogent argument to be made against US involvement in Ukraine, but none of the three make it. What they do, is fully and uncritically buy into unsophisticated propaganda by people that lie for a living, and repeat it, despite it obviously contradicting facts, and the "laws of physics". The fact that they are so easily fooled into buying into an obviously untrue and made up version of the world makes one question whether they are fit to serve on a city council, much less any serious role in governing the country. (For reference, their views on Russia and Ukraine, as articulated by each one separately, are as ridiculous in their factual basis, as those of the people arguing that the human species has more than two genders. This is not a well thought-through analogy, just trying to illustrate how mind-mindbogglingly naive and almost maliciously-uninformed they sound to someone with a deep understanding of the topic.).
So, if each one of the three is comfortable going around sounding off while being so resoundingly stupidly incorrect, what does that say about their ability to think through and understand deeply other complicated topics involved with managing our country on the world-stage? (Leaving the domestic agenda off of the table for this conversation as it tends to be less clear-cut, at least to me, than international issues of the day).
Well written and articulated. Based on that, good luck finding a candidate who will check your boxes. I'm gonna go with who I think would best serve me and my family, knowing that they will most likely fall short in quite a few other areas.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. Its not so much checking the boxes of the "wants" as checking the box of "can you honestly vote for that person to be President". The last candidate that checked that box with me was Romney, with whose policy positions I disagreed in at least 50% of cases. But I didn't have the sense that he was naive, or disingenuous, or dishonest. It's saddening and exhausting that such a seemingly low bar has become too-strong of a filter.
Romney? Re-ee-ee-ally? (Or you meant his father?)
Where do you and your family stand in relation to what the other millions of Americans want?
I try to align those with as much as I can with those in needs and the betterment of our nation as a whole. Hopefully they align, but where they don't/can't, its always with me and my family. I'd imagine its the same with you.
Yes it is. And at the moment I'm leaniing towared not voting. There is no one who represents the goals i have in mind, namely, working for the betterment of those in need, manily the homeless, and the betterment of the nation. They all seem to be out for themselves.
Betterment of the nation is kind of broad. And no president is going to fix the homeless problem, that is a local issue that the cities have screwed up royally.
True about the homeless. But, at least some encouragement and dialogue from the Pres. woild further the converssation. Betterment of the nation in terms of the economy and the federal policies that affect it. As far as fixing any problem, no President can do that on his own, that's why there is a congress. Unfortunately, they have been useless for years.
Yes, congress is a bust. The economy rests on other issues that affect it, energy and the border being two major ones. This current administration is not working.
"....working for the betterment of those in need, manily [sic] the homeless."
What most of the "homeless" need are mental health services, first and foremost. Not cash thrown at them or their lifestyle coddled.