Posted on 01/14/2024 8:15:55 PM PST by thefactor
There is a reason for all the Capitol Hill endorsements coming out at the moment. I didn't want to publish what my S. Florida contact told me earlier last week because I didn't want to dishearten anyone. With Rubio's endorsement, it looks like what my source said may be accurate. Essentially, The Trump/Haley ticket is a done deal. Both sides behind the scenes have discussed & hashed out the agreement. The expected announcement will supposedly take place sometime after the NH Primary but before the SC Primary.
Here's how it has gone down: Internal polling has Haley finishing a distant 3rd in IA and lagging far behind in NH with a campaign suspension coming shortly after the NH Primary. The Trump camp does not want to get into a 1-on-1 with DeSantis. For this reason, they started talking to the Haley camp about the VP spot. She would endorse Trump & he'd name her his running mate prior to the SC Primary. One of the things Trump/Haley discussed in the agreement was contingencies involving Trump's legal matters that could eventually force him out of the race.
Under the agreement, Trump would give his full support of delegates behind Haley at the convention with a supporting speech.
This agreement has apparently leaked out onto Capitol Hill with guys like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, and Ted Cruz all being aware of it. It appears this had something to do with Rand's #NeverNikki & Lee supposedly seeing the writing on the wall. For that matter, there's been enormous pressure on Cruz to endorse Trump. Cruz is holding out hope that DeSantis pulls off the IA victory, otherwise he is expected to endorse Trump next Tuesday/Wednesday. But he is definitely aware of the Trump/Haley agreement.
The RNC seems to be in the know here as well. They are interested in a side plan that in the event Trump is forced out of the race for legal reasons, they want Haley to pick a female VP running mate creating the first ever all-female major party ticket in history. Regarding the Loomers in MAGA World, I was told Trump would make his social media surrogates accept Haley, or they would get Dilley'd & replaced with "loyal" ones. The shots at Vivek were meant to get him out of the race no later than the NH Primary.
I was skeptical of this whole thing, but then when Rand made his #NeverNikki announcement, it made sense what he was trying to convey. Then Lee. And now Rubio today, and Cruz to follow next week. The bottom line of all this is that Trump IS the Establishment & the Establishment prefers Trump over DeSantis b/c they can control Trump. But if Trump is forced out, they have rigged the game to set Haley up as the beneficiary.
Trump's IA strategy is this. If DeSantis loses by double digits they will use media surrogates & friendly media to push him out if he decides to stay in. If by some chance DeSantis wins IA, they will try to box him out of any further momentum. All DeSantis can do is crush it in IA and "let the chips fall where they may". But if MAGA & the Establishment form this unholy alliance with the bulk of the party acquiescing with this, I'm not sure what the strategy is to out-delegate them to the convention.
Someone who is near @chiproytx or @RepThomasMassie might be able to ask about this, as I'd be surprised they weren't aware of it either.But I believe this explains the rush of endorsements before anybody has even cast a single vote. It's a Trump-Establishment unholy alliance.
“I supported Trump strongly up until the end of 2022, when he put out that tweet saying “the Constitution should be terminated””
He did not say the Constitution should be terminated.
He said “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
While I would have worded it differently - I agree with what he’s saying.
First of all, let’s agree he was not talking about the Constitution as a whole, he was talking specifically about wording pertaining to presidential elections.
His point is best understood by looking at the last sentence: “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
What he’s saying is that any rules or regulations - even those in the Constitution - would only apply to a fair and honest election. This is obviously the case. Using the processes outlined in the Constitution to uphold and enforce a fraudulent election is obviously not what was intended.
Now, I will admit I think it was a mistake to use the word “terminated” in that context - “waived” is a better word. He should have said the rules and regulations regarding elections - even in the Constitution - should be “waived” in the case of a fraudulent election.
Anyone who understands that the 2020 election was stolen knows exactly what President Trump was saying and agrees with it: When the Founders defined the process of a Presidential election, they were not talking about a fraudulent election.
Anyone who thinks the 2020 election was fair and that Trump was illegally trying to overturn it will obsess over the word “terminated” and completely miss the valid point he was making.
you’re a douche bag
I 2nd the motion!
LOL. Listen to you. Even if you listen to your full argument, claiming that he didn't want to terminate the WHOLE Constitution, just a few parts of it, it's still outrageous. No parts of the Constitution should be terminated, for Trump or anyone else.
There's simply nothing that Trump says or does that you will ever disagree with. You'll just quickly rationalize it all away, one way or another, on some reason he's supposedly always a victim. I'm done with all that myself. Endless victimhood is what leftists do.
If the election was stolen, right out from under his nose, what a real man would do is try to fix it. Not cry about it, and just let it happen again, or blame us if we can't "out vote the cheating" like he says is the only solution. Bull hockey. He's just setting us up to lose, again.
I already agreed it was a mistake for him to use the word “terminated” he should have said “waived”.
In the interest of getting past a silly argument over word choice, let me ask you a couple of yes and no questions:
1) Do you believe the 2020 election results in several states were wrongly certified?
2) If so, do you believe the Constitution required that those certifications be accepted by the electoral college anyway?
3) According to Article II Section I of the Constitution, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors….”
Some people believe this language means that once a state has certified electors, they must be accepted by the electoral college without question. That even if the state’s election was proven fraudulent, there is no Constitutional remedy. Do you agree with that?
It's not a silly argument over word choice. It was Trump letting slip what he really believes, and how selfish he is. It's not a one-off, he said just last night people in Iowa should be willing to die to vote for him. Even though he's not personally lifted a finger to secure elections anywhere.
Do you agree with that?
Sure, the election may have been stolen, somehow, but it's all second hand proof based on assumptions. The facts are, Trump has never proven fraud in a single jurisdiction in the entire US. Not one. If there was widespread fraud, he should have been able to prove it, somewhere, just a token win to prove a point. Not every jurisdiction in America is hostile to him, but he has never one a single thing. All he ever has is questions about results, but never once has he provided anything SPECIFIC. It's always oh we see this fishy result here, or we see this fishy result there. So what? Where is the hard, direct, specific evidence of fraud? He has none. It's one of the main reasons I gave up on him. It's all talk, no direct proof.
Boy! Talk about putting a target on your back.
I can’t see it either, not after Trump posted Paul Ingrassia’s article in the American Greatness entitled: “The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President”
“he said just last night people in Iowa should be willing to die to vote for him.”
Are you autistic by any chance? I’ve heard they don’t understand humor.
That statement wasn’t funny at all, especially not if you’re old, sick, and living in Iowa today.
It definitely cost him more votes, than it could have possibly earned, you should at least admit that.
I watched the whole speech, so I know the context and how it went over - did you?
I’d bet money this is false. Trump voters can’t stand her. Including myself. He learned his lesson with disloyal VP’s.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Trump won’t chose Nikki. It’s unfathomable that he would.
To even consider it shows a lack of judgement and that he did not learn from his previous choices while potus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.