Posted on 03/10/2020 1:25:31 PM PDT by ManHunter
If you haven’t noticed by now, the Democrats are focused upon surviving the Trump Presidency. If they can maintain control of the Deep State kakistocracy and keep its leaders out of jail, they believe they will have won. Even if President Trump wins a second term, which will mean they do not have as many dead voters as live Republicans, and that is not likely, there is no successor to Trump.
I worry about this with reckless abandon.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepoliticalinsider.com ...
Find yourself a good "Worry Cap" and wear it for the next 5 years..It won't relieve your angst but at the very least, it might make you feel better..............Sheesh!
Nikki Haley is a very effective campaigner. She is staying very active is building a base that sees her favorably. She both says and does all the right things.
We should prefer someone with executive experience in business or government and not just legislative experience. We have many Republican Governors who could emerge in the next few years to gain the lead. Potentially, a Colin Powell type could emerge inside the Trump Admin...I say Colin Powell, not necessarily in the ideology sense, but in the presumed moral high ground sense.
d":^)
I agree.
I don’t know who will succeed Trump, but I will say this: Our expectations of a Republican/nationalist president have changed so dramatically that I think it will be decades — if ever — before another establishment GOP @sshole is ever elected president again.
I think you are right, and furthermore any of those three will be an excellent president.
They made this lack of both intellect and integrity clear when they were unable to grasp (or even type out) “divided loyalty” and instead idiotically bleated out “birther” which I guess is a term in keeping with their intellects.
The demographic replacement will be insurmountable by then.
Let’s concentrate on 2020 shall we? Don’t want to get ahead of ourselves.
Let’s have a battle royal among our best. It worked in 2016 and produced the best possible candidate.
A lot of them (support ineligible potential candidates here)
Kanye.
I am not joking.
Nikki Haley or Ted Cruz, I hope (as of now).
Rubio and Kasick will certainly also run and maybe Romney (then 77)
I do not think Pence will compete because he would throw shade on Haley and they will not run against each other.
No one is like Trump. He is one of a kind. Reviewing all the times he spoke on video, with interviews by the likes of Oprah, Barbara WaWa etc. are very revealing and track his thinking throughout the years. He possibly came so far because he was always a “Democrat” and adored by them. Of course they hate him now.
So where do we get such a candidate. Someone who has been admired by a wide, wide variety of people and sectors? Beauty pageants, gambling casinos, boxing community, talk show hosts, politicians on both sides of the aisle. He established his smarts and can-do reputation well before he filed for President. His path is truly amazing and can never be replicated. Neither can Barry Soetero’s odd but effective path.
We can’t plan to fight the prior wars, but come up with something NEW.
Nikki and Cruz are no Trump, but at least they would give it a try. (I think).
The worst things George H. W. Bush did was disavow Reagan and the religious right (He said, “I’m religious, but I’m not a NUT about it.”) He also said, Read my lips, No New Taxes! LOL
She would have too, if Russia hadn't interfered.
LS disagrees, but IMHO you have to look at history.Historically, sitting VP has been a great position from which to gain your party’s nomination for POTUS.
The joker in that deck is the fact that (since the 12th Amendment) only two sitting presidents - Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan - have been succeeded by their VPs.
If Mr. Trump is reelected, I have hope that his administration will be good enough to make the nomination of Pence a long way from a kamikaze mission.
My hobby horse is the need - very soon - to give SCOTUS a case which will enable it to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan and open the floodgates of libel suits against the MSM.
It’s easy to say that overturning Sullivan would endanger talk radio hosts - and to argue that Sullivan is an unanimous opinion that isn’t going away. But.
Antonin Scalia pointed out that the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.encapsulates the Federalist position on all rights - the rights articulated in the first eight amendments not excluded. Forced to add a bill of rights by amendment, the Federalists articulated expressly, in the first eight amendments, only those rights which historically had been abused by tyrants. Importantly, acceptance of the Bill of Rights as satisfying the pledge given by the Federalists in order to (narrowly) win ratification of the Constitution crucial to the Federalist project. Changing the rights of the people - changing any right of anyone - would have invited precisely the controversy the suppression of which was the whole purpose of the exercise.It is thus that the Second Amendment, for example, protects “the” right of the people to KBA. It makes no effort to define that right, which would have been an invitation to controversy. It just refers to the right as already understood. But note the obvious fact that enshrining the RTKBA in the Constitution didn’t create a right to commit armed assault, let alone murder. Nobody has ever suggested such a thing.
Likewise the First Amendment protects “the” freedom of the press. And analogously, it does not create any right (which did not exist then or now) to print pornography and it did not change the right of any person to sue for libel. And, until 1964 and Sullivan, no court ever said it did.
To obtain the result which so enamored a unanimous Warren Court, Justice Brennan in Sullivan asserted that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”. . . and the above analysis shows that that is poppycock. 1A had nothing to do with libel law.The other salient point is that the wire services - which were a Nineteenth Century innovation created to conserve scarce, expensive telegraphy bandwidth - constitute continuous virtual meetings of all major journalists. That’s significant because
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776). . . meaning that you have to be “naive as a babe to believe” that major journalists, all connected together by the wire services, do not “conspire against the public.”In fact, the conspiracy is in plain sight - it propagandizes the claim that “journalists are objective,” which
The herd defines “objectivity” as “going along with the journalism cartel.” Furthermore, it defines “liberal,” and “progressive” the same way - except that journalists are always and only described as “objective,” and fellow travelers are called “liberal” or “progressive” - but never “objective.” The reason journalists are socialist-minded is precisely that journalists assume that their business model - promoting bad news - is “objective.” “Negativity is objectivity” can be believed only by a cynic. Journalists are cynical about society and naive about government - thus, socialist-minded.
- is untrue because objectivity is an aspiration and not a state of being.
- is an uncomfortable discipline because it requires you to assume that you might not be objective, and
- induces herd journalism whereby going along and getting along is survival. Fail to go along, and you may be denounced as “not a journalist, not objective.”
The upshot is that there is a journalism cartel which never libels “liberals” - but libels conservatives with abandon. Prevent conservatives from suing for libel, and the result is “fake news.” No facts can be established in court which journalists are required to respect.
Convince SCOTUS of the above - and get a proper restraining order against the wire services and their members/subscribers - and the complexion of public discourse would be quite different. And more like 1960 than like 2020.
Among whom?
gary senise
Pence is a great guy but he doesn’t have the gravitas or street fighter mentality that Trump has... Ivanka is too liberal, John Jr. would be good, Haley isn’t conservative enough, Cotton would be good and may emerge as a prime contender , Cruz doesn’t have the charisma, would like to see Candace Owens get her feet wet....hell guess I need to worry about 2020 and then 2024 God willing...
I doubt that anyone of importance will ask us for our opinion or, give a cr@p what it is, but I agree with you DoughtyOne.
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.