United States US presidential election 2024

49ersfootball

Well-known member
I remember reading an article a while back about the Don/Orange Man/Oompa Loompa King, spelling out how the establishment simply hasn’t learned a damn thing from the whole ordeal. They can’t understand why Trump is so popular, or why so many vote for him, and it’s not to do with policy.

The simple truth is that the current paradigm has screwed up so badly that the electorate wants to flip the middle finger at them in whatever way they can, and Trump is their instrument.

He’s not the rise of fascism or tyranny.

He’s a protest vote.

And the fact that they can’t grasp this is yet another nail in the coffin of the current, dying paradigm.
According to Newsmax, SD Governor Kristi Noem (R) appears to be the odds-on favorite for VP.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Being isolationist is stupid.
Understanding how the world works and making sure that no one does anything because you will level them is also a good strategy.

Don't confuse isolationism or interventionists for being good and evil when it is more nuanced.
Being isolationists never go well for the US
 

mrttao

Well-known member
Being isolationist is stupid.
Understanding how the world works and making sure that no one does anything because you will level them is also a good strategy.

Don't confuse isolationism or interventionists for being good and evil when it is more nuanced.
Being isolationists never go well for the US
Nice job completely ignoring the part where we are literally occupied by illegitimate puppet government of a deep state who is running a fake democracy as they cheat the vote while they are flooding the country with a literal army of illegal invaders.

It isn't isolationism to point out that the occupation puppet govt that is our enemy will just fuck up any foreign war in the worse way possible.
Or that we have too many enemies at home to project power outwards

Rather than isolationsim, it is a "I am weak and sickly-ism"
Not because American tanks and air planes are bad.
But because those war machines are at the hands of traitors and usurpers, or rather, their bootlickers. Because we all know the demonrats will never actually bother serving in the military.
And the only ones who aren't traitors, happen to be incompetents.

As much as you wish otherwise. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. And so long as the people with guns are serving an illegal occupation govt that is oppressing the populace while on the cusp of civil war... well, they won't do a very good job going out there are killing foreigners like you want.
 

49ersfootball

Well-known member
Being isolationist is stupid.
Understanding how the world works and making sure that no one does anything because you will level them is also a good strategy.

Don't confuse isolationism or interventionists for being good and evil when it is more nuanced.
Being isolationists never go well for the US
This is why folks are gonna miss the Reagan days of Peace through Strength.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
In fact, the odds on favorite (in a literal sense lol, you can bet money on these) is Elise Stefanik, at a little under 1:4 odds.

Noem has 1:5 odds on the dot, with Tim Scott around 1:7 and Vivek at 1:8.


Stefanik's voting history is rather iffy. All conservative and libertarian intitutions give her a low lifetime score. (Indeed, by one reckoning, her voting record is worse than Ilhan Omar's...)

She started voting more right-wing since 2021, but is that a genuine change of heart or a ploy?

Noem has been consistently conservative on damn near everything, and the left hates her. That makes her a better candidate by far. Should Trump be removed -- by whatever means -- Noem would be a better candidate to prevent an establishment coup of the administration.
 

VictortheMonarch

Victor the Crusader
According to Newsmax, SD Governor Kristi Noem (R) appears to be the odds-on favorite for VP.
From what I've been told everyone who trump has asked has told him to take Vivek. He can cover everything that Trump doesn't know much on. I mean in just the short time that he has begun cooperating with Vivek he has already started promising to keep E-Currencies away from central banking. this was suggested by Vivek.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
With Haley as VP, the Dems can just put the blame for anything bad on the Trump GOP, and anything good on the 'we helped push Haley into the VP slot with temporary/short term party switching in tactical locations' factor.
I don't know if Democrats would be keen on giving Haley credit for anything as VP other than maybe "the only reason Trump isn't being literally Hitler is she's there holding him back". Assuming they agree Trump isn't being literally Hitler.
Surely Haley being runner up does not automatically make her a VP candidate ... ?
Correct: it does not.
Traditionally yes, but not necessarily in an election where the leading candidate has negative trust of the establishment.
Does it, traditionally? I don't think Kamala Harris was in 2nd place after Biden, or Pence after Trump, or Kaine after Clinton, or Ryan after Romney.
I do think it tends to put you on the short list for Cabinet positions assuming your side wins and you don't already have a better job like US Senator. (see Pete Buttigieg, Ben Carson)
Right now, he's stuck with nowhere to go. 2 decently well liked senators are in his way to swapping out for another job, and a representative is a step down.
It may be a step down from governor but it's not a step down from the nothing many think he's heading for.
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
Being isolationist is stupid.
Understanding how the world works and making sure that no one does anything because you will level them is also a good strategy.

Don't confuse isolationism or interventionists for being good and evil when it is more nuanced.
Being isolationists never go well for the US
Reagan's peace through strength worked. Biden's peace through dementia has failed miserably. Haley seems to think that peace through strength means starting as many wars as possible so we can pay more to her donors and maybe when we win we will be better off. The goal is to be strong and not involved in unnecessary wars. If we get pulled into another kerfuffle like Iraq or Afghanistan the results won't be pretty. You would need to successfully make the case that what ever nation you are trying to go to war with is an immediate existential threat to the nation. You would then need to persuade both the Rs and the Ds to stop fighting for the duration of the war and not politicize it. good fucking luck.

Trump has been arguably the best president on foreign policy. All it took was not starting a bunch of wars and getting our allies to actually start meeting their obligations. Paired with his ability to actually negotiate with people and he was better than certainly everyone in my lifetime.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
I find the peace through strength arguments pretty weird, because Trump wanted to pull out of Syria, Afghanistan (and ultimately did, signing the Doha Agreement in early 2020) and NATO, while also repeatedly stating he wants to cut a deal with Putin on Ukraine as well as famously hosting a peace conference with North Korea in the first half of his term. Rather than someone in the Theodore Roosevelt mindset of "Big Stick", he was more of a Realist/Isolationist than many are suggesting here.

I mean, we didn't go to war with Iran when they gave us 110 WIA in 2020, for example:

 

Poe

Well-known member
I find the peace through strength arguments pretty weird, because Trump wanted to pull out of Syria, Afghanistan (and ultimately did, signing the Doha Agreement in early 2020) and NATO, while also repeatedly stating he wants to cut a deal with Putin on Ukraine as well as famously hosting a peace conference with North Korea in the first half of his term. Rather than someone in the Theodore Roosevelt mindset of "Big Stick", he was more of a Realist/Isolationist than many are suggesting here.

I mean, we didn't go to war with Iran when they gave us 110 WIA in 2020, for example:


Because he considered all of these things distractions and the real enemy to be China, that's who we need to be strong enough to deter.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
I don't see him having a successful run. Odds are Vivek will be the 2028 candidate coming off as VP, likely with Trump's backing too.
I don't see Vivek doing good in 2028 due to how he performed here.
Reagan's peace through strength worked. Biden's peace through dementia has failed miserably. Haley seems to think that peace through strength means starting as many wars as possible so we can pay more to her donors and maybe when we win we will be better off. The goal is to be strong and not involved in unnecessary wars. If we get pulled into another kerfuffle like Iraq or Afghanistan the results won't be pretty. You would need to successfully make the case that what ever nation you are trying to go to war with is an immediate existential threat to the nation. You would then need to persuade both the Rs and the Ds to stop fighting for the duration of the war and not politicize it. good fucking luck.

Trump has been arguably the best president on foreign policy. All it took was not starting a bunch of wars and getting our allies to actually start meeting their obligations. Paired with his ability to actually negotiate with people and he was better than certainly everyone in my lifetime.
Oh I agree Trump did it in the proper way as did Reagan.
I am not advocating for Haley.
Being strong and able to throw your power around but only using it when needed is key to projection
I find the peace through strength arguments pretty weird, because Trump wanted to pull out of Syria, Afghanistan (and ultimately did, signing the Doha Agreement in early 2020) and NATO, while also repeatedly stating he wants to cut a deal with Putin on Ukraine as well as famously hosting a peace conference with North Korea in the first half of his term. Rather than someone in the Theodore Roosevelt mindset of "Big Stick", he was more of a Realist/Isolationist than many are suggesting here.

I mean, we didn't go to war with Iran when they gave us 110 WIA in 2020, for example:


He also increased the budget of the US Military and was willing to throw around the forces to tell other nations we will fuck you up if you try anything.
He wasn't scared to strike when strikes were needed etc.
That is the strength, when you dint need to have combatants in country to be effective.
Because he considered all of these things distractions and the real enemy to be China, that's who we need to be strong enough to deter.
And that is a reason we see them as a big enemy of ours in the military
 

History Learner

Well-known member
He also increased the budget of the US Military and was willing to throw around the forces to tell other nations we will fuck you up if you try anything.
He wasn't scared to strike when strikes were needed etc.
That is the strength, when you dint need to have combatants in country to be effective.

And that is a reason we see them as a big enemy of ours in the military

He was literally afraid to escalate multiple times throughout his President. Case in point is when Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019 and he called off strikes:

 

History Learner

Well-known member
Because he considered all of these things distractions and the real enemy to be China, that's who we need to be strong enough to deter.

I don't see how, because his 2018 defense policy specifically called for deterring a conflict and continuing to recognize the One China policy to avoid war. He also let China off the hook for being a currency manipulator. He wasn't a complete Dove, but this depiction of Trump as hyper aggressive, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" doesn't match with his actions while President.

This isn't a criticism either, I appreciate his efforts at being realistic in foreign policy in the context of American decline, but I think it's important to smash these myths because people seem to have the opposite beliefs of what he actually did. That's really dangerous, given how much has changed since he left office.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I remember reading an article a while back about the Don/Orange Man/Oompa Loompa King, spelling out how the establishment simply hasn’t learned a damn thing from the whole ordeal. They can’t understand why Trump is so popular, or why so many vote for him, and it’s not to do with policy.

The simple truth is that the current paradigm has screwed up so badly that the electorate wants to flip the middle finger at them in whatever way they can, and Trump is their instrument.

He’s not the rise of fascism or tyranny.

He’s a protest vote.

And the fact that they can’t grasp this is yet another nail in the coffin of the current, dying paradigm.

The hilarious thing? Trump is most likely going to be looked back on as a some what tragic figure who could have saved the republic if his reforms had been allowed, the people who will miss him the most will most likely be the left wingers who now have to deal with far more extreme and angry opasition.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top