Not that you can trust a politician's words, of course, but on the debate stage he seemed much less neoconny than most of the others, and actually said a few sensible things.
The main issue with Doug Burgum is how hilariously, inexplicably, almost magically forgettable he was. You literally had to remind yourself he was on stage, and immediately forgot who he was or what he looked like after the debate.
But I do remember him seeming saner than some of the others on the debate stage.
Faint praise indeed, if even that. I just mean he didn't come across as an arch-neocon that was so establishment they'd kill the President to install him.
Then again, it's always the boring ones you have to watch out for anyway, maybe he is a sleeper.
I like Mark Robinson but he's probably not the best choice for an ideologically balanced ticket. He would probably help Trump with the black male vote though.
I really like Mark Robinson but he would ensure Trump loses the election.
Robinson's honest comments about the Jews will be played in every attack ad on a loop 24/7.
He is not a good choice to pair up with Trump.
I think someone like JD Vance is good as he has decent optics and is populist.
If Trump wants someone moderate, none of the choices are good: Doug Burgum, Tim Scott and Marco Rubio are allegedly on the short list.
Out of these three, Rubio is the least worst.
The establishment would absolutely try to murk Trump to get their puppets Scott or Burgum installed. Don't know if they would do it for Marco Rubio. Rubio is actually voting somewhat like a populist on key votes these days. He voted against Ukraine and Israel funding.
If taking out Trump was an option, they would have done it already. Their simulations undoubtedly show that directly removing Trump would 100% trip the boog (and that they would lose). It’s the only explanation for why it hasn’t already happened. In fact, I would make sense for them to be actively thwarting any such attack in order to preserve the current peace.
What scares me about Burgum as the VP is that the establishment absolutely would be incentivized to "JFK" Trump to get Burgum in as President.
I mean, I don't think they'd do it - he's nearly 80 and very fat and unhealthy, they also have tons of 'legal' ways in which they could take him out - but trusting in the sanity and restraint of the regime is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Besides, considering that he might die of natural causes, you want a decent VP. And even if he isn't going to die, you'd want someone decent to have a head start as his VP.
What scares me about Burgum as the VP is that the establishment absolutely would be incentivized to "JFK" Trump to get Burgum in as President.
Burgum as President is just W. Bush on steroids.
Foreign wars, tax cuts for woke corporations and Bill Gates in his ear.
I hope Trump picks someone more populist who doesn't repulse independent voters and is not someone the establishment loves.
What do you have to back that up?
Not that you can trust a politician's words, of course, but on the debate stage he seemed much less neoconny than most of the others, and actually said a few sensible things.
The main issue with Doug Burgum is how hilariously, inexplicably, almost magically forgettable he was. You literally had to remind yourself he was on stage, and immediately forgot who he was or what he looked like after the debate.
But I do remember him seeming saner than some of the others on the debate stage.
Just like Mike Pence, then later he showed up with an israel flag on his suit.
Damning with faint praise, I see.
Faint praise indeed, if even that. I just mean he didn't come across as an arch-neocon that was so establishment they'd kill the President to install him.
Then again, it's always the boring ones you have to watch out for anyway, maybe he is a sleeper.
I like Mark Robinson but he's probably not the best choice for an ideologically balanced ticket. He would probably help Trump with the black male vote though.
I really like Mark Robinson but he would ensure Trump loses the election.
Robinson's honest comments about the Jews will be played in every attack ad on a loop 24/7.
He is not a good choice to pair up with Trump.
I think someone like JD Vance is good as he has decent optics and is populist.
If Trump wants someone moderate, none of the choices are good: Doug Burgum, Tim Scott and Marco Rubio are allegedly on the short list.
Out of these three, Rubio is the least worst.
The establishment would absolutely try to murk Trump to get their puppets Scott or Burgum installed. Don't know if they would do it for Marco Rubio. Rubio is actually voting somewhat like a populist on key votes these days. He voted against Ukraine and Israel funding.
If taking out Trump was an option, they would have done it already. Their simulations undoubtedly show that directly removing Trump would 100% trip the boog (and that they would lose). It’s the only explanation for why it hasn’t already happened. In fact, I would make sense for them to be actively thwarting any such attack in order to preserve the current peace.
americans only please
Blegh. Why is Rubio least worst?
OK fed.
I mean, I don't think they'd do it - he's nearly 80 and very fat and unhealthy, they also have tons of 'legal' ways in which they could take him out - but trusting in the sanity and restraint of the regime is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Besides, considering that he might die of natural causes, you want a decent VP. And even if he isn't going to die, you'd want someone decent to have a head start as his VP.