The argument over who is more conservative, or who is a real conservative, is about the dumbest thing I read on F16. That argument may be pertinent to a primary election, but the ship has sailed.

At this point, it should only be about removing FJB and his communist sympathizers out of the White House and elected office. If Trump/Desantis ticket gives us the best shot at this point (and I think it will), let's get on with it and get it done. But the right eating the right over who is the most conservative needs to stop.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

This time, there is a difference. Trump is not just "not conservative", but he is rooting out and actively replacing conservatism in the only place where it used to live.

---

Can you expand on this part? Genuinely curious.

From the perspective of the economy, energy (green-initiatives), judicial appointments, foreign policy, immigration, and CRT/DEI, I don't see a world where another 4 years of Biden doesn't push us off an abyss leading to decades of austerity. With Trump, I see each of the above either turning around (energy/economy), or at least, greatly slowed down (immigration/CRT/DEI).

The biggest concern I have is that Biden can put us in a position where even a conservative candidate, say Desantis, is going to be a one-and-done president because the pain we will all feel doing what has to be done immediately. (at this point, that may be a reality anyway). I believe a president elected in 2028 with one or more of the list above turned around will have an easier path to fixing more of the problems.

---

First, I think the fact that Trump is our nominee is proof that we have reached that point already. There hasn't been more than a few adults in the room for decades, and we are too enthusiastic about the show to change that.

I think it is also important to recognize the differences between what we mean when we refer to conservatism. When I think of conservatism, that is a short name for small government federalism - the idea that if any government involvement is needed at all, it should be as small and as local as possible. When Science Denier here thinks of conservatism, he sees it as big government making decisions that are less bad than "non conservatives". Those are not the same thing. Trump is in the second camp.

The problem with the second version of "conservatism", is that the system to make those bad decisions is still in place, making bad (albeit slightly better than the worst possible) decisions for us. The only thing standing between that kind of leader (let's just call him "Trump" for simplicity's sake) and a worse kind of leader (let's call him "Biden" for the same reason) is a few thousand votes in Wisconsin or a bad pick for Attorney General, or, for example, hypothetically of course, a bad flu season. All because the system of massive federal government behemoth is still in place, and in fact, enlarged and entrenched by him.

So when Trump's Republican party refers to "conservatism", what is meant is him running the show, as opposed to those who are leftist. That gets us a better version of running into a ditch, but it also removes "not running into a ditch" from the conversation.

Science Denier said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

8. Spent more than Obama did in his 8 years but in only 4.
9. Made the printers go "Bbbbrrrrr".
10. Terrihorribad COVID response.

All of which helped lead us where the economy is now, along with Biden turning it to 11.

No thanks, I don't vote for liberals but you do you.

---

LOL, COVID response.
1. Wharp speed for the vax FOR THOSE THAT NEEDED IT.
2. Shut down immigration into the country.

I know the TDS like to blame shutting everything down on Trump, but those were local governors that did that.

You can screem REEEEEE about handing money to both businesses and individuals due to their livelihoods being taken away by local governors. No problem there. If that's your only beef, then you will NEVER find a conservative again.

Remember, Reagan also spent like a drunken sailor on the military complex. He tripled the national debt during his tenure. He also allowed amnesty for illegals without fixing the border. So, if you don't like BRRRRRRR, you must hate Reagan.

Reagan also gave illegals amnesty without protecting the border. Total opposite of Trump.

IMO, those two are way worse than bailing out the country due to local govenors shutting down their states.

So, you again are proving you think Reagan was a huge lib.

---

The largest part of that debt increase was due to SS and MC, FWIW.

Quote:

---

So when Trump's Republican party refers to "conservatism", what is meant is him running the show, as opposed to those who are leftist. That gets us a better version of running into a ditch, but it also removes "not running into a ditch" from the conversation.

---

Appreciate the answer, and I agree with quite a bit of what you say. Executive Orders and simple majority are good examples. Can't get support and get something passed through legislation? Fine, here is an EO, do what I want. Can't get nominations confirmed because I nominated a horrible choice? Fine, only need 50 votes and my VP to break the tie. Pandora's box has been opened and we now reap all that comes with those decisions.

The only thing I keep coming back to is the conclusion. If we are already through the looking glass and headed for the ditch, do we tap the breaks or hit the gas? I am among the folks that want to tap the breaks because (1) we "might" avoid the ditch, or (2) at least mitigate the damage running into the ditch causes.

Additionally, are we sure we can gain a majority with a staunchly conservative candidate for president, or is this going to require multiple elections pulling people to the right? In a perfect world, we would find the conservative candidate who could get easier wins and build on those to tackle the more difficult issues. I admit, Trump is not that guy, nor is anyone with a legitimate chance of winning the presidency. My desire is to choose the candidate who is going to tap the breaks and begin to correct course.

I wish I knew the right answer, but I think it is going to first require someone who can get the electorate behind small government federalism. We really need a strong advocate to make it more popular than free stuff from the coffers. We have made it very hard on ourselves to do that at this point.

Phatbob said:

---

I wish I knew the right answer, but I think it is going to first require someone who can get the electorate behind small government federalism. We really need a strong advocate to make it more popular than free stuff from the coffers. We have made it very hard on ourselves to do that at this point.

---

Everyone wants their "free stuff." It is probably going to have to get worse before it gets better. I just hope I have enough time and $$$ to survive what is likely coming.

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Would be a bonehead move by DeSantis.

---

If DeSantis isn't VP, he's either on his way to congress or he's on his way to obscurity. He might have one more failed presidential run in him. But if he's VP, he'll have much more credibility with the rest of the country.

---

As of now there is no successor to Trump and it's a fresh game in '28. %A0If you think Trump having Vivek or Abbott as his VP clears the field I couldn't disagree more.

DeSantis has an insane record and work ethic. %A0He has a solid base of support. %A0Not saying he is the presumptive nominee but he's the likely front runner.

---

Judging by his performance during the campaign season you really think the rest of the country sees it that way?

---

K. %A0So who else is the Frontrunner for '28? %A0Haley? %A0She has zero chance as 70% of the Party hates her. %A0Vivek? %A0He may make a run and if he is VP under Trump that would certainly help him but as of now I don't see how he is a Frontrunner in any way. %A0Who else, Abbott? %A0Don Jr? %A0lol.

Trump's VP will run most likely of course but as I said the Trump magic doesn't transfer and we have seen that over and over. %A0Sure, some hardcore MAGA folks will follow whatever Trump says but that's not the main Trump support and there is a large contingent that is ready for the next chapter.

So who is the Frontrunner if it isn't DeSantis?

---

Depends on who Trump's VP is, assuming the VP does a better job than Pence.

---

So you don't have a name then and even by saying it is "VP to be names" you have to put conditions on it. %A0Like I said DeSantis is the "likely Frontrunner". %A0He was the 2nd Choice in virtually all polling. %A0He can fundraise and organize extremely well. %A0He's a top notch debater. %A0He has a list of conservative W's so long it bores people to hear them. %A0He also has very low negatives and few people, esp in the GOP, hate him. %A0He can also keep kicking ass in Florida for the next 2 years and has become adept at getting publicity. %A0If Trump loses? %A0I honestly don't know who beats him.

Doesn't mean he will be the nominee or win but I don't see anyone else out there with that much going for them. %A0I agree if Trump appoints a strong VP who does great they will certainly be a solid candidate. %A0Just have no idea who that is or if that happens. %A0Thus DeSantis is "The likely Frontrunner"

---

You'll get no argument from me that DeSantis is the better choice. We know that. What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

And yes, of course after I said that being VP would bolster DeSantis's, I'm putting conditions on who the VP is.

---

Ok, so who is the frontrunner in '28 not named DeSantis then? %A0"Trump's VP" is not a real answer. %A0Give me a name.

---

So you're saying that who the GOP nominee is in 2028 depends solely on what has happened up to this point and that the VP has no bearing on that?

That's your fantasy, not mine. I already gave you my answer.

---

So your argument is that Trump's VP, no matter who it is, will be the Frontrunner then? %A0Oh, and I am the one who is fantasizing.

---

I'm arguing Trump's VP would definitely have an advantage. And yes. You are living in fantasy world if refuse to factor that in.

---

I said DeSantis is the likely Front Runner. %A0You still haven't named anyone else but you have said that thinking DeSantis is the Front Runner is "fantasyland".

---

Stop telling me what you think I said and just quote where I said that.

I'm not jumping though any of your other hoops until you can at least be honest about what is being said.

---

I acknowledge that whomever is the VP for Trump will benefit from that. I also don't think that simply being Trump's VP makes you the frontrunner. Trump is anything but conventional and his popularity doesn't transfer well.

You are doing some pretty good pretzel twisting to avoid giving a name though. I simply don't see anyone who has a stronger case than DeSantis to be the Frontrunner at this point in '28 but if you have another name that's worth discussing.%A0 If you think it will simply be whomever is Trump's VP that is also worth discussing.%A0 It seems you don't want to do either of those things though and are trying to find some way to say I am misstating what you said. Ok. So who is the Frontrunner or why is it not DeSantis? You either have a name or it is simply "Whomever is Trump's VP". Which is it?

---

link

Quote:

---

You'll get no argument from me that DeSantis is the better choice. We know that. What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

And yes, of course after I said that being VP would bolster DeSantis's, I'm putting conditions on who the VP is.

---

And if I have wrongly accused you of misstating what I said, show the quote where I said "thinking DeSantis is the Front Runner is "fantasyland"".

I'll wait

---

What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

That's your fantasy, not mine. I

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Would be a bonehead move by DeSantis.

---

If DeSantis isn't VP, he's either on his way to congress or he's on his way to obscurity. He might have one more failed presidential run in him. But if he's VP, he'll have much more credibility with the rest of the country.

---

As of now there is no successor to Trump and it's a fresh game in '28. %A0If you think Trump having Vivek or Abbott as his VP clears the field I couldn't disagree more.

DeSantis has an insane record and work ethic. %A0He has a solid base of support. %A0Not saying he is the presumptive nominee but he's the likely front runner.

---

Judging by his performance during the campaign season you really think the rest of the country sees it that way?

---

K. %A0So who else is the Frontrunner for '28? %A0Haley? %A0She has zero chance as 70% of the Party hates her. %A0Vivek? %A0He may make a run and if he is VP under Trump that would certainly help him but as of now I don't see how he is a Frontrunner in any way. %A0Who else, Abbott? %A0Don Jr? %A0lol.

Trump's VP will run most likely of course but as I said the Trump magic doesn't transfer and we have seen that over and over. %A0Sure, some hardcore MAGA folks will follow whatever Trump says but that's not the main Trump support and there is a large contingent that is ready for the next chapter.

So who is the Frontrunner if it isn't DeSantis?

---

Depends on who Trump's VP is, assuming the VP does a better job than Pence.

---

So you don't have a name then and even by saying it is "VP to be names" you have to put conditions on it. %A0Like I said DeSantis is the "likely Frontrunner". %A0He was the 2nd Choice in virtually all polling. %A0He can fundraise and organize extremely well. %A0He's a top notch debater. %A0He has a list of conservative W's so long it bores people to hear them. %A0He also has very low negatives and few people, esp in the GOP, hate him. %A0He can also keep kicking ass in Florida for the next 2 years and has become adept at getting publicity. %A0If Trump loses? %A0I honestly don't know who beats him.

Doesn't mean he will be the nominee or win but I don't see anyone else out there with that much going for them. %A0I agree if Trump appoints a strong VP who does great they will certainly be a solid candidate. %A0Just have no idea who that is or if that happens. %A0Thus DeSantis is "The likely Frontrunner"

---

You'll get no argument from me that DeSantis is the better choice. We know that. What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

And yes, of course after I said that being VP would bolster DeSantis's, I'm putting conditions on who the VP is.

---

Ok, so who is the frontrunner in '28 not named DeSantis then? %A0"Trump's VP" is not a real answer. %A0Give me a name.

---

So you're saying that who the GOP nominee is in 2028 depends solely on what has happened up to this point and that the VP has no bearing on that?

That's your fantasy, not mine. I already gave you my answer.

---

So your argument is that Trump's VP, no matter who it is, will be the Frontrunner then? %A0Oh, and I am the one who is fantasizing.

---

I'm arguing Trump's VP would definitely have an advantage. And yes. You are living in fantasy world if refuse to factor that in.

---

I said DeSantis is the likely Front Runner. %A0You still haven't named anyone else but you have said that thinking DeSantis is the Front Runner is "fantasyland".

---

Stop telling me what you think I said and just quote where I said that.

I'm not jumping though any of your other hoops until you can at least be honest about what is being said.

---

I acknowledge that whomever is the VP for Trump will benefit from that. I also don't think that simply being Trump's VP makes you the frontrunner. Trump is anything but conventional and his popularity doesn't transfer well.

You are doing some pretty good pretzel twisting to avoid giving a name though. I simply don't see anyone who has a stronger case than DeSantis to be the Frontrunner at this point in '28 but if you have another name that's worth discussing.%A0 If you think it will simply be whomever is Trump's VP that is also worth discussing.%A0 It seems you don't want to do either of those things though and are trying to find some way to say I am misstating what you said. Ok. So who is the Frontrunner or why is it not DeSantis? You either have a name or it is simply "Whomever is Trump's VP". Which is it?

---

link

Quote:

---

You'll get no argument from me that DeSantis is the better choice. We know that. What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

And yes, of course after I said that being VP would bolster DeSantis's, I'm putting conditions on who the VP is.

---

And if I have wrongly accused you of misstating what I said, show the quote where I said "thinking DeSantis is the Front Runner is "fantasyland"".

I'll wait

---

What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

That's your fantasy, not mine. I

---

Looks like that says saying "it's a given that he will be the front runner" is fantasy. That's different than thinking it could happen. And it certainly could. But it's not a given. No reason not to use actual quotes when they're right there.

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Would be a bonehead move by DeSantis.

---

If DeSantis isn't VP, he's either on his way to congress or he's on his way to obscurity. He might have one more failed presidential run in him. But if he's VP, he'll have much more credibility with the rest of the country.

---

As of now there is no successor to Trump and it's a fresh game in '28. %A0If you think Trump having Vivek or Abbott as his VP clears the field I couldn't disagree more.

DeSantis has an insane record and work ethic. %A0He has a solid base of support. %A0Not saying he is the presumptive nominee but he's the likely front runner.

---

Judging by his performance during the campaign season you really think the rest of the country sees it that way?

---

K. %A0So who else is the Frontrunner for '28? %A0Haley? %A0She has zero chance as 70% of the Party hates her. %A0Vivek? %A0He may make a run and if he is VP under Trump that would certainly help him but as of now I don't see how he is a Frontrunner in any way. %A0Who else, Abbott? %A0Don Jr? %A0lol.

Trump's VP will run most likely of course but as I said the Trump magic doesn't transfer and we have seen that over and over. %A0Sure, some hardcore MAGA folks will follow whatever Trump says but that's not the main Trump support and there is a large contingent that is ready for the next chapter.

So who is the Frontrunner if it isn't DeSantis?

---

Depends on who Trump's VP is, assuming the VP does a better job than Pence.

---

So you don't have a name then and even by saying it is "VP to be names" you have to put conditions on it. %A0Like I said DeSantis is the "likely Frontrunner". %A0He was the 2nd Choice in virtually all polling. %A0He can fundraise and organize extremely well. %A0He's a top notch debater. %A0He has a list of conservative W's so long it bores people to hear them. %A0He also has very low negatives and few people, esp in the GOP, hate him. %A0He can also keep kicking ass in Florida for the next 2 years and has become adept at getting publicity. %A0If Trump loses? %A0I honestly don't know who beats him.

Doesn't mean he will be the nominee or win but I don't see anyone else out there with that much going for them. %A0I agree if Trump appoints a strong VP who does great they will certainly be a solid candidate. %A0Just have no idea who that is or if that happens. %A0Thus DeSantis is "The likely Frontrunner"

---

You'll get no argument from me that DeSantis is the better choice. We know that. What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

And yes, of course after I said that being VP would bolster DeSantis's, I'm putting conditions on who the VP is.

---

Ok, so who is the frontrunner in '28 not named DeSantis then? %A0"Trump's VP" is not a real answer. %A0Give me a name.

---

So you're saying that who the GOP nominee is in 2028 depends solely on what has happened up to this point and that the VP has no bearing on that?

That's your fantasy, not mine. I already gave you my answer.

---

So your argument is that Trump's VP, no matter who it is, will be the Frontrunner then? %A0Oh, and I am the one who is fantasizing.

---

I'm arguing Trump's VP would definitely have an advantage. And yes. You are living in fantasy world if refuse to factor that in.

---

I said DeSantis is the likely Front Runner. %A0You still haven't named anyone else but you have said that thinking DeSantis is the Front Runner is "fantasyland".

---

Stop telling me what you think I said and just quote where I said that.

I'm not jumping though any of your other hoops until you can at least be honest about what is being said.

---

I acknowledge that whomever is the VP for Trump will benefit from that. I also don't think that simply being Trump's VP makes you the frontrunner. Trump is anything but conventional and his popularity doesn't transfer well.

You are doing some pretty good pretzel twisting to avoid giving a name though. I simply don't see anyone who has a stronger case than DeSantis to be the Frontrunner at this point in '28 but if you have another name that's worth discussing.%A0 If you think it will simply be whomever is Trump's VP that is also worth discussing.%A0 It seems you don't want to do either of those things though and are trying to find some way to say I am misstating what you said. Ok. So who is the Frontrunner or why is it not DeSantis? You either have a name or it is simply "Whomever is Trump's VP". Which is it?

---

link

Quote:

---

You'll get no argument from me that DeSantis is the better choice. We know that. What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

And yes, of course after I said that being VP would bolster DeSantis's, I'm putting conditions on who the VP is.

---

And if I have wrongly accused you of misstating what I said, show the quote where I said "thinking DeSantis is the Front Runner is "fantasyland"".

I'll wait

---

What I don't get is how you could have paid attention to his campaign and still say it's a given that he will be the front runner.

That's your fantasy, not mine. I

---

Looks like that says saying "it's a given that he will be the front runner" is fantasy. That's different than thinking it could happen. And it certainly could. But it's not a given. No reason not to use actual quotes when they're right there.

---

NEW: Trump VP list is winnowing down to Gov Burgum, Sens Rubio, Vance + Scott. They will appear w/donors at RNC retreat in Palm Beach this weekend. No formal meetings with Trump yet to talk about the job (tho he speaks to all of them regularly): https://t.co/20LrzEEsrP

— Nancy Cook (@nancook) May 2, 2024

Thoughts?

aggiehawg said:

---

NEW: Trump VP list is winnowing down to Gov Burgum, Sens Rubio, Vance + Scott. They will appear w/donors at RNC retreat in Palm Beach this weekend. No formal meetings with Trump yet to talk about the job (tho he speaks to all of them regularly): https://t.co/20LrzEEsrP

— Nancy Cook (@nancook) May 2, 2024

Thoughts?

---

Go with Rubio, let Desantis move to Senate once his Governor term is over, run for Pres in 4 years. Rubio runs for Governor after Trump loses presidency again.

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum,
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott,
Florida Senator Marco Rubio
Ohio Senator JD Vance,


That order.

I really liked Burgum in the debates but he seems to be the exact opposite guy that Trump would pick. Another billionaire but with no national clout? And going against the pressure to pick a woman or minority? Not sure how he'd end up on the list unless he can rake in tons of cash.

Quote:

---

And going against the pressure to pick a woman or minority?

---

1) Pressure from whom?
2) You think Trump cares about pressure on this?

Love or hate DeSantis he was proactive about national lawfare & securing election integrity. Had a National plan & legal network.

Trump & RNC in general have been terrible at prioritizing legal actions that don't directly impact Trump personally. Mostly leaving it to individual States.

The Banned said:

---

I really liked Burgum in the debates but he seems to be the exact opposite guy that Trump would pick. Another billionaire but with no national clout? And going against the pressure to pick a woman or minority? Not sure how he'd end up on the list unless he can rake in tons of cash.

---

Can't really argue with that. I too really like Burgum but not sure what he brings to the ticket. But I don't think trump cares much about the pick having to check some box other than Trump likes and can get along with them.

I'm not sure any of the four will bring in more votes. Perhaps Scott or Rubio might bring in a few more black or Hispanic voters respectively.

I personally like Burgum the most. I also think this would be a good move for him to get national exposure. I think he'd be a choice most independents would be comfortable with if they had enough time to get to know him.

I don't care for Vance and think he'd be a liability.

I think Trump will go with Scott.

I hope he's not short sighted here. After four years, I wouldn't want to be stuck with a candidate that can't win POTUS. Maybe Rubio or Vance could, but I don't see the others having any chance.

dreyOO said:

---

I hope he's not short sighted here. After four years, I wouldn't want to be stuck with a candidate that can't win POTUS. Maybe Rubio or Vance could, but I don't see the others having any chance.

---

I just don't like Rubio much at all. His stance on amnesty with McCain very early in his career really soured me on him.

The Banned said:

---

I really liked Burgum in the debates but he seems to be the exact opposite guy that Trump would pick. Another billionaire but with no national clout? And going against the pressure to pick a woman or minority? Not sure how he'd end up on the list unless he can rake in tons of cash.

---

Billionaire with no limits on how much he can donate to the campaign. I really don't like Burgum and his carbon neutrality policy in ND.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

And going against the pressure to pick a woman or minority?

---

1) Pressure from whom?
2) You think Trump cares about pressure on this?

---

Pressure for political pundits that say you can't put two rich white dudes on a ticket. And yes, I absolutely believe he cares about pressure on this. He cared about how he was viewed on Covid and we saw how that turned out. Couldn't fire fauci because it was politically unacceptable.

Yeah I'm not really a fan. I'm just going on national recognition and likability. These choices don't make much sense. I kinds think they're decoys.