Aren't Little Marco and whatever Vance's real name is also spineless cucks?And Newsome isn’t a spineless cuck?
Aren't Little Marco and whatever Vance's real name is also spineless cucks?And Newsome isn’t a spineless cuck?
We've already done this exercise and I even provided you links, if you want to refer back to that conversation but he is currently only running for Senate in Georgia, so it's too soon for him to be laying out national plans.I don't know much about Ossoff. What are his positions on things like immigration, Ice, national Security, taxes, billionaires, education etc.. He has a Senate record now, so we should get a good indication.
I know he'll get at least one vote Dpic73, is a big fan
See because both are women and have a skin pigment different from my own. They are exactly the same.AOC will be Kamala 2.0 and almost a certain loss for the Dems. She wouldn't stand a chance verse Vance or Rubio.
Beshar/Ossoff is a winning ticket.BTW, Ossoff seems like a guy yall should get behind. AOC isn’t electable and is way too far left (and dumb). Kamala is a moron and not likable. Newsom has baggage from CA and probably can’t relate to middle America. Buttegiege (sp) has very few accomplishments to stand on and the gay thing will hurt him with blacks.
Ossoff seems more moderate. He hasn’t been around long enough to accumulate baggage. Seems to have some cachet.
I’d be most worried about him emerging from that group.
Nothing says "I'm not a cuck" like wearing shoes that another man bought you that were intentionally 3 sizes too big.Man, there was a time when I 100% would have voted for Rubio. Now he's got Trump stinch all over him. It's sad the likes of Vance, Haley, Rubio and others allowed themselves to be dragged down.
View attachment 1374394
That might be the most correct way to look at this.I mean, it's not a group of senior citizens, so they've got that going for them.
No, bankrupting a casino does.But pretending to fire people on a TV game show, makes you really smart.
I don't disagree in principle, but I do not think she's electable due to independents' sour views on social democrats.He sucks big time and his corporate democrat ways won't dig us out of this moment.
Not that I think it will be AOC, but Newsom ain't it.
Love this though I feel like we need someone with military experience so I'd love to see Kelly on the ticket. How sweet would it be to see him flip the tables on Hegseth who has been trying to jail him, haha.Beshar/Ossoff is a winning ticket.
Whomever gets the nod for the Democrats would be wise to have Newsom attend and speak at many of their rallies. He is a fighter and knows how to attack the other side. But he should in no way be the candidate.I don't like these choices but if I had to pick, I'd vote for Newsom. He's got baggage for sure but he's a fighter, smart and will hold them accountable for the obscene level of corruption we've seen in Trump's second term. That's why it has to be a Democrat or these people will have gotten away with murder.
But I don't expect these to be the top two in the end and especially if we hold our first primary in South Carolina. If Ossoff can be persuaded to jump in, I think he'd get a huge bump there due to his credibility with the black community.
I wouldn't mind Kelly as a VP pick.Love this though I feel like we need someone with military experince so I'd love to see Kelly on the ticket. How sweet would it be to see him flip the tables on Hegseth who has been trying to jail him, haha.
Absolutely, I think it should have been he or Shapiro for sure but I honestly believe Shapiro took himself out of the running because he didn't want to play second fiddle to someone who "could" have been in power for eight years and ruined his own chances to jump in on his timeline.I wouldn't mind Kelly as a VP pick.
He should have been the pick last time over Walz.
Absolutely, I think it should have been he or Shapiro for sure but I honestly believe Shapiro took himself out of the running because he didn't want to play second fiddle to someone who "could" have been in power for eight years and ruined his own chances to jump in on his timeline.
Listening to his interviews and reading the tea leaves, I'm confident he took himself out of the running and I believe that Kamala said, maybe in her book, that she sensed he wouldn't be comfortable with playing second fiddle either. She would have been a meh president but I feel confident she would have had a competent cabinet and she wouldn't have created the chaos we see now, so as time goes on, it gets harder and harder to say she wouldn't have been the better choice, sorry.He would have been smart to remove himself if that’s indeed the case. Who in their right mind would want to be associated with Kamala?
She is indeed very, very dumb.Calling AOC dumb discredits the rest of your argument. You may disagree with her, you may reject her politics, but she is not a dumb person.
The border czar who was responsible for the largest border crisis in United States history did nothing but create chaos. Kamala was the least popular vice president in US history before her dementia patient boss was forced to end his presidential campaign after trump destroyed him in the CNN debate. There would be zero competence out of a Harris cabinet just as we had zero competence out of the biden/harris cabinet already. Harris was unelectable because her administration failed at every turn. Tampon Tim was the only one retarded enough to want to tie himself to that horse.Listening to his interviews and reading the tea leaves, I'm confident he took himself out of the running and I believe that Kamala said, maybe in her book, that she sensed he wouldn't be comfortable with playing second fiddle either. She would have been a meh president but I feel confident she would have had a competent cabinet and she wouldn't have created the chaos we see now, so as time goes on, it gets harder and harder to say she wouldn't have been the better choice, sorry.
personally, I'd be a lot more interested in what the next president will do in the future rather than continuing this looking backward approach to governing. Don't we criticize Trump for doing exactly what you are looking forward to with Newsom?I don't like these choices but if I had to pick, I'd vote for Newsom. He's got baggage for sure but he's a fighter, smart and will hold them accountable for the obscene level of corruption we've seen in Trump's second term. That's why it has to be a Democrat or these people will have gotten away with murder.
But I don't expect these to be the top two in the end and especially if we hold our first primary in South Carolina. If Ossoff can be persuaded to jump in, I think he'd get a huge bump there due to his credibility with the black community.
Listening to his interviews and reading the tea leaves, I'm confident he took himself out of the running and I believe that Kamala said, maybe in her book, that she sensed he wouldn't be comfortable with playing second fiddle either. She would have been a meh president but I feel confident she would have had a competent cabinet and she wouldn't have created the chaos we see now, so as time goes on, it gets harder and harder to say she wouldn't have been the better choice, sorry.
Like I said, he took himself out of the running and he was pretty critical of what she said about him in her book. I didn't read it but saw him interviewed about it.I think you can believe she was the better choice over Trump and also believe that hitching yourself to that moron for either a losing campaign or 4 years is a horrible idea for your political career.
I don't disagree in principle, but I do not think she's electable due to independents' sour views on social democrats.
I don't think he's going to be on the ballot when it's all said and done. I caucused for Bernie in '16, but the Hillary fix was in, which is why we ended up with f.ucking Trump. I'll never forgive the Clintons.I was also told Bernie was unelectable. We got Trump with that one.
Democrats have to quit wittling themselves down the least offensive candidate out of the gate.
Also with Newsom you will lose a chunk of progressives and probably just drive apathy.
I don't think he's going to be on the ballot when it's all said and done.
Shouldn't you vote for the person who you think will be better for America and for your family than just party?Just like 2024, I’ll vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is.
"Blue no matter who!"Just like 2024, I’ll vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is.
Yes. Which is why no one who gives a s.hit about America or their family should ever vote for a Republican again until they disassociate from the convicted felon rapist conman that hijacked that party..Shouldn't you vote for the person who you think will be better for America and for your family than just party?
That’s what I’m doing.Shouldn't you vote for the person who you think will be better for America and for your family than just party?
Well, that's how I look at it.
Man, there was a time when I 100% would have voted for Rubio. Now he's got Trump stinch all over him. It's sad the likes of Vance, Haley, Rubio and others allowed themselves to be dragged down.
View attachment 1374394
Dems are in big trouble.. since USAID went under all their funding dried up. What a weird coincidence..
"Blue no matter who!"
We know, cultist.
AI regulation. Stop giving free tax money to these oligarchs.personally, I'd be a lot more interested in what the next president will do in the future rather than continuing this looking backward approach to governing. Don't we criticize Trump for doing exactly what you are looking forward to with Newsom?
But, like you, I don't think he will be the candidate. Too much baggage...just today he's coming under fire for his decision to ban gasoline powered cars which make up 95% of the vehicles on the road. People prefer choices and not being dictated to by the government
As between the two sets of two, it'd probably be newsome and rubio as of today.Bill Kristol with some good thoughts this morning:
You Don’t Have to Love ’Em to Vote for ’Em
by William Kristol
To begin the week, just a brief thought on political parties.
In modern politics, you can’t really live without them. But it’s a pain to live with them.
We know that bold leaders don’t fit comfortably in them. Churchill switched parties (twice!), and then spent the 1930s fighting against the disastrous policies of the party he’d returned to. Reagan switched parties once, but then went so far as to challenge the sitting president of his adopted party for the nomination. The senators I’ve known the best and admired the most, Pat Moynihan and John McCain, were willing to take on their own parties.
Even we ordinary citizens have a difficult time with political parties. If you like to think for yourself, you chafe at party orthodoxy. If you like strong leadership, you chafe at party timidity.
This is all a way of saying that if you, dear reader, find today’s Democratic party annoying and frustrating and exasperating, there’s nothing wrong with you. Quite the contrary. You’re most likely a reasonable person.
And you’re not alone. A majority of Americans look set to choose the Democratic party over the Republicans this fall. But they share your doubts about the Democratic party, which clocks in at only about 38 percent approval.
Still, most Americans seem to realize that, whatever its problems, there’s only one party that stands ready to check a reckless administration that threatens our well-being and to oppose an authoritarian movement that threatens our freedoms. They accept the fact that what the 2026 election is about is whether Donald Trump will for the next two years have a Congress run by Republicans who will continue to bow to him and enable him, or one run by Democrats that will challenge and check him.
It’s frustrating to loyal Democrats that they’re not universally loved. But asking Americans who aren’t thrilled with either party suddenly, in the summer of 2026, to become huge fans of the Democrats, is asking too much. All Democrats have to do is to win their vote this November.
I would because anything would be better than a maga candidate. AnythingIt's interesting that Democrats are selecting Newsome. California has lost the 5th most amount of people in population decline, post covid. Essentially, Newsome was a total failure in his management of Covid. People are literally voting with their feet, yet Democrats think he is going to win on a national stage? Of course it's possible, but i wouldn't like those odds.
