5mo ago

'Trump is desperate': Ex-GOP aide thinks a Vance-RFK swap is a real possibility

www.rawstory.com 'Trump is desperate': Ex-GOP aide thinks a Vance-RFK swap is a real possibility

Former President Donald Trump has raised speculation he could try to swap out Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), plagued as he is by controversy for his comments about childless women, for conspiracy theorist and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his running mate — even though ...

You're viewing a single thread.

171 comments

Griffin hails from the centrist wing of the GOP. Every day, she said, Trump gives people like her "more and more permission to not vote for Republicans" as he surrounds himself with people like RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard and J.D. Vance, who on the fundamentals, "we just don't agree on, whether it's support for Ukraine, not having tariffs on imports, wanting to pass border security deals."
"So I think he's really doubling down to what is a minority within a minority of the GOP," Griffin added.
I really hope this is true.
- Any true "centrist" GOP person would have stayed away from Trump 8 years ago.
  
  In America people who identify themselves as "centrist" usually have no strong opinions on anything. They might also be what we might call a traditional republican suddenly realizing they're surrounded by fascists.
  
  Except the gray alien is Reagan.
  
  No, Reagan was evil, not neutral.
  
  Just like "centrist" Republicans.
  
  But do you think he had no strong feelings one way or the other? He certainly put forth the image of him wanting the best for everyone but his hands were pretty firmly in the controls of most of his worst policy decisions.
  I'd argue Bush, Jr. is a better example of a centrist with no strong opinions on anything (and, thus, enabling those around him to do truly awful things).
  
  Yes but also no. There are many people who don't have strong political opinions. Sometimes they're misidentified as centrists. But there are people who have strongly held political positions that fall in the center of the political spectrum. Then, of course, there is center-left and center-right. They're still politically engaged, but don't have much patience for the policy proposals put forward by the far left and far right.
  
  Honestly, that sounds like both sides foolishness with extra steps. How can you be politically engaged and still think there’s a middle ground between “kill all minorities” and “don’t do that”?
  
  That's an obvious strawman argument. How about a spectrum between high taxes, generous social safety net and low taxes, skimpy social safety net? There are people with beliefs all along that spectrum. Of course, then there are people who want low taxes and a generous social safety net, but that's another matter.
  
  I mean that literally describes "socially liberal fiscally conservative" morons. No tax! Only benefit!
  
  That's the opposite of (genuine) fiscally conservatism, since it implies large fiscal deficits. Not that some fiscal deficits are inherently bad, they are widely misunderstood when used in a limited way.
  
  I think centrist means “I am not a very thoughtful person, and I avoid any and all conflict even if avoiding the conflict hurts those around me more than dealing with the conflict directly would. If people I care about are affected by conflict I will blame the weaker of the two sides and avoid conflict further for short term gains.”
- more and more permission to not vote for Republicans
  Someone needs to tell these women that they don't need permission from men anymore in order to vote the way they want.
- As in 2016, he's not appealing to the centrists. He's letting the Dems do that. Dems go center, he picks up the anti-war and anti-government side of the Dems looking for a molotov cocktail to throw at the military industrial complex. Gabbard and RFK are an attempt to ruse enough of the left that is fed up with big government and big military. Trump in 2016 won because he was a molotov cocktail while Hillary took the center. In 2020, the primaries presented a progressive alternative that excited the base. 2024, the Dems have decided to revive Hilary's strategy of camping the center, folding to the military industrial complex, and disenfranchising their base; likewise Trump is playing the anti-establishment dove. Trump won in 2016 like that. Maybe fewer people will be tricked this time after seeing what happened last time he was in office? Or that's just wishful thinking.
  It doesn't matter if he scares off the center. In spite of the strong start, I see Kamala lining up to lose this election by copying Hilary's strategy of collecting the center and establishment. It gives me the jitters. Dems need to run on a progressive path forward, not joyful ignorance while they stoke the fires of war. They need a platform that excites enough voters for downballot races. They need to stand up to the problems in our systems of governing that Trump is offering to burn down which might accelerate some sort of change before we die of ecosystem collapse. Clock is ticking, and the voters may decide we need a kick in the ass if the Dems decide to cozy up to the military like in 1968.
  
  In general I'm in full agreement, but the fact that Biden stepped aside and they picked Walz as the VP gives me the perception that the Democratic Party is at least acknowledging the existence of the left. They absolutely need to triple or even quadruple down on progressive policies while Harris is in office though*, or we'll be in the exact same position in four years, except with a competent speaker for the GOP instead of the Toupee.
  *And not just in the last few months before the next election.
  
  I’m not voting for her unless there is a permanent cease fire that Tuesday night. She has until 6:59 pm.
  
  While I agree with you, it shouldn't be forgotten that Hilary still had the popular vote. I think the Dem.s will still win due to Harris not being as hated as Hilary, likely better campaigning than Hilary, Trump being an abysmally bad candidate (just in terms of general political competency, regardless of his beliefs/positions; I think them winning will continue people not taking that point seriously enough), and Harris actually being able to bring out black (and, I would wager, Indian) voters.
  I don't think that black people were necessarily excited about Hilary but they absolutely are about Harris. I think they can likely win like this; it won't be a landslide but it'll be O. K.
  I agree with what you think they ought to be doing (I want to push the Overton window leftward and going back to the center after it's been pushed so much leftward over the last 8 years is both frustrating and bad policy) but I think Kamala has a bunch more shoring up than Hilary did. I also think it's going to convince Dem.s that this is the way to win; if Kamala continues to govern from the center rather than like her voting record in the Senate, I think we get the same rush to neoliberalism Clinton ushered in. But I'm hoping otherwise.
  
  I don’t know why you’re being down voted this is a legit concern

171 comments