T Nation

Trump: The Second Year


#2367

The Dems don’t have anyone that can beat Trump so they might as well let her lose again and save up and comers for 2024.


#2368

I don’t disagree with this, and have stated so many times.

In terms of the point of it?
Appeal to suburban women and more moderates?

I have no idea. I’m not a Conservative or Liberal strategist.


#2369

Agree.


#2370

Damn, the pessimism here wrt Trump being re-elected is palpable.

I sincerely hope that unicorns exist, and that it is darkest before dawn.

edit to add: same for Hilary being the Dem nominee again!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!


#2371

You won’t see it from me lol. I can’t imagine a scenario where it makes sense to introduce anyone onto the national stage to oppose Trump right now.


#2372

I’m neither pessimistic nor optimistic.

When something is almost inevitable…I personally just roll with it.


#2373

Wow, bringing over grudges from the old country to the White House and influencing US national security…

Born Mira P. Radielovic, she is of Croatian descent. Mira grew up in Pasadena, California and at home spoke the Croatian language.

Willing to put 200 bucks that sharp words in a language other than English were exchanged and the FLOTUS decided to throw a hissy fit.

If there’s something that can make a Slovenian woman lose her shit it’s a Croatian woman publicly claiming to know something better than her…


#2374

Hah.

Meanwhile, if Trump were not the President, he would’ve moved on to the next younger, hotter wife a loooong time ago.


#2375

image


#2376

Melania must have mistaken her position for a real job.


#2377

Clinton running again is just noise. She wasn’t popular with a lot of Dems the first time around. She has no chance of securing the nomination again. I’ve read the articles and all that but I’d bet huge against that happening.


#2378

White women, maybe. But, she’s pro-life so she’s automatically not a moderate.


#2379

That depends on the lens through which one views the Political Spectrum.


#2380

Behold, conservatism has a pulse:


#2381

The NY Times take on conservative views… Just hard for me to give them a fair shake with their normal bandwidth of views.


#2382

Did you read it? It wasn’t the NYT’s take on it - they reported on this group and their mission, with quotes from the conservative/libertarian lawyers themselves.


#2383

It’s pretty hard to give anything a fair shake if you don’t read it first. He did kinda say it


#2384

Did read it. Breakaway faction of the federalist society doesn’t like mean words to the press, mean words to the DOJ and executive orders. Can’t say I disagree with them, where were they with Bush 1 and 2?


#2385

I, personally, am outraged that Trump has criticized birthright citizenship. It’s right there in the constitutional Amendment meant to extend citizenship to freed slaves. I am also 100% on board with all Federal firearms laws, because the constitutional Amendment dealing with firearms clearly gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate firearms. Or something.


#2386

There is some actual legitimate legal thought that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th amendment was written on purpose to exclude the children of diplomats and foreign citizens merely visiting the US. I believe there are quotes from the guy that wrote and advocated for the 14th that it wasn’t meant to cover foreign citizens visiting US soil.

Trump is definitely not the messenger for that nuanced take.