Why would Republicans nominate Trump in 2024?

[Claudette]

Nothing is more important to Republicans than controlling the WH, perceived to be their ‘birthright.’

And just as important is controlling the WH for as long as possible – preferably eight years; much of the consternation at Trump’s loss this year is that Republicans were ‘cheated’ out of eight years of Republican rule.

But if elected in 2024, Trump would be able to serve only one four-year term – Republicans wouldn’t have the incumbent advantage going into the 2028 election year.

He either will be in jail or die from the long weighted heart attack....the fat fuck still eating junk food.

I'll just stand over here and LMAO.

Biden is likely to drop dead before Trump.

How do you know what he eats? You don't. LOL

 

[DBA]

If the election fraud is not uncovered in this election it won’t matter. The Democrats will find enough votes in every election to never lose again. They are immoral and don’t care one iota about the United States, in fact, they want to “fundamentally change” it according to their prophet Obama. I can see why you may want to change a few things about a person you love, for example, but when you want to “fundamentally” change something, you didn’t love it to start with. Sad little leftist lemmings with no love for their country. Just plain spoiled.

 

[Mac-7]

Donald Trump has Ted Cruz’s balls in a jar

Cut him some slack

not everyone can be as manly as the typical obama/biden supporter

 

[Circe]

Perot is not "known" to have [thrown the election to Clinton], and in fact got zero Electoral Votes (despite getting just under 19$ of the PV but that's a whole 'nother rabbithole). Nor did Nader or Buchanan. I voted for Nader myself, as noted yesterday, but only because my so-called "red" state was going to vote for Dubya regardless what I did so I figgered I'd make a statement. Which fell like a tree in an unoccupied woods. 1992 was more affected by Bush's looking at his watch than by Ross Perot.

When I speak of a third party affecting the election outcome I mean getting Electoral Votes that actually changed the positions of one or more of the other two party. Thurmond didn't. Wallace didn't. Nader, Buchanan, Perot, Anderson, Johnson, Stein, McMullen, didn't even show up. The most effect from that was that Rump was denied getting 50% of the Utah vote because McMullen was a choice, but he still got the Utah EVs so that didn't shake up the end result either.

What, you don't like what the slave girls intone to the blonde princess in Game of Thrones? "It is known."
It is known that Perot threw the election to Clinton in what I read, anyway, because more Perot voters (me for one, more fool me) were conservative. Interesting about the watch thing -- I vaguely remember that, but didn't much support Bush's candidacy because he so clearly wanted to get OUT of there -- it seemed mean to vote for him.

I don't think it's the electoral votes only. Nader and Buchanan got thousands and thousands of votes in a state that Bush won by 324 after --- well, a lot of trouble! So I'd say there was an influence there. As for Wallace, it was because his candidacy resonated that the Republican Southern Strategy happened and worked, I think.

This of course presumes that "winning" is the only thing that matters. The Charlie Sheen philosophy? But when they let that child in the room they had to know they were playing with Chaos. So what I'm saying is, they got what they deserved and now they have to deal with it ---- which would not have been the case had it been handled responsibly. So letting that child into the roomful of china, let in more than just "winning today". Now there's a whole lot of cleanup to do.
Then again, maybe they realized that but figured the tradeoff was worth it. Which would be a strange value system.

I am okay with disruption. Creative destruction, I call it when it's Trump, or Microsoft, or Facebook. I'm also okay with winning. At least if it's me.

It is a joke, or actually, sarcasm. It's right there in your excerpt "the 22nd and 24th president". That miscount makes him two people. George Washington was not the first and second President because he had two terms, nor was Jefferson, Madison, etc etc etc. Yet suddenly Cleveland gets two numbers? Must be two people then, but I have it on good authority that Taft was fatter. So I mock that miscount.

In other words the good news is that Joe Biden will not be the 46th POTUS. The bad news is that he will be the 45th.

That last line took me a full minute staring at it and an emergency visit to Wikipedia --- but then I got it. Subtle, subtle. I am totally up with the concept of counting presidents by their weight. Counting Taft and Trump as 2 presidents-worth each, that would push Biden off to No. 49. Works for me. I had an ambitious nonfiction goal a while ago and was lamenting to my sister what TOMES some books were and it wasn't fair they only got one count each ---- she said, "Set a page goal instead and count the pages." I didn't, but it was such a good idea I am still considering doing it.

And may I say, thank you for discourse from a base with some intelligence that has some idea what it's talking about. Sure is refreshing after sitting through "YOUR PARTY WAAAAH". But then I guess you are a goddess, whereas I am a lowly cartoon character ....

You are a cartoon character with THE classic bon mot, however. Are harpies goddesses? That might be a slight misclassifi------------- Wait! No, of COURSE we're goddesses, what am I saying?! I'll take it. We are addressed as "Your Flightiness."

On the other talon, about every 2000 years we get some seriously bad press, I dare not translate --

quas dira Celaeno
Harpyiaeque colunt aliae, Phineia postquam
clausa domus mensasque metu liquere priores.
tristius haud illis monstrum, nec saevior ulla
pestis et ira deum Stygiis sese extulit undis.
virginei volucrum vultus, foedissima ventris
proluvies uncaeque manus et pallida semper
ora fame.

Virgil would have liked it here on U.S. Message Board, darn him -------

 

[Pogo]

Perot is not "known" to have [thrown the election to Clinton], and in fact got zero Electoral Votes (despite getting just under 19$ of the PV but that's a whole 'nother rabbithole). Nor did Nader or Buchanan. I voted for Nader myself, as noted yesterday, but only because my so-called "red" state was going to vote for Dubya regardless what I did so I figgered I'd make a statement. Which fell like a tree in an unoccupied woods. 1992 was more affected by Bush's looking at his watch than by Ross Perot.

When I speak of a third party affecting the election outcome I mean getting Electoral Votes that actually changed the positions of one or more of the other two party. Thurmond didn't. Wallace didn't. Nader, Buchanan, Perot, Anderson, Johnson, Stein, McMullen, didn't even show up. The most effect from that was that Rump was denied getting 50% of the Utah vote because McMullen was a choice, but he still got the Utah EVs so that didn't shake up the end result either.

What, you don't like what the slave girls intone to the blonde princess in Game of Thrones? "It is known."
It is known that Perot threw the election to Clinton in what I read, anyway, because more Perot voters (me for one, more fool me) were conservative. Interesting about the watch thing -- I vaguely remember that, but didn't much support Bush's candidacy because he so clearly wanted to get OUT of there -- it seemed mean to vote for him.

I don't think it's the electoral votes only. Nader and Buchanan got thousands and thousands of votes in a state that Bush won by 324 after --- well, a lot of trouble! So I'd say there was an influence there. As for Wallace, it was because his candidacy resonated that the Republican Southern Strategy happened and worked, I think.

This of course presumes that "winning" is the only thing that matters. The Charlie Sheen philosophy? But when they let that child in the room they had to know they were playing with Chaos. So what I'm saying is, they got what they deserved and now they have to deal with it ---- which would not have been the case had it been handled responsibly. So letting that child into the roomful of china, let in more than just "winning today". Now there's a whole lot of cleanup to do.
Then again, maybe they realized that but figured the tradeoff was worth it. Which would be a strange value system.

I am okay with disruption. Creative destruction, I call it when it's Trump, or Microsoft, or Facebook. I'm also okay with winning. At least if it's me.

It is a joke, or actually, sarcasm. It's right there in your excerpt "the 22nd and 24th president". That miscount makes him two people. George Washington was not the first and second President because he had two terms, nor was Jefferson, Madison, etc etc etc. Yet suddenly Cleveland gets two numbers? Must be two people then, but I have it on good authority that Taft was fatter. So I mock that miscount.

In other words the good news is that Joe Biden will not be the 46th POTUS. The bad news is that he will be the 45th.

That last line took me a full minute staring at it and an emergency visit to Wikipedia --- but then I got it. Subtle, subtle. I am totally up with the concept of counting presidents by their weight. Counting Taft and Trump as 2 presidents-worth each, that would push Biden off to No. 49. Works for me. I had an ambitious nonfiction goal a while ago and was lamenting to my sister what TOMES some books were and it wasn't fair they only got one count each ---- she said, "Set a page goal instead and count the pages." I didn't, but it was such a good idea I am still considering doing it.

And may I say, thank you for discourse from a base with some intelligence that has some idea what it's talking about. Sure is refreshing after sitting through "YOUR PARTY WAAAAH". But then I guess you are a goddess, whereas I am a lowly cartoon character ....

You are a cartoon character with THE classic bon mot, however. Are harpies goddesses? That might be a slight misclassifi------------- Wait! No, of COURSE we're goddesses, what am I saying?! I'll take it. We are addressed as "Your Flightiness."

On the other talon, about every 2000 years we get some seriously bad press, I dare not translate --

quas dira Celaeno
Harpyiaeque colunt aliae, Phineia postquam
clausa domus mensasque metu liquere priores.
tristius haud illis monstrum, nec saevior ulla
pestis et ira deum Stygiis sese extulit undis.
virginei volucrum vultus, foedissima ventris
proluvies uncaeque manus et pallida semper
ora fame.

Virgil would have liked it here on U.S. Message Board, darn him -------

Points aside agreed or not, it is again refreshing to read such erudite postage here amidst the swamp of the dreaded Cult of Ignorance, so again one bows in appreciation.

Especially for the phrase, "on the other talon". Perfectly timed, that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Trump may be a felon by 2024 - which would make him ineligible to be president again.

Pour out the firewater, shitting bull.