4 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

He won't endorse anyone until the last possible moment...........he wants them all dancing on the end of a string for as long as possible.

When looking into the last time a serving member of a US cabinet, or any party, won the nomination, it seems the last time this happened was 1908, William Taft. Hillary Clinton of course had been out of cabinet for over 3 years by the time she won the Democrat nomination. Herbert Hoover is someone who left cabinet, won the nomination close to the election date.

Hoover had become one of the more popular Republicans in the country because in his role as commerce secretary. He had come into cabinet as this very rich man who had performed extraordinary humanitarian work post WW1. He transformed the Department of Commerce, in a way that impacted many Americans (jobs)m then he stood up to the challenge of the Great Mississippi Flood.

I'm wondering about the ways Rubio and Hegseth have positively impacted American people's lives. Hegseth will still be up to his armpits in a messy war, and the human consequences of that. Rubio; America's international relations are a mess, and even if they are good, it doesn't really impact Americans in a way that they feel positive.

That changes if Rubio flounces, and becomes the anti-Trump candidate, perhaps following some disaster that can be laid at the feet of Trump-Hegseth or Trump-Bessent.

If Vance wants to run, he's got the nomination. That doesn't mean he would win an election.

If the Republicans do badly in the coming elections, the argument could be either "We lost because Trump didn't go far enough, not because he went too far" or "Trumpism was right, but Trump himself is the problem" or "Trump changed the party, but we need a Republican who can actually win back independents and suburban voters."

The first argument favours Vance, possibly Hegseth, Noem (she would say this wouldn't have happened if she had been around) and then Donald Jr.

The second is Rubio, Cruz, Cotton, Hawley.

The third is more likely a non-cabinet member, Youngkin, Kemp, DeSantis and Scott.

But ultimately, Iran will cook the prospects for Hegseth or Rubio. How are they going to win in Iran? The original objective was to overthrow the Mullahs, and have millions of liberated people in the streets of Tehran cheering in a new democratic and secular government. Not going to happen. Instead, the closest the US will get to a victory is beating Iran to a bloody, surly pulp, likely generating millions of refugees, some of which with revenge in their hearts.

Vance; I suppose his role on the negotiating teams means he could say he tried, but had one hand tied behind his back, thanks to a the clown of a Trump son in law having a say in negotiations, and the clown in WD dropping bombs.

I'm favouring one of the governors securing the nomination, but not DeSantis. So Youngkin, Kemp. They can still be very strongly anti-Iran, but can offer the best solution to ending it all, in a Nixon-esque way.

Of course, if the President endorses Don Jr..... That could help Vance. Vance can't be sacked. He can argue he was elected be he shared the same agenda that Trump campaigned for (cue supporting the common man, his story as a Hillbilly), but Trump <deleted> up with all these sycophantic incompetents in cabinet. A wild suggestion; Vance reaches out to Tucker Carlson, who been quite anti-war, but otherwise MAGA, and a quite eloquent individual.

None of this I support, just what I think will happen.

17 hours ago, thailand49 said:

Impossible to run against 22nd Amendment! These stories are just to make voter scared as to what get their boxers and panties wedged. He isn't running!

Sure, the 22nd Amendment, etc. I think the biggest mistake is assuming that “It Can’t Happen Here” -- i.e., totalitarianism can’t happen in the United States, because, well, it’s the United States! In reality, the United States is just another country, and just as susceptible to political upheaval as anyplace else. Read Sinclair Lewis’s novel of the title quoted just above.

 

Trump has already broken so many laws, and he has the legislature and apparently the Supreme Court in his back pocket. He’s demonstrated that, so far at least, he can do whatever the hell he wants. What will likely stop Trump personally in 2028 is his age and advancing decrepitude, if not death itself, but there’s plenty he is already doing to firmly establish a deeply corrupt plutocracy that will live on beyond him, despite his current approval ratings of 30 percent. Starting with fixing the midterm elections this year.

On 8/31/2026 at 6:20 PM, neeray said:

Hegseth for President! Next joke please?

Not yet. But coming in the future.

5 minutes ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

Not yet. But coming in the future.

Forget the past...

Vance isn't a weirdo in women's restrooms!

He's just uhhh... looking around for his tiny penis.

Remember the Future 🤣

7 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

When looking into the last time a serving member of a US cabinet, or any party, won the nomination, it seems the last time this happened was 1908, William Taft. Hillary Clinton of course had been out of cabinet for over 3 years by the time she won the Democrat nomination. Herbert Hoover is someone who left cabinet, won the nomination close to the election date.

Hoover had become one of the more popular Republicans in the country because in his role as commerce secretary. He had come into cabinet as this very rich man who had performed extraordinary humanitarian work post WW1. He transformed the Department of Commerce, in a way that impacted many Americans (jobs)m then he stood up to the challenge of the Great Mississippi Flood.

I'm wondering about the ways Rubio and Hegseth have positively impacted American people's lives. Hegseth will still be up to his armpits in a messy war, and the human consequences of that. Rubio; America's international relations are a mess, and even if they are good, it doesn't really impact Americans in a way that they feel positive.

That changes if Rubio flounces, and becomes the anti-Trump candidate, perhaps following some disaster that can be laid at the feet of Trump-Hegseth or Trump-Bessent.

If Vance wants to run, he's got the nomination. That doesn't mean he would win an election.

If the Republicans do badly in the coming elections, the argument could be either "We lost because Trump didn't go far enough, not because he went too far" or "Trumpism was right, but Trump himself is the problem" or "Trump changed the party, but we need a Republican who can actually win back independents and suburban voters."

Advertisement

The first argument favours Vance, possibly Hegseth, Noem (she would say this wouldn't have happened if she had been around) and then Donald Jr.

The second is Rubio, Cruz, Cotton, Hawley.

The third is more likely a non-cabinet member, Youngkin, Kemp, DeSantis and Scott.

But ultimately, Iran will cook the prospects for Hegseth or Rubio. How are they going to win in Iran? The original objective was to overthrow the Mullahs, and have millions of liberated people in the streets of Tehran cheering in a new democratic and secular government. Not going to happen. Instead, the closest the US will get to a victory is beating Iran to a bloody, surly pulp, likely generating millions of refugees, some of which with revenge in their hearts.

Vance; I suppose his role on the negotiating teams means he could say he tried, but had one hand tied behind his back, thanks to a the clown of a Trump son in law having a say in negotiations, and the clown in WD dropping bombs.

I'm favouring one of the governors securing the nomination, but not DeSantis. So Youngkin, Kemp. They can still be very strongly anti-Iran, but can offer the best solution to ending it all, in a Nixon-esque way.

Of course, if the President endorses Don Jr..... That could help Vance. Vance can't be sacked. He can argue he was elected be he shared the same agenda that Trump campaigned for (cue supporting the common man, his story as a Hillbilly), but Trump <deleted> up with all these sycophantic incompetents in cabinet. A wild suggestion; Vance reaches out to Tucker Carlson, who been quite anti-war, but otherwise MAGA, and a quite eloquent individual.

Advertisement

None of this I support, just what I think will happen.

Would not argue with that.

I don't think Hegseth is in with a shout, but Rubio and Vance obviously see themselves as the front runners.

Their problem, as you intimated, is how do they handle their association with Trump going forward........they must look on in horror at what he is doing day in, day out, and fear they are watching their own careers going down the pan......but what can they do? Nothing for now.......whilst Trump behaves like Stalin, watching to see who stops clapping first after a speech.........they just have to suck it up until??? ...mid 2027?

49 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Forget the past...

Vance isn't a weirdo in women's restrooms!

He's just uhhh... looking around for his tiny penis.

Remember the Future 🤣

Ugh Ok,. Another post that matches your intelligence.

Interesting......there is nothing to prevent Trump running for a third term......he just couldn't serve a third term (seemingly, according to the constitution).

Might it be in his nature to run, just to see if he could win?

That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Edited September 2Sep 2 by MIke B Bad

40 minutes ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

Ugh Ok,. Another post that matches your intelligence.

I'm the enemy.

Because I have facts

That make you embarrassed and ashamed.

But you can't admit you're wrong.

Poor baby!

Sorry for hurting your precious feelings.

Next time I will try harder to change the facts

So as not to hurt your delicate little feelings 💐

JD Vance-- definitely not a weirdo!

There! Feel better now?

Edited September 2Sep 2 by SiSePuede419
Feel good about men in women's restrooms

1 hour ago, Cory1848 said:

Sure, the 22nd Amendment, etc. I think the biggest mistake is assuming that “It Can’t Happen Here” -- i.e., totalitarianism can’t happen in the United States, because, well, it’s the United States! In reality, the United States is just another country, and just as susceptible to political upheaval as anyplace else. Read Sinclair Lewis’s novel of the title quoted just above.

 

Trump has already broken so many laws, and he has the legislature and apparently the Supreme Court in his back pocket. He’s demonstrated that, so far at least, he can do whatever the hell he wants. What will likely stop Trump personally in 2028 is his age and advancing decrepitude, if not death itself, but there’s plenty he is already doing to firmly establish a deeply corrupt plutocracy that will live on beyond him, despite his current approval ratings of 30 percent. Starting with fixing the midterm elections this year.

Everything you say is true to a point in the end it can happen, but reality to overturn the 22nd Amendment etc.. there isn't enough time for it to be done by 2028! Now if one next say will he can declare Martial Law LOL!

There are misinformed people who think all those in his service cabinet will follow his lead, it isn't going to happen just like his VP, first term didn't side with him. Whether one like our system or not it does work good enough to prevent it? You can disagree no problem, my point if Trump is stupid enough to call for martial law my bet no one is going to follow! You can many here can agree all you want that is your right and opinion mines the Constitution works well enough it isn't just like those who claim if he is elected he will set up a nuclear war! Again not happening!

You give Trump which is all mouth, too much credit all he does is as his book in business the

"Art of the Deal " is to get people like you upset in a uproar over nothing his mouth is just to get you to react do something sadly it goes so far after it becomes irritating. But he is doing everything all President in the past has wanted but didn't have the mouth to say it and when they did say it said it in a very Presidential way and that is the big difference in Trump what many like me have said from the beginning! It is impossible for guys like Trump to zip up! LOL

I put my money where it is at... as a gambler I have accounts in Vegas where you can put a bet on anything. You willing name the price it isn't happening!

We got two years left of The mouth! relax they all lie break their promise if I can put up with a coup having Biden President for 4 fours certainly 2 more years is nothing.

Edited September 2Sep 2 by thailand49

27 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

I'm the enemy.

Because I have facts

That make you embarrassed and ashamed.

But you can't admit you're wrong.

Poor baby!

Sorry for hurting your precious feelings.

Next time I will try harder to change the facts

So as not to hurt your delicate little feelings 💐

JD Vance-- definitely not a weirdo!

There! Feel better now?

Agh, OK

Thanks for just proving leftists are kooks!

56 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

Everything you say is true to a point in the end it can happen, but reality to overturn the 22nd Amendment etc.. there isn't enough time for it to be done by 2028! Now if one next say will he can declare Martial Law LOL!

There are misinformed people who think all those in his service cabinet will follow his lead, it isn't going to happen just like his VP, first term didn't side with him. Whether one like our system or not it does work good enough to prevent it? You can disagree no problem, my point if Trump is stupid enough to call for martial law my bet no one is going to follow! You can many here can agree all you want that is your right and opinion mines the Constitution works well enough it isn't just like those who claim if he is elected he will set up a nuclear war! Again not happening!

You give Trump which is all mouth, too much credit all he does is as his book in business the

"Art of the Deal " is to get people like you upset in a uproar over nothing his mouth is just to get you to react do something sadly it goes so far after it becomes irritating. But he is doing everything all President in the past has wanted but didn't have the mouth to say it and when they did say it said it in a very Presidential way and that is the big difference in Trump what many like me have said from the beginning! It is impossible for guys like Trump to zip up! LOL

I put my money where it is at... as a gambler I have accounts in Vegas where you can put a bet on anything. You willing name the price it isn't happening!

We got two years left of The mouth! relax they all lie break their promise if I can put up with a coup having Biden President for 4 fours certainly 2 more years is nothing.

Well, I hope you’re right, that Trump will be unable to overturn the 22nd Amendment or declare Martial Law. But democracies have descended into autocracy and dictatorship in the past; there’s no reason that it can’t happen in the United States. Trump (and the Republican Party more broadly) have made various preparations to meddle in if not outright overthrow the 2026 midterm elections, so if US democracy can get through that and Democrats can take control of the House (as they certainly would in a legitimate election) and perhaps the Senate, that will be a good sign. Let’s see what happens this November.

 

Am I in an “uproar”? I’m sorry, I’m just reading history and looking at what’s happening from day to day in Trump’s administration, and making reasoned judgments. If you find that “irritating,” well, I’m not sorry about that: I hope you get irritated to the point of, perhaps, waking up a bit.

 

You say that you “can put up with a coup having Biden President for 4 [years]”: Are you saying that Biden did not legitimately win the presidency in 2020? If you are buying into that lie of Trump’s, well, then you are truly asleep.

4 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Well, I hope you’re right, that Trump will be unable to overturn the 22nd Amendment or declare Martial Law. But democracies have descended into autocracy and dictatorship in the past; there’s no reason that it can’t happen in the United States. Trump (and the Republican Party more broadly) have made various preparations to meddle in if not outright overthrow the 2026 midterm elections, so if US democracy can get through that and Democrats can take control of the House (as they certainly would in a legitimate election) and perhaps the Senate, that will be a good sign. Let’s see what happens this November.

 

Am I in an “uproar”? I’m sorry, I’m just reading history and looking at what’s happening from day to day in Trump’s administration, and making reasoned judgments. If you find that “irritating,” well, I’m not sorry about that: I hope you get irritated to the point of, perhaps, waking up a bit.

 

You say that you “can put up with a coup having Biden President for 4 [years]”: Are you saying that Biden did not legitimately win the presidency in 2020? If you are buying into that lie of Trump’s, well, then you are truly asleep.

You like many give it a good try to be reasonable but majority of your remarks is clearly Democrate which to me not irritating but expected. The more you try to explain your position it all ends at one point TRUMP as it does who every person who always claim it isn't!

As for Biden I never once mentioned he stole the the election my remark "coup " is reference how the Democrat party which I spend the majority of my life voting for including twice for Obama left shaking my head! Even being loyal to the party appreciative of my Representative House speaker Pelosi, and Committee chair of International Affairs Congress person Tom Lantos securing my Immigration O extension for Thailand and guarantee my Thai wife and her son Tourist Visas to the U.S. when the U.S.Embassy wouldn't.

I never like Biden when he was of sound mind. In 2020, I witness 18 indivuals running in a debate including Harris who started in S.F. knew her history and background and the party leaders Pelosi knew they couldn't win with any of these individuals so they pull a coup and put Biden clearly 75% dementia and another brain dead top that off with COVID along with American voters being stupid we got what we got inspite I dealt with all the nonsense of cover up for 4 years. To Biden wife Jill " shame on you " for whatever reason allow him to run and be used like that!

All of his on this forum are aging we have all seen how dementia can affair family and friend my own mother lived to 103, died during COVID even prior although good physically it was going to a point I placed her in a care facility.

Today, I'm an Independent because of what the Democrats have done to my City San Francisco, and California it is a disgrace lead by a Governor, as Mayor of S.F. dropped his trousers for his best friend wife while they snored cocaine in his office. Next year he is one of the best shot the Demos have to offer to be President that is how stupid the Demo voters are today I cringe at that though but if it happens I will deal as I had with Biden and Trump today.

I'm just a voter who prides himself to have some common sense to smell out bull<deleted> when it stinks to high heaven. I hear both sides complain about the voting my thoughts is like any sports you know the rules if it is wrong fix it before the game is played not whine and bitch after which is what both sides does. Come November the first shot will be fired I hope the Republican continue to hold the advantage because I do agree with their platform, if they don't they it shows to me that the Democratic voters remain blinded and the only thing that matters is to make it impossible for Trump.

That being said I'm no MAGA don't have to wear some dumb hat whether America is great or not, in spite of it fault it is a great country I don't need to join some stupid movement on any side.

When it is time to vote I look at the issues and I vote tell you now not much Democrat can throw up that I would vote in that direction today. But if it doesn't go my way I'm not getting on any soap box to whine!

Thanks for your time!

If they do then the GOP leadership has done their job

While Hegseth denies he's considering to run in 2028, his denial seems hollow. It was leaked on purpose - maybe to get ahead of the pack? In any case, it makes Trump look bad and gives him another reason to fire Hegseth. It's also not coutnerintuitive to assume Hegseth's wants to be fired to get out of losing the war to Iran.

9 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

9 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Interesting......there is nothing to prevent Trump running for a third term......he just couldn't serve a third term (seemingly, according to the constitution).

Might it be in his nature to run, just to see if he could win?

That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

That's one way to describe the end of the United States. Its literally the end of Law and Order.

A thought experiment might be that the November elections are declared null and void, due to suspicions, specious or otherwise, about tampering, corruption, whatever. Which Governors decide they no longer have legal representation in Washington. Governors can't withhold federal tax. But a state can refuse to cooperate with the federal government in some circumstances.

That's the principle behind the federal anti-commandeering doctrine: Washington generally cannot simply order a state government to administer a federal program for it. But they can say they are no longer collecting taxes for Washington, forcing Washington to directly collect taxes themselves. This isn't provoking a constitutional crisis when a constitutional crisis already exists.

President:
"The November election is cancelled because of alleged corruption."

States:
"The president has no constitutional authority to cancel an election. We recognise the existing Congress."

Federal government:
"You must comply with federal executive orders."

States:
"We won't use state employees or resources to implement them."

Federal government:
"We'll enforce the laws ourselves."

States:
"We won't obstruct you, but we won't assist you."

It then ratchets up if a State says federal officials are not permitted to enforce federal law within their territory.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, which if it sides with the President, could lead the states to declaring they no longer recognise the Supreme Court.

A few more steps, and secession is on people's lips. Or states issue a statement to the effect: We remain part of the United States, but we do not recognise the authority of a federal government that has abolished constitutional representation.

Meanwhile the federal government has run out of money.

Its all rather Hollywood. The movie "Civil War" opens with a civil war happening, involving a California-Texas axis. They don't really go into the circumstances, except that the unnamed President holed up in a heavily fortified White House has just been elected for a 3rd term. The clever bit about the film is that you don't know who's in the "right". And that's why civil wars are particularly ferocious compared to conventional conflict.

Its improbable, maybe impossible. But I wasn't expecting Yugoslavia to fall apart because of a few union meetings.

5 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

That's one way to describe the end of the United States. Its literally the end of Law and Order.

A thought experiment might be that the November elections are declared null and void, due to suspicions, specious or otherwise, about tampering, corruption, whatever. Which Governors decide they no longer have legal representation in Washington. Governors can't withhold federal tax. But a state can refuse to cooperate with the federal government in some circumstances.

That's the principle behind the federal anti-commandeering doctrine: Washington generally cannot simply order a state government to administer a federal program for it. But they can say they are no longer collecting taxes for Washington, forcing Washington to directly collect taxes themselves. This isn't provoking a constitutional crisis when a constitutional crisis already exists.

President:
"The November election is cancelled because of alleged corruption."

States:
"The president has no constitutional authority to cancel an election. We recognise the existing Congress."

Federal government:
"You must comply with federal executive orders."

States:
"We won't use state employees or resources to implement them."

Federal government:
"We'll enforce the laws ourselves."

States:
"We won't obstruct you, but we won't assist you."

It then ratchets up if a State says federal officials are not permitted to enforce federal law within their territory.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, which if it sides with the President, could lead the states to declaring they no longer recognise the Supreme Court.

A few more steps, and secession is on people's lips. Or states issue a statement to the effect: We remain part of the United States, but we do not recognise the authority of a federal government that has abolished constitutional representation.

Meanwhile the federal government has run out of money.

Its all rather Hollywood. The movie "Civil War" opens with a civil war happening, involving a California-Texas axis. They don't really go into the circumstances, except that the unnamed President holed up in a heavily fortified White House has just been elected for a 3rd term. The clever bit about the film is that you don't know who's in the "right". And that's why civil wars are particularly ferocious compared to conventional conflict.

Its improbable, maybe impossible. But I wasn't expecting Yugoslavia to fall apart because of a few union meetings.

We will need to review this post again after the November elections.

7 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

That's one way to describe the end of the United States. Its literally the end of Law and Order.

A thought experiment might be that the November elections are declared null and void, due to suspicions, specious or otherwise, about tampering, corruption, whatever. Which Governors decide they no longer have legal representation in Washington. Governors can't withhold federal tax. But a state can refuse to cooperate with the federal government in some circumstances.

That's the principle behind the federal anti-commandeering doctrine: Washington generally cannot simply order a state government to administer a federal program for it. But they can say they are no longer collecting taxes for Washington, forcing Washington to directly collect taxes themselves. This isn't provoking a constitutional crisis when a constitutional crisis already exists.

President:
"The November election is cancelled because of alleged corruption."

States:
"The president has no constitutional authority to cancel an election. We recognise the existing Congress."

Federal government:
"You must comply with federal executive orders."

States:
"We won't use state employees or resources to implement them."

Federal government:
"We'll enforce the laws ourselves."

States:
"We won't obstruct you, but we won't assist you."

It then ratchets up if a State says federal officials are not permitted to enforce federal law within their territory.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, which if it sides with the President, could lead the states to declaring they no longer recognise the Supreme Court.

A few more steps, and secession is on people's lips. Or states issue a statement to the effect: We remain part of the United States, but we do not recognise the authority of a federal government that has abolished constitutional representation.

Meanwhile the federal government has run out of money.

Its all rather Hollywood. The movie "Civil War" opens with a civil war happening, involving a California-Texas axis. They don't really go into the circumstances, except that the unnamed President holed up in a heavily fortified White House has just been elected for a 3rd term. The clever bit about the film is that you don't know who's in the "right". And that's why civil wars are particularly ferocious compared to conventional conflict.

Its improbable, maybe impossible. But I wasn't expecting Yugoslavia to fall apart because of a few union meetings.

One thing that makes this plausible is that at 81/82? will Trump really give **** about anything or anyone?

He could wreak havoc just for the fun of it........and I think the midterms might be kind of a trial run.

14 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

If it goes to the Supreme Court, which if it sides with the President, could lead the states to declaring they no longer recognise the Supreme Court.

A few more steps, and secession is on people's lips. Or states issue a statement to the effect: We remain part of the United States, but we do not recognise the authority of a federal government that has abolished constitutional representation.

Meanwhile the federal government has run out of money.

This is more likely than a race war or right-vs-left war (though the latter might be on the President's side (which I think was the case in the movie Civil War) and the conservative supreme court backs the right wing president.

Also, it's not a stretch, as you say, for the state's to say they are not responsible for the federal debt (government runs out of money and the system begins to collapse), thus State's less reliant on the Feds move toward secession.

My own sense is the decline and end of emplire has been well underway for 20-25 years (before Trump - he's just a symptom of anger at the decay). So I recommend reading/following former foreign correspondent Chris Hedges (Pulitzer prize winner), and Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Also Joseph Stiglitz.

At Pete's confirmation hearing the Republicans swore up and down the only qualification Pete needed was to be able to fog up a mirror with his breathing and how drinking on the job might be better...

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who responded to questions about Hegseth's alleged drinking by asking how many senators had "showed up drunk to vote at night."

Time passes, failure after failure

Republican senator calls on Trump to fire Secretary of Defence Hegseth

Senator Thom Tillis accuses Pentagon chief of ‘inept mismanagement’ as US military is strained by war on Iran

Inept Management by Republicans put Pete into this job, what a joke.

😀😃😄😁😆😅😂🤣😭.

Edited September 3Sep 3 by SiSePuede419
Inept Management.... by Republicans

4 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

This is more likely than a race war or right-vs-left war (though the latter might be on the President's side (which I think was the case in the movie Civil War) and the conservative supreme court backs the right wing president.

Also, it's not a stretch, as you say, for the state's to say they are not responsible for the federal debt (government runs out of money and the system begins to collapse), thus State's less reliant on the Feds move toward secession.

My own sense is the decline and end of emplire has been well underway for 20-25 years (before Trump - he's just a symptom of anger at the decay). So I recommend reading/following former foreign correspondent Chris Hedges (Pulitzer prize winner), and Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Also Joseph Stiglitz.

In the movie, the unnamed President critiques the breakaway forces.

The film opens with the unnamed leader practicing a speech

We are closer than we have ever been to victory. Some are already calling it the greatest victory in the history of military campaigns......Today I can announce that the so-called Western Forces of Texas and California have suffered a very great loss, a very great defeat, at the hands of the fighting men and women of the United States military....The people of Texas and California should know that they will be welcomed back to these United States as soon as their illegal Secessionist government is deposed....I can also confirm that the Florida

Alliance has failed in its attempt to force the brave people of the Carolinas into joining the

insurrection. Citizens of America, we are now closer than ever to a historic victory, as we eliminate the final pocket

Later in the movie, the band of journalists are shown making their way to Washington, in the hope of interviewing an embattled President, and are practicing their questions, which gives a bit more clue about the events leading to that:

Mr President, do you regret any actions implemented during your third term of office?

The response is that is a softballing question, implying events have far progressed beyond that constitutional question. But there is the thought that if a President did decide to run for a third term, and essentially refuse to leave, would that embolden him to take further dodgy actions. Because the more hardballing questions discussed were:

In retrospect, Mr President, do you still think it was wise to disband the FBI?......Sir, how is your policy evolving on the use of air strikes against American civilians?

Could speculate that this fictional President has disbanded the FBI to avoid an investigation, and that he has taken extreme measures against protestors.

Later

The terms of the so-called peace summit could only be rejected, fully rejected, by all right-thinking Americans.....To the Secessionists, I say only this: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. We stand ready to fulfil the promise of our forefathers. To the flag, to the nation, and to God

Still later, as a plot device to show events unfolding, and to further frame what their interview would be

I remain ready to accept the full, immediate, and unconditional surrender of the Secessionist forces...To liberate the people of the subjugated states, and start rebuilding our great nation: the home of free and land of the.....

The film ends with armed uniformed forces, presumably the "Western Alliance", who wear flag flashes with a stylised stars and stripes, but only 2 stars, indicating Florida is not part of this, overrunning the Whitehouse.

The "interview" is brief

The Journalist: Finally face to face with the man....I need a quote.

The President: ... Don't let them kill me!

The Journalist: Yeah, that'll do.

So the Western Forces were likely Constitutionalists, hence their efforts to leapfrog over the midwest (the film shows cgi'd fleets of Chinooks etc) to capture Washington, and depose what they viewed as an illegal President. But the "Florida Alliance" might well point to an actual breakaway, indicating likely conflict is not over.

During the film, there is a grim scene when the journalists come across a group of uniformed men presiding over a mass grave. Its not clear if the men are actual military, or self appointed militia, because their attire isn't exactly full rig, and one of them is wearing those specs you seen only in gun clubs. But it lets us know that Americans are divided because the "soldier" asks them, at the point of a gun, what kind of Americans they are. And then murders the journalist from Hong Kong when he discovers he's not American. The group are forced to recite examples of Americana to prove themselves, such as why Missouri is the Show Me state.

Oh, no. Please don't run, Petey boy. Please, please don't run.

Hegseth being the disingenuous man he is, is hiding under a cloud of DEI, the reality is that he has ransacked the ranks within the Pentagon and diminished the talent dramatically.

Many top generals are leaving of their own free will to protest the decimation of the ranks, and the lack of preparedness that that leaves America facing.

It would be very typical of Trump to pick somebody this malicious this destructive in this incompetent to lead the Department of Defense. No wonder America is getting their butt kicked in Iran, they barely have any talent left, and they have a SEC DEF who would not be qualified to run a department store.

Many of us hope that eventually this man will be tried for war crimes, and locked up for the rest of his sorry, pathetic life.

I fully support Hegseth running. He is just dumb enough and will likely appeal to the turnips who are what's left of MAGA. He would win a plurality in the primaries, which would be enough to get the nomination. He is the prime candidate in Trump 2.0 who could draw the lunatic vote and drive out any sane or rational candidate---if such a candidate even exists in the Republican party. Certainly there are none with vertebrae.

Nationally, the best Hegseth could do is pull maybe 30% of the vote. That would guarantee a Democrat POTUS.

Vance has all the charisma of mold. He would be less popular than Jebb Bush in 2016, except with no ideas on how to run a country (Jebb could have been a decent technocrat). Little Marco is unlikely to be viewed as any more "manly" than Lindsey Graham, so even if he took the nomination, he would be crushed in the general election. I would bet even AOC would beat him, plus take the lion's share of the Hispanic vote.

If Republicans are to have a chance in 2028, they will need both a moderate AND one not tainted with the stench of Trump. A Dem candidate could run adds with video of how each Repub sucked up to Trump like he was Kim Jong-un. That was degrading as it happened, and will look clownish and weak in ads.

1 hour ago, Wingate said:

I fully support Hegseth running. He is just dumb enough and will likely appeal to the turnips who are what's left of MAGA. He would win a plurality in the primaries, which would be enough to get the nomination. He is the prime candidate in Trump 2.0 who could draw the lunatic vote and drive out any sane or rational candidate---if such a candidate even exists in the Republican party. Certainly there are none with vertebrae.

Nationally, the best Hegseth could do is pull maybe 30% of the vote. That would guarantee a Democrat POTUS.

Vance has all the charisma of mold. He would be less popular than Jebb Bush in 2016, except with no ideas on how to run a country (Jebb could have been a decent technocrat). Little Marco is unlikely to be viewed as any more "manly" than Lindsey Graham, so even if he took the nomination, he would be crushed in the general election. I would bet even AOC would beat him, plus take the lion's share of the Hispanic vote.

If Republicans are to have a chance in 2028, they will need both a moderate AND one not tainted with the stench of Trump. A Dem candidate could run adds with video of how each Repub sucked up to Trump like he was Kim Jong-un. That was degrading as it happened, and will look clownish and weak in ads.

Are you suggesting that Hegseth is the Republican equivalent of Kamala Harris?

2 hours ago, temuFarang said:

Are you suggesting that Hegseth is the Republican equivalent of Kamala Harris?

If he is suggesting that then it would be a huge insult to the useless (word salad) Kamala!

2 hours ago, temuFarang said:

Are you suggesting that Hegseth is the Republican equivalent of Kamala Harris?

It may indeed be true when he is liquired up he probable does wear a dress a bit female yes.

Drunk

But his whiteness gets the maga vote every time.

Edited Saturday at 06:24 AM5 days by earlinclaifornia

If he is going to run anywhere, it will be to a MAGA-friendly country when he is out of office.

I'm wondering how the death of Putin would affect DT and the MAGA clown show.

The GOP punters are already trying to distance themselves as good, old fashioned conservatives with family values while tiptoe-ing through the minefield of MAGA slagging. Bill Maher had one on a few weeks ago, Tim Scott: he was clever and personable, but he couldn't wouldn't speak critically of the Great Orange Entity.

Not hearing the name "Don Jr" much in the possibilities. Sure hope that boy isn't depressed.