2024 GOP Presidential Race (formerly Can DeSantis overcome Trump?) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Many of Trump's endorsed candidates did not do well on Nov. 8th.
*
Gov. Ron DeSantis DID do well.
He won convincingly.
Yet in this OP's opinion, Donald Trump is an egomaniac who is seemingly incapable of putting "Party over Self"
Trump has ZERO chance of being elected our next president.
In my opinion, if Trump would just shut up and go away (fat chance of that)...but "if" Trump did that, Gov. Ron DeSantis would have a CHANCE to be a formidable candidate for President in 2024.
Here is an interesting article on this topic...

Donald Trump warns Ron DeSantis against 2024 presidential bid as Republican rising star wins big

Donald Trump has warned Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis against running for president in 2024, saying doing so would harm the Republican Party.

www.scotsman.com

*
*
What do any of you think re. Trump vs DeSantis?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

I get all that. But what I don’t get is that people who identify themselves as conservative can look at what DeSantis has done in FL, which is very much big government interference in people’s lives, and say “yep, this is what I want”. This seems to go against almost all conservative principles.

And then add in the naked cronyism - how his donors are being given preferential treatment at a level that is far exceeding what a normal politician will try to get away with.

I guess him hurting people who don’t agree with them is more important than conservative values. I honestly don’t know what else could be the reason for supporting what DeSantis is doing.

Wow you have some good points! I wish I had more time to reflect and respond. I have such a busy day at school today. Maybe tonight I can reread your post and give a proper response.

 

[SFIDC3]

I get all that. But what I don’t get is that people who identify themselves as conservative can look at what DeSantis has done in FL, which is very much big government interference in people’s lives, and say “yep, this is what I want”. This seems to go against almost all conservative principles.

And then add in the naked cronyism - how his donors are being given preferential treatment at a level that is far exceeding what a normal politician will try to get away with.

I guess him hurting people who don’t agree with them is more important than conservative values. I honestly don’t know what else could be the reason for supporting what DeSantis is doing.

He is trying to out culture war Trump, which in my guess, is the only way he thinks he can win. To call DeSantis a "conservative" one would have to change the definition of conservative.....he is a wannabe tinpot dictator just like Trump, under a different disguise....

For whatever reason, lots of folks who claim to be conservative love him.....it's utter insanity.....

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

He is trying to out culture war Trump, which in my guess, is the only way he thinks he can win. To call DeSantis a "conservative" one would have to change the definition of conservative.....he is a wannabe tinpot dictator just like Trump, under a different disguise....

For whatever reason, lots of folks who claim to be conservative love him.....it's utter insanity.....

Note to self...@SteveSBrickNJ..combine tonight's response to @SFIDC3 w/ my response to @MT15
*
*
LOL...the system won't let me @ myself

 

[Optimus Prime]

TALLAHASSEE – Gov. Ron DeSantis opened the 2023 legislative session Tuesday by declaring that while he has pushed Florida onto controversial, conservative ground over the past four years, he is determined to shift the state even further right in coming weeks.

Speaking to a House chamber crowded with lawmakers – DeSantis' State of the State address was structured to echo far beyond the state Capitol, in advance of his expected bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

“We find ourselves in Florida on the front lines in the battle for freedom,” DeSantis said in his 30-minute speech. “Together, we have made Florida the nation’s most desired destination and we have produced historic results.”

After running through highlights of his first term – fighting COVID-19 vaccine mandates, pushing parental rights in schools and blunting migrants from staying in the state – DeSantis pledged that more is to come.

“Now’s not the time to rest on our laurels. We have the opportunity and indeed the responsibility, to swing for the fences,” he said, telling the Republican-controlled Legislature, “Don’t worry about the chattering class.”

“I can promise you this, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” the governor concluded............

With eye on 2024, anti-woke Gov. DeSantis tells FL lawmakers: 'you ain't seen nothing yet'

 

[coldseat]

TALLAHASSEE – Gov. Ron DeSantis opened the 2023 legislative session Tuesday by declaring that while he has pushed Florida onto controversial, conservative ground over the past four years, he is determined to shift the state even further right in coming weeks.

Speaking to a House chamber crowded with lawmakers – DeSantis' State of the State address was structured to echo far beyond the state Capitol, in advance of his expected bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

“We find ourselves in Florida on the front lines in the battle for freedom,” DeSantis said in his 30-minute speech. “Together, we have made Florida the nation’s most desired destination and we have produced historic results.”

After running through highlights of his first term – fighting COVID-19 vaccine mandates, pushing parental rights in schools and blunting migrants from staying in the state – DeSantis pledged that more is to come.

“Now’s not the time to rest on our laurels. We have the opportunity and indeed the responsibility, to swing for the fences,” he said, telling the Republican-controlled Legislature, “Don’t worry about the chattering class.”

“I can promise you this, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” the governor concluded............

With eye on 2024, anti-woke Gov. DeSantis tells FL lawmakers: 'you ain't seen nothing yet'

I wonder if any of those Cubans in Miami are having buyers remorse? Or are they loving what they're getting out of DeSantis?

My sister lives in Florida and really wants to get out.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Wow you have some good points! I wish I had more time to reflect and respond. I have such a busy day at school today. Maybe tonight I can reread your post and give a proper response.

I get all that. But what I don’t get is that people who identify themselves as conservative can look at what DeSantis has done in FL, which is very much big government interference in people’s lives, and say “yep, this is what I want”. This seems to go against almost all conservative principles.

And then add in the naked cronyism - how his donors are being given preferential treatment at a level that is far exceeding what a normal politician will try to get away with.

I guess him hurting people who don’t agree with them is more important than conservative values. I honestly don’t know what else could be the reason for supporting what DeSantis is doing.

Conservatives mostly want the free market to be unencumbered.
Conservatives mostly SHOULD want to not expand government spending and not do anything to raise the taxes.
Anti-woke Republicans are a relatively new thing and it gets tricky for me to separate out those anti-woke issues from historically traditional conservative stuff.
It is my impression that numerous previous Governors and US Presidents have given people they've known and trusted positions in their administration or sometimes other desirable placements.
I'm not really turned off by DeSantis doing that.
I wish he would not try sooo hard to push the limit on how anti woke he can be.
I'm not liking that. I'd like him to focus on how he'd govern differently than Biden and why that would be good for our country. Yet....since Florida law has not yet been changed, DeSantis can't currently declare himself a candidate for President...thus my hope for where his talking points will focus will have to wait. Probably he'll declare in May.
DeSantis is my best hope to prevent Trump from gaining the nomination, I'm sticking with DeSantis for now. @SFIDC3

 

[MT15]

Anti-woke is all he is, Steve. I’m not seeing a whole lot else.

 

[Taurus]

Conservatives mostly want the free market to be unencumbered.
Conservatives mostly SHOULD want to not expand government spending and not do anything to raise the taxes.
Anti-woke Republicans are a relatively new thing and it gets tricky for me to separate out those anti-woke issues from historically traditional conservative stuff.
It is my impression that numerous previous Governors and US Presidents have given people they've known and trusted positions in their administration or sometimes other desirable placements.
I'm not really turned off by DeSantis doing that.
I wish he would not try sooo hard to push the limit on how anti woke he can be.
I'm not liking that. I'd like him to focus on how he'd govern differently than Biden and why that would be good for our country. Yet....since Florida law has not yet been changed, DeSantis can't currently declare himself a candidate for President...thus my hope for where his talking points will focus will have to wait. Probably he'll declare in May.
DeSantis is my best hope to prevent Trump from gaining the nomination, I'm sticking with DeSantis for now. @SFIDC3

@SteveSBrickNJ
While there is no Left in America politics, it's also clear that there's no Conservative party, either.

A party whose official position on religion is "no comment"
Who doesn't care and won't spend a dime to police your bedroom habits.
That takes an investment based approach to spending.
That acts on government's role as a referee between corporate and living citizens.
That believes some regulations are obviously in the public good.
That seeks to slow and think through social change as opposed to rolling it back fifty years at a go.

That party doesn't exist and it's a damn shame. Because we need it.

 

[brandon]

@SteveSBrickNJ
While there is no Left in America politics, it's also clear that there's no Conservative party, either.

A party whose official position on religion is "no comment"
Who doesn't care and won't spend a dime to police your bedroom habits.
That takes an investment based approach to spending.
That acts on government's role as a referee between corporate and living citizens.
That believes some regulations are obviously in the public good.
That seeks to slow and think through social change as opposed to rolling it back fifty years at a go.

That party doesn't exist and it's a damn shame. Because we need it.

Homie that’s literally the Democratic Party.

 

[Taurus]

Homie that’s literally the Democratic Party.

Almost.

The Dems want to oversee my diet and hassle me about putting in a gas stove.

But in many ways you're right. The Democrats are the closest thing we have to a Conservative party.

What we have in America is a center-right, quasi conservative party and a gang of knee-jerk reactionaries who just want to burn it all down because governing is hard, y'all.

 

[MT15]

BTW - I opted for the induction range. Getting a Bosch 30” slide in. Turns out my 30 yo electric range had what they called at the time a “down draft” exhaust fan - so no overhead hood and it’s in an island, so not easy to add one. There is exactly one gas stove model that can use that exhaust option, a KitchenAid, so I went with induction. Moving it to the wall nearby and putting in a OTR microwave with a hood fan. Ordered them today.

 

[Taurus]

BTW - I opted for the induction range. Getting a Bosch 30” slide in. Turns out my 30 yo electric range had what they called at the time a “down draft” exhaust fan - so no overhead hood and it’s in an island, so not easy to add one. There is exactly one gas stove model that can use that exhaust option, a KitchenAid, so I went with induction. Moving it to the wall nearby and putting in a OTR microwave with a hood fan. Ordered them today.

Nice!

 

[brandon]

The Dems want to oversee my diet

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

hassle me about putting in a gas stove.

This sort of regulation to protect people from unnecessary poisoning will force stove technology makers to make non-gas stoves equivalent in cooking ability to gas stoves, which will also help protect the environment.

Are you also an advocate for asbestos insulation and lead paint, or are you mad at Dems for taking those away, too?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Anti-woke is all he is, Steve. I’m not seeing a whole lot else.

Well IF he ever campaigns in Ohio and PA he(as you know) will need something else.

 

[Taurus]

I have no idea what you're referring to here.


This sort of regulation to protect people from unnecessary poisoning will force stove technology makers to make non-gas stoves equivalent in cooking ability to gas stoves, which will also help protect the environment.

Are you also an advocate for asbestos insulation and lead paint, or are you mad at Dems for taking those away, too?

I don't buy the idea that gas stoves are all that dangerous. The process of cooking produces fumes of various sorts, if you don't ventilate you can get a buildup. It doesn't matter what kind of fuel the hobs use.

When induction cooktops are equal in performance to gas, we can talk. Right now there's reasons to prefer gas, as I described above.
If anything, they ought to be coming down on the installation of radiant and resistant-coil stoves. Those things are godawful by any metric you choose.

It's sort of like the switch to LED lights and away from incandescent. When LEDs were $20 each, it wasn't a good idea. Now that I can get a box of 'em for $20 that'll fit in the same sockets and last for years? It's a great idea.

I'm also not a fan of the way Dems like to handle gun control. Making someone a criminal overnight just because they own a high-capacity magazine or particular kind of firearm, not to mention asking gun owners to justify themselves rankles me. Like when they floated the idea that if you're on the No-Fly List you shouldn't be allowed to buy a firearm. That's preposterous. There's no way they'd support taking away the right to vote, for instance, based on such a flimsy, opaque process. Why suggest it for a different Constitutional right?

There are many ways the Democrat party deviates from my ideal, but they're so many orders of magnitude preferable to the insane, craven cesspool the GOP has become that it's literally not funny.

 

[MT15]

Well IF he ever campaigns in Ohio and PA he(as you know) will need something else.

Yes, in PA he will for sure. I think that works pretty well in Ohio due to the fact that they elected JD Vance over a perfectly moderate Dem with a lot of House experience.

 

[brandon]

I don't buy the idea that gas stoves are all that dangerous. The process of cooking produces fumes of various sorts, if you don't ventilate you can get a buildup. It doesn't matter what kind of fuel the hobs use.

Much of the issue is that research shows that gas stoves continue to release fumes even when they're off.

When induction cooktops are equal in performance to gas, we can talk. Right now there's reasons to prefer gas, as I described above.

As someone who does a lot of cooking, I absolutely agree that gas is preferable to electric/induction in terms of cooking effectiveness. However, this ties into the next point - when the government begins phasing gas stoves out, stove makers will invest much more into R&D to ensure they are competitive in the market by making an electric/induction/whatever-technology stove that cooks as effectively as the gas stoves that were removed.

It's sort of like the switch to LED lights and away from incandescent. When LEDs were $20 each, it wasn't a good idea. Now that I can get a box of 'em for $20 that'll fit in the same sockets and last for years? It's a great idea.

It was always a great idea. But manufacturers weren't incentivized to make LED production and cost-reduction a priority while incandescents were allowed to exist in the market. Once incandescents were removed as a low-cost option, manufacturers had to figure out how to compete for the low-cost bulb market, and they did by improving technology and reducing cost. The same thing will happen with gas stoves.

I'm also not a fan of the way Dems like to handle gun control. Making someone a criminal overnight just because they own a high-capacity magazine or particular kind of firearm, not to mention asking gun owners to justify themselves rankles me.

No one needs high-capacity magazines for anything other than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. No one needs semi-automatic weapons for anything other than killing a lot of people (OR WILD HOGS OMGLOL) in a short amount of time.

Gun owners don't need to justify themselves. They need to stop killing people.

Like when they floated the idea that if you're on the No-Fly List you shouldn't be allowed to buy a firearm. That's preposterous. There's no way they'd support taking away the right to vote, for instance, based on such a flimsy, opaque process. Why suggest it for a different Constitutional right?

The No-Fly list implies you are potentially dangerous, so giving you a weapon seems like a bad idea as compared to giving you a ballot.

 

[Taurus]

Much of the issue is that research shows that gas stoves continue to release fumes even when they're off.


As someone who does a lot of cooking, I absolutely agree that gas is preferable to electric/induction in terms of cooking effectiveness. However, this ties into the next point - when the government begins phasing gas stoves out, stove makers will invest much more into R&D to ensure they are competitive in the market by making an electric/induction/whatever-technology stove that cooks as effectively as the gas stoves that were removed.


It was always a great idea. But manufacturers weren't incentivized to make LED production and cost-reduction a priority while incandescents were allowed to exist in the market. Once incandescents were removed as a low-cost option, manufacturers had to figure out how to compete for the low-cost bulb market, and they did by improving technology and reducing cost. The same thing will happen with gas stoves.


No one needs high-capacity magazines for anything other than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. No one needs semi-automatic weapons for anything other than killing a lot of people (OR WILD HOGS OMGLOL) in a short amount of time.

Gun owners don't need to justify themselves. They need to stop killing people.


The No-Fly list implies you are potentially dangerous, so giving you a weapon seems like a bad idea as compared to giving you a ballot.

I don't need to justify going (or not) to church, don't need to justify voting or exercising any of my other rights. Bearing arms is no different. As for high-capacity magazines, you're missing my point. I have a .22 with a built-in 14 round magazine. It's technically illegal now in Oregon. Making it more difficult to be a law-abiding citizen isn't the right answer. It's just hasslement that people resent. Cutting off commercial production of such magazines will tend to make them more rare, while acknowledging the fact that you can create your own or just hide them...a lot like making your own booze. You can do it, but it's a PITA.
For my money, magazine capacity is a red herring. The real target should be the production of semi-auto long rifles. Anything with a barrel over 12" that cycles the next round by pulling the trigger on the first, without some manual intermediary step, like racking a pump, working a bolt or lever, etc. Banning such weapons won't stop some maniac with a bullpup, but said maniac won't be able to sit in a hotel window and cause hundreds of casualties at 400 yards, either.
Also, feral pigs are no joke, they cost a lot of money to ranchers and farmers and if you want rural buy-in on anything involving the AR platform, you're going to need to give those guys a way to deal with 'em. I think it'd be useful to have the armed forces train against them. Get Farmer Joe's permission and have a squad spend a few nights hunting Squeal Team Six in a live-ammo exercise.

At any rate, rendering someone's possession illegal overnight without some kind of buyback or replacement program isn't a big-C Conservative thing to do. Which is my original point. The Democrat party isn't a one-for-one replacement for a sane Conservative party. They're still the Democrats.