Vance vs Newsom ??

At the moment - Veep Vance and Gov Newsom are leading for their parties for the nomination of POTUS.

Would you say that those two have a good chance of being the nominees.

Who else do you think could be?
Who do you think will not even come close ?

The nomination race will get going in 2026 - and will heat up in 2027

At the moment - the primary is scheduled for 1 Feb 28 (NY & NV)

Other potential candidates

Salty said:

At the moment - Veep Vance and Gov Newsom are leading for their parties for the nomination of POTUS.

Would you say that those two have a good chance of being the nominees.

Who else do you think could be?
Who do you think will not even come close ?

The nomination race will get going in 2026 - and will heat up in 2027

At the moment - the primary is scheduled for 1 Feb 28 (NY & NV)

Other potential candidates

Click to expand...

I hope it isn't Vance.
Vance seems o.k.

The right option would be my epically awesome Guvna' Ron Desantis.
Desantis just signed into law the Death penalty for child molesters and other rapists.

I am 100% on board.

Desantis ran in 2024 and I wish he hadn't, because he is a righteous and principled conservative....and Trump spent no time destroying him because he is a man of personal ambition and doesn't care if it damages the future of the party to destroy an up and coming hero like DeSantis if it means his own personal self-aggrandisement.
I knew that was a bad decision because Trump (who is a whirlwind of destruction and a personality cult) destroyed the prospect of someone amazing like DeSantis for the future.
Trump destroys principled Conservatives.
Trump embraces only those in his individual personality cult.

That is the problem with Trump.
He isn't a "movement" he's a man.
We'll probably be stuck with Vance, and that seems o.k. so far.

Newsom is charismatic and a weasel. He will attempt to present himself as a “moderate” though he’s clearly one of the most liberal politicians in the country. He might be able to get the nomination. Kamala will make a run and she could get some traction as the last vp and pres candidate. A lot of people might want to prove the critics wrong about her. There are a couple of governors that are good speakers.

I tend to think someone not yet on the radar for Dems might be the best choice. Someone without a clear record and a smooth delivery.

Vance is an impressive communicator and has done a good job as Veep, so he’s the favorite, imo, for the repubs

I like Pence, but he has no future in elected office. DeSantis is impressive. Rubio has been excellent as Sec of State and would make a good run. Sanders in Arkansas is doing a good job and would make a good vp pick.

I think the Repubs have a good solid group to choose from. The Dems may be a little chaotic.

If the Dems win back the house (probable) and senate (possible) next year, the entire landscape will change, I think.

Peace to you

I think Newson would be an incompetent nightmare.

Vance, Trump's yes-man, despises people like me with no children. He has said more than once that "people with no children have no vested interest in this country" and that "we should NEVER vote for someone with no children." He believes that childess women are more "sociopathic" and have made the country "less mentally stable". That trickled into the MAGA movement. Tucker Carlson completely agrees with him.

And Clay Travis, the radio guy, said that conservative women will NEVER vote for a childless woman, because conservative women don't like childless women.

I was driving in my car when I heard that one and cried and cried for 20 minutes. I didn't even have enough presence of mind to pull over.

It will either be Newson or Vance and either way, I'll just have to suck it up for 8 years.

Some Rando said:

The right option would be my epically awesome Guvna' Ron Desantis.
Desantis just signed into law the Death penalty for child molesters and other rapists.

Click to expand...

I have started a new thread on this subject:

Some Rando said:

The right option would be my epically awesome Guvna' Ron Desantis.

Click to expand...

I preferred DeSantis over Trump in 2024 and prefer him over Vance in 2028.

Scarlett O. said:

I think Newson would be an incompetent nightmare.

Vance, Trump's yes-man, despises people like me with no children. He has said more than once that "people with no children have no vested interest in this country" and that "we should NEVER vote for someone with no children." He believes that childess women are more "sociopathic" and have made the country "less mentally stable". That trickled into the MAGA movement. Tucker Carlson completely agrees with him.

And Clay Travis, the radio guy, said that conservative women will NEVER vote for a childless woman, because conservative women don't like childless women.

I was driving in my car when I heard that one and cried and cried for 20 minutes. I didn't even have enough presence of mind to pull over.

It will either be Newson or Vance and either way, I'll just have to suck it up for 8 years.

Click to expand...

I am stunned they would say those things! Did you hear them yourself or was someone reporting they said it? I’m absolutely stunned and sickened such cowpie came from their mouths.

This is heartbreaking.

Peace to you

canadyjd said:

I am stunned they would say those things! Did you hear them yourself or was someone reporting they said it? I’m absolutely stunned and sickened such cowpie came from their mouths.

This is heartbreaking.

Peace to you

Click to expand...

I heard Clay Travis on the radio and saw the interview with Vance/Tucker Carlson.

Scarlett O. said:

Vance, Trump's yes-man, despises people like me with no children. He has said more than once that "people with no children have no vested interest in this country" and that "we should NEVER vote for someone with no children."

Click to expand...

That’s disappointing if he said that. Shaming people who don’t/can’t have children seems to be a new trend in this country.

It’s seems more than shaming. Claiming people won’t vote for woman that never had children is sickening.

First, they don’t know who people will vote for. If the right woman came along, was charismatic and had great ideas, she would get the votes.

Peace to you

canadyjd said:

It’s seems more than shaming. Claiming people won’t vote for woman that never had children is sickening.

First, they don’t know who people will vote for. If the right woman came along, was charismatic and had great ideas, she would get the votes.

Click to expand...

There are some who would never vote for a women because
A) The Bible says a woman is not to have authority over a man
and/or
B) Women are too emotional

canadyjd said:

It’s seems more than shaming. Claiming people won’t vote for woman that never had children is sickening.

First, they don’t know who people will vote for. If the right woman came along, was charismatic and had great ideas, she would get the votes.

Peace to you

Click to expand...

I’m not fully invested in this conversation. I don’t know everything that everyone is talking about. But…
I would not vote for a lot of women who reject the way God made them.
This may not be what people are talking about here but I think it is relevant.
If you don’t accept the “patriarchal” norms and you think the woman should be the provider and protector of the home, you have about as much common sense as people who think transgenders are okay in women’s sports.
This is a general statement. I understand that there are cases where the husband is physically incapable of filling the traditional responsibilities God has given to him. That is the exception and not the rule.

The woman who devalues men because she wants to be equal doesn’t have a good biblical perspective at all. In that case, no, I wouldn’t support her as a candidate.
It is hard to have these kinds of conversations. There is always a nuanced position that is the exception.
I’m not in favor of single mothers. But that doesn’t mean that I am against them. It’s not okay to have children when you are not married. Are there exceptions to this? Enter the nuances. Is a single mother a sinner because her husband died in a car accident, or died defending his country?
This is clearly not part of the conversation, but people will be uncomfortable or offended because their husband died and they are a single mother. It is unreasonable to assume that everyone is against a single mother.

Is that what is happening on this thread? I don’t really know. But I suspect it is. I would be surprised if those people who are “against women” are actually upset about women without children who have no control over the situation. What I actually think is that there are a lot of women out there who make their choices known in an arrogant way on the internet and do as much as say that they are not happy with the way God made them. They don’t follow cultural norms (and I mean normal. Transgender is not the way God made people and is not normal.) They are basically saying that they don’t care about anyone else and that they are looking out for their own interests.
I think that these are the people being discussed and I would not like voting for a man who was only looking out for his own interests either. If I’m voting for someone, I want them to at least acknowledge that the position they want is supposed to watch out for my interests.

Ben1445 said:

I’m not fully invested in this conversation. I don’t know everything that everyone is talking about. But…
I would not vote for a lot of women who reject the way God made them.
This may not be what people are talking about here but I think it is relevant.
If you don’t accept the “patriarchal” norms and you think the woman should be the provider and protector of the home, you have about as much common sense as people who think transgenders are okay in women’s sports.
This is a general statement. I understand that there are cases where the husband is physically incapable of filling the traditional responsibilities God has given to him. That is the exception and not the rule.

The woman who devalues men because she wants to be equal doesn’t have a good biblical perspective at all. In that case, no, I wouldn’t support her as a candidate.
It is hard to have these kinds of conversations. There is always a nuanced position that is the exception.
I’m not in favor of single mothers. But that doesn’t mean that I am against them. It’s not okay to have children when you are not married. Are there exceptions to this? Enter the nuances. Is a single mother a sinner because her husband died in a car accident, or died defending his country?
This is clearly not part of the conversation, but people will be uncomfortable or offended because their husband died and they are a single mother. It is unreasonable to assume that everyone is against a single mother.

Is that what is happening on this thread? I don’t really know. But I suspect it is. I would be surprised if those people who are “against women” are actually upset about women without children who have no control over the situation. What I actually think is that there are a lot of women out there who make their choices known in an arrogant way on the internet and do as much as say that they are not happy with the way God made them. They don’t follow cultural norms (and I mean normal. Transgender is not the way God made people and is not normal.) They are basically saying that they don’t care about anyone else and that they are looking out for their own interests.
I think that these are the people being discussed and I would not like voting for a man who was only looking out for his own interests either. If I’m voting for someone, I want them to at least acknowledge that the position they want is supposed to watch out for my interests.

Click to expand...

Well, none of this is what I am talking about.

I am very happy to be a woman. I don't boast in it nor whine about it. God made me that way and in His plan, I am happy. I am not happy, but moderately content, to be a woman that God gave no children to. Holidays are a nightmare and very, very lonely. Many women cannot have children, lost their children, and more.

How do you think I felt when I heard the Vice-President speak of his opinions and beliefs about childless women? And I didn't even talk about his "non"-apology where he tells the interviewer that he was just joking and using sarcasm. [He was not.] And that the only thing he regrets is how people "took what he said".

I'm just sorry I even brought this up.

Scarlett O. said:

Well, none of this is what I am talking about.

I am very happy to be a woman. I don't boast in it nor whine about it. God made me that way and in His plan, I am happy. I am not happy, but moderately content, to be a woman that God gave no children to. Holidays are a nightmare and very, very lonely. Many women cannot have children, lost their children, and more.

How do you think I felt when I heard the Vice-President speak of his opinions and beliefs about childless women? And I didn't even talk about his "non"-apology where he tells the interviewer that he was just joking and using sarcasm. [He was not.] And that the only thing he regrets is how people "took what he said".

I'm just sorry I even brought this up.

Click to expand...

I suppose what I was trying to say, and must not have very well, is that I don’t think that they were referring to you.
I haven’t listened to the interviews and am not likely to go back and find them.
I generally assume better of people and try to understand that they don’t understand.
But I don’t think it is helpful to assume people think badly of you. God knows your situation and you are His. No one else has any authority to judge your situation. This is clearly a different situation than what I presume was intended to be discussed. People tend to speak in broad brush terminology. Some times people splash their paint where they don’t mean for it to go. Best case scenario for someone with paint they don’t deserve is to forgive the messy painter and move on.
When we take offense to what politicians say, who are not naming us specifically because they don’t really know we exist, we are hurting only ourselves.
I am sorry for your hurt. I am sorry if I have offended you. It has not been my intention. My only intention is to help people give room for others mistakes as we want room for our own mistakes and to remind ourselves that God is able to provide for all of our cares. Give the matter to Christ. He cares for you.

Ben1445 said:

I suppose what I was trying to say, and must not have very well, is that I don’t think that they were referring to you.
I haven’t listened to the interviews and am not likely to go back and find them.
I generally assume better of people and try to understand that they don’t understand.
But I don’t think it is helpful to assume people think badly of you. God knows your situation and you are His. No one else has any authority to judge your situation. This is clearly a different situation than what I presume was intended to be discussed. People tend to speak in broad brush terminology. Some times people splash their paint where they don’t mean for it to go. Best case scenario for someone with paint they don’t deserve is to forgive the messy painter and move on.
When we take offense to what politicians say, who are not naming us specifically because they don’t really know we exist, we are hurting only ourselves.
I am sorry for your hurt. I am sorry if I have offended you. It has not been my intention. My only intention is to help people give room for others mistakes as we want room for our own mistakes and to remind ourselves that God is able to provide for all of our cares. Give the matter to Christ. He cares for you.

Click to expand...

That's what people have told me. "He's not talking to you nor about you. Just get over it" I didn't know how else how to take it nor his non-apology where he said he was just joking and using sarcasm and he only regretted that people took him the wrong way,

I know the Bible says that it is to a "man's glory to overlook an offense". The Bible rarely speaks of humanity's glory as we are sinful. And I have always believed this verse and tried to take it to heart knowing full well that I have a mouth, myself.

But some days.....it's just crushingly harder than others.

Ben1445 said:

I’m not fully invested in this conversation. I don’t know everything that everyone is talking about. But…
I would not vote for a lot of women who reject the way God made them.
This may not be what people are talking about here but I think it is relevant.
If you don’t accept the “patriarchal” norms and you think the woman should be the provider and protector of the home, you have about as much common sense as people who think transgenders are okay in women’s sports.
This is a general statement. I understand that there are cases where the husband is physically incapable of filling the traditional responsibilities God has given to him. That is the exception and not the rule.

The woman who devalues men because she wants to be equal doesn’t have a good biblical perspective at all. In that case, no, I wouldn’t support her as a candidate.
It is hard to have these kinds of conversations. There is always a nuanced position that is the exception.
I’m not in favor of single mothers. But that doesn’t mean that I am against them. It’s not okay to have children when you are not married. Are there exceptions to this? Enter the nuances. Is a single mother a sinner because her husband died in a car accident, or died defending his country?
This is clearly not part of the conversation, but people will be uncomfortable or offended because their husband died and they are a single mother. It is unreasonable to assume that everyone is against a single mother.

Is that what is happening on this thread? I don’t really know. But I suspect it is. I would be surprised if those people who are “against women” are actually upset about women without children who have no control over the situation. What I actually think is that there are a lot of women out there who make their choices known in an arrogant way on the internet and do as much as say that they are not happy with the way God made them. They don’t follow cultural norms (and I mean normal. Transgender is not the way God made people and is not normal.) They are basically saying that they don’t care about anyone else and that they are looking out for their own interests.
I think that these are the people being discussed and I would not like voting for a man who was only looking out for his own interests either. If I’m voting for someone, I want them to at least acknowledge that the position they want is supposed to watch out for my interests.

Click to expand...

The comment was made that Vance had said voters would not vote for a woman that did not have children. That is a sickening comment imo.

The biblical prohibition against women having authority (or teaching) men applies to the church ONLY.

I do understand there are many that would never vote for a woman (or minority, or disabled, or a veteran, or a conservative or a democrat), no matter how much they agreed with their policies or how much they would help the country.

Peace to you

Looks like Scarlett O beat me to it.

Don’t be sorry you brought it up. It’s a good conversation that reveals many things about who we are and why we do the things we do

Peace to you

Scarlett O. said:

I heard Clay Travis on the radio and saw the interview with Vance/Tucker Carlson.

Click to expand...

That's why someone decent and sane should represent the Conservatives like Ron DeSantis and not a cultish socio-path like Trump.

Scarlett O. said:

Well, none of this is what I am talking about.

I am very happy to be a woman. I don't boast in it nor whine about it. God made me that way and in His plan, I am happy. I am not happy, but moderately content, to be a woman that God gave no children to.

Click to expand...

Vance is not actually referring to you, he's attacking modern feminists who find themselves at 35-40 years old who chased career and being "girl-boss" and never had time for family.
It's a fair critique, but, since he's born-again conservative 10 seconds ago, (like Trump) he's too stupid to make a distinction.

Holidays are a nightmare and very, very lonely. Many women cannot have children, lost their children, and more.

Click to expand...

He's too stupid to know the difference.
He isn't actually referring to "REAL" people like yourself, he's referring only to 40-year-old "girl-bosses" who abandoned family and children and is pointing out the sickness and lonli-ness it brought an entire generation of women who are not only without children, but also without husband, or even basic prospect of family

How do you think I felt when I heard the Vice-President speak of his opinions and beliefs about childless women?

Click to expand...

He didn't actually mean you.
He wasn't referring to your situation.
He thought he was referring to third-wave feminists (which he is right to critique).
But, he's a Trump sycophant, so, his only understanding of the issue is at best skin-deep (like Trumps)

And I didn't even talk about his "non"-apology where he tells the interviewer that he was just joking and using sarcasm. [He was not.]

Click to expand...

Correct, he wasn't.
It wasn't a "joke".
He's a Trump Sycophant.
He's on the right track, but, he's too stupid to know why.......like Trump....On the right track, but too stupid to know why.
Also, decent people like yourself are left out of the conversation because Vance doesn't know how to think about you.

This is because Vance isn't a real conservative.
This is because Trump isn't a real conservative.
This is because MAGA isn't real conservativism.....

MAGA is divorced from any but the most one-dimensional Philosophical and Theological moorings....

MAGA is an attitude. Not a thought process.

And that the only thing he regrets is how people "took what he said".

Click to expand...

Yeah:
He's (rightfully) against third-wave-feminist propoganda (and propogandists) and he knows that it has resulted in a generation of tens of millions of 40-year-old lonely "girl-bosses" who are unmarried, childless, and lonely. He isn't referring to decent godly Christian women who have no children for different reasons.
He isn't strictly speaking wrong, and he isn't trying to be cruel.
He's just stupid.

He's stupid because he's been a "Christian" for about 15 seconds.
He's stupid because he's been a "Catholic" for about 15 seconds.
He's like Trump because Trump has (allegedly) been a "Christian" for about 15 seconds.

Meaning: They have no deeply-centered or robust Philosophical and Theological construct for why they believe what they claim to believe.

Ron DeSantis was a real option.............
and Republicans are idiots who ALWAYS make the wrong choice.

Some Rando said:

Ron DeSantis was a real option.............
and Republicans are idiots who ALWAYS make the wrong choice.

Click to expand...

So, Rando, just curious who did you vote for in 2016, 2020 and 2024?