She didn't really say it was her view, but said -- the "country" she thought "was so exhausted by the battle that they may believe that well maybe its time to turn the page and see if they can get someone who has all Trump's policies who's not Trump."
She is expressing what other people may be thinking. In other words, some people may be thinking of a contingency plan if Trump doesn't run. With all the outrageous stuff we've seen (ie. MAL raid) is it a thought that some people may have?
see if they can get someone who has all Trump's policies who's not Trump.
I've met a few such people and I always call them out to their face. If you like the policies and results but claim that you can't handle the "mean" tweets then you're not actually serious about reforming this country. These normie conservatives sure has hell didn't understand why the tweets are so necessary either.
Ask yourself, who has the best contract of these three people? Ingraham, Hannity, or Carlson?
To me, it's obvious that Carlson does. He joined Fox when their top rating O'Reilly was canned. This was after right after all the sex lawsuits against Fox. Yea, they gave Tucker Carlson a pretty darn good contract to which he wasn't limited to narratives to the degree that the other 2 were.
We know Fox is pushing for DeSantis, so Laura needs to play along. Ingraham, like other females, just don't ever like the "tone" of Trump. My wife says the same thing. But, you know what? They all agree with his policies. To them (including Ingraham) it's just the way he says it though. This happens to be a classic female construct to which they wittingly or unwittingly attack the messenger, but not the message. It's along the same meaningless rational as women voting for the candidate because of his hair, or looks. It's absolutely true. It doesn't matter what era we live in, or the education thereof, women will make small differences larger, and large differences smaller. This is why Thomas Jefferson said -- "Were our State a pure democracy . . .
there would yet be excluded from their deliberations . . . women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men."-- Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval (Sept. 5, 1816), in 10 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 45-46, n. 1 (P. Ford ed. 1899).
She didn't really say it was her view, but said -- the "country" she thought "was so exhausted by the battle that they may believe that well maybe its time to turn the page and see if they can get someone who has all Trump's policies who's not Trump."
She is expressing what other people may be thinking. In other words, some people may be thinking of a contingency plan if Trump doesn't run. With all the outrageous stuff we've seen (ie. MAL raid) is it a thought that some people may have?
I've met a few such people and I always call them out to their face. If you like the policies and results but claim that you can't handle the "mean" tweets then you're not actually serious about reforming this country. These normie conservatives sure has hell didn't understand why the tweets are so necessary either.
yes .... sublty worded and cannot be checked.
Are there people who think so? Sure. I met one the other day. He said he' d rather vote for Christy Noem than Trump .....
But to elevate such to a national debate, while the fight is just heating up?
What would Cippeloni, her godfather say .....
O wait, she made this same argument right after the elections, harping on that Trump is so divisive .....
Ask yourself, who has the best contract of these three people? Ingraham, Hannity, or Carlson?
To me, it's obvious that Carlson does. He joined Fox when their top rating O'Reilly was canned. This was after right after all the sex lawsuits against Fox. Yea, they gave Tucker Carlson a pretty darn good contract to which he wasn't limited to narratives to the degree that the other 2 were.
We know Fox is pushing for DeSantis, so Laura needs to play along. Ingraham, like other females, just don't ever like the "tone" of Trump. My wife says the same thing. But, you know what? They all agree with his policies. To them (including Ingraham) it's just the way he says it though. This happens to be a classic female construct to which they wittingly or unwittingly attack the messenger, but not the message. It's along the same meaningless rational as women voting for the candidate because of his hair, or looks. It's absolutely true. It doesn't matter what era we live in, or the education thereof, women will make small differences larger, and large differences smaller. This is why Thomas Jefferson said -- "Were our State a pure democracy . . . there would yet be excluded from their deliberations . . . women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men."-- Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval (Sept. 5, 1816), in 10 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 45-46, n. 1 (P. Ford ed. 1899).
Being on Fox is a real challenge ....
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=q3lCfHtaR30
Frustration is killing ....
Look no further than Justin Trudeau.