Did you ever think that former President Donald Trump and infamous rapper Tupac would be compared to one another?
Watch Amanda explain the latest developments below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – During his recent NBC interview, former president Donald Trump called Florida’s recently passed six-week abortion ban “terrible.” The ban was signed into law by his 2024 Republican campaign rival Florida governor Ron DeSantis.
Trump believes that picking six weeks as the line to draw for abortion banning is not politically viable nationally. He argued that both liberals and conservatives should agree on a compromise solution — a compromise number of weeks.
And to clarify, Trump said the six-week ban was: “terrible. A terrible mistake.”
He was saying that, politically, passing a six-week ban was a mistake, because it charges up the pro-abortion activists, and alienates moderate women needed to win nationally.
Like it or not, exit polls in 2022 showed that the rush to ban abortions outright by some states just after Roe vs Wade was reversed, scared away a lot of independents and moderate suburban women, contributing to the extremely weak results for Republicans in the last midterm elections.
Trump, the ever-ready wheeler dealer, also predicted that: “both sides are going to like me,” adding, “What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months, you’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy.”
Here I think Trump made a terrible choice of words. You don’t want the left to like you, even if you are trying to disarm them. But that’s the way he thinks and speaks.
The former president also said that he would be “a mediator” between both sides to come up with a policy that is “good for everybody.”
I take that to mean a compromise timeline on the number of weeks for banning abortion nationwide, and what exceptions to make.
Some pro-lifers immediately bashed Trump for his comments. The Christian Post reported on the backlash:
Trump’s criticism of Florida’s law that bans abortion once a heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks of gestation, did not sit well with pro-life activists
Lila Rose, the founder and president of the pro-life group Live Action, took to X to describe the former president’s remarks as “pathetic and unacceptable.”
“Trump is actively attacking the very pro-life laws made possible by Roe’s overturning,” Rose wrote. “Heartbeat Laws have saved thousands of babies. But Trump wants to compromise on babies’ lives so pro-abort Dems ‘like him.'”
And then there was conservative culture warrior Matthew Walsh, with whom I usually agree, who called Trump’s remarks as “an awful answer from a moral perspective” and “also stupid politically.”
In his post on X (formerly Twitter) Walsh said that “there is no compromise on abortion that everyone will like.”
“It’s delusional to think otherwise. And contrary to Trump’s claims, almost all Democrats are indeed extreme on this issue,” he added. “You will be hard pressed to find more than maybe two or three on the national stage who don’t want abortion until birth or beyond. You can’t win over Democrats by going squishy on this issue. Republicans have tried that brilliant strategy for decades and accomplished exactly nothing by it.”
But is Trump wrong?
A six-week ban based on a fetal heartbeat sounds very reasonable to me. And is fine for Florida.
But I know that won’t wash with many other folks across the country who aren’t extreme but prefer another timeline for banning abortion. GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who is staunchly pro-life, doesn’t believe a 15-week national ban is realistic either.
As governor of South Carolina, Haley signed a 20-week ban, joining 12 other states back then with bans.
Polls have shown that many, if not most, Democrats believe in some restrictions on abortion. Most, if not all Republicans will make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Many would be happy with any reasonable ban, whether six, eight or ten weeks.
And Trump isn’t the only one who argues that taking a strident no compromise stance on abortion will hurt Republicans nationally. As the Christian Science Monitor reported:
At a closed-door conference meeting in the Capitol earlier this month, a super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave Senate Republicans a briefing that seemed intended to serve as a wake-up call. The Dobbs decision has “recharged the abortion debate and shifted more people (including some Republicans) into the anti-Dobbs ‘pro-choice’ camp,” the political action committee’s report stated. Some senators reportedly left the meeting brainstorming potential new labels, such as “pro-baby,” that could replace the increasingly fraught “pro-life.”
Unlike in the past, when conservative candidates could simply identify themselves as “pro-life” without having to be specific, they are now being peppered with questions about real policy choices: Should abortion be banned at the state or federal level? After how many weeks? With or without exceptions? What about abortion pill restrictions?
At one end of the 2024 spectrum are Vice President Mike Pence and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who have strongly leaned into an anti-abortion message. Both candidates have endorsed a national 15-week abortion ban.
By contrast, Mr. Trump, in his “Meet the Press” interview, declined to explicitly endorse a 15-week ban, drawing a rare rebuke this week from Senator Scott. Ms. Haley has outright dismissed a national 15-week ban as unrealistic – one of the “hard truths” that she has been delivering to voters across New Hampshire and Iowa. She says the Supreme Court was “right” to send abortion back to the states.
While I understand and appreciate the 100% pro-life stance, I also want to win the White House and Senate, and expand our lead in the House, so conservatives can keep pushing on this and other issues important to us.
So, Trump may not be wrong. We need to be more tactically flexible to win the bigger war.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A left-wing Swiss billionaire has been bankrolling the voting systems used in American elections, with an alleged bias toward liberals, a U.S. senator reveals.
United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Rules Committee, pressed Benjamin Hovland, Vice Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on foreign influence in U.S. elections through what he called “a new form of Zuckerbucks: partisan, foreign-backed funding for local election administrators through the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence.”
Hagerty calls it a “highly problematic scheme in which left-wing organizations provide substantial, foreign-funded resources for conducting American elections at the local level.”
Much of the funding comes from Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss billionaire and multi-million dollar donor to left-wing causes through his “Hub Project.”
“This is an $80 million initiative, funded by a web of left-wing entities, to ‘help’ local election administrators conduct elections,” Hagerty explained. “It’s a new form of ‘Zuckerbucks,’ is what it is. This network of entities has received tens—if not hundreds—of millions of dollars from a foreign left-wing billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss. He’s not a U.S. Citizen, so he can’t contribute directly to our elections, but he’s found a way to be involved in our elections.”
“After being repeatedly pressed by Hagerty to acknowledge whether foreign donations used to conduct American elections are acceptable, Vice Chair Hovland conceded that this interference is inappropriate,” a statement from Hagerty’s office reveals.
“Absolutely not. Of course not,” Vice Chair Hovland answered.
“I want to be clear with that because what this is is Zuckerbucks 2.0 coming from a foreign billionaire involving themselves in our elections. What I want to make certain is that this Commission—that no Election Assistance Commission dollars are commingled in any way with these foreign funds,” said Hagerty.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
This Memorial Day, as we gather with family, fire up the grill, or visit our local cemeteries and memorials, it’s worth remembering the leaders who never lost sight of the true meaning behind the day. President Donald J. Trump has always placed America’s fallen heroes at the center of his message, offering powerful words and sincere gestures that reflect deep respect for our military and their families.
Throughout his presidency, President Trump used Memorial Day not for politics—but for patriotism. Year after year, he stood before veterans, Gold Star families, and active-duty troops with one purpose: to honor the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation.
Here’s a look back at some of his most moving Memorial Day tributes:
President Trump delivered his first Memorial Day address at Arlington National Cemetery, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and offering a solemn promise:
“Words cannot measure the depth of their devotion, the purity of their love, or the totality of their courage.”
It was a speech that reminded the country—and the world—that America remembers.
Returning to Arlington in 2018, President Trump spoke of sacred ground and permanent peace:
“We are gathered here on the sacred soil of Arlington National Cemetery to honor the lives and deeds of America’s greatest heroes.”
That year, he issued a proclamation declaring Memorial Day a Day of Prayer for Permanent Peace, calling on Americans to pause at 11:00 a.m. for a national moment of prayer.
While abroad visiting troops, President Trump addressed sailors aboard the USS Wasp in Yokosuka, Japan:
“Today, the unbreakable resolve of our great American heroes is inspiring our nation to achieve new heights.”
Even halfway around the world, the president made sure Memorial Day was observed with honor, reflection, and gratitude.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, while others canceled public observances, President Trump stood tall at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, honoring the brave and the fallen:
“We remember the young Americans who never got the chance to grow old, but whose legacy will outlive us all.”
He reminded us that even in times of hardship, we must continue to honor the past and those who gave everything for our freedom.
In every one of these speeches, President Trump put America’s heroes first—not soundbites, not political spin. His words carried the weight of gratitude and the clarity of purpose. Whether in Arlington, Baltimore, or aboard a Navy vessel, he stood firm in his belief that our nation owes eternal respect to those who served and sacrificed.
This Memorial Day, let’s take a moment to reflect—not only on the brave men and women who gave their lives—but also on the kind of leadership that never forgets them.
President Trump didn’t just speak about honoring our military. He lived it. And millions of Americans still remember.
ANALYSIS – Be afraid, Be very afraid. 1984 is almost here. A recent poll by the Libertarian CATO Institute showed that a big chunk of our latest and brightest Generation Z (Gen Z or Zoomers) actually favors having the government watch them 24/7.
Including surveillance in their homes and bedrooms.
Zoomers are officially those under the age of 26. And come right after Millennials.
After the horrors of World War Two showcased the brutal dangers of modern totalitarian dictatorships such as Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union, George Orwell penned his classic dystopian tale titled ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1984).
In the novel, written in 1949, the pervasive government of the fictional nation Oceania was known as ‘Big Brother,’ and it watched its citizens incessantly via two-way video devices called ‘telescreens.’
This was of course before the advent of television or modern surveillance.
Government agents known as the ‘Thought Police’ were able to monitor everyone at home, at work, on public streets, in shops, even in bathrooms. It was a terrifying existence.
The book and term ‘Big Brother’ have since been widely referenced when warning about government overreach and expanding state control.
Sadly, it seems that almost 30 percent of Gen Z (and some Millennials) haven’t read the book or understand the danger.
CATO’s Blog notes that:
In a newly released Cato Institute 2023 Central Bank Digital Currency National Survey of 2,000 Americans, we asked respondents whether they “favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”
Fortunately, the poll shows that 75 percent of Americans oppose or are strongly opposed to this insane idea.
However, CATO also notes that the younger you get, the less concerned Americans are about state surveillance and control:
…Americans under the age of 30 stand out when it comes to 1984‐style in‐home government surveillance cameras. 3 in 10 (29 percent) Americans under 30 favor “the government installing surveillance cameras in every household” in order to “reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.” Support declines with age, dropping to 20 percent among 30–44-year-olds and dropping considerably to 6 percent among those over the age of 45.
Support for 24/7 surveillance was especially high among those younger than 30. Almost a third of those born after 1993 said they would welcome round-the-clock monitoring by the government.
Those respondents in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were almost totally opposed. That is a terribly disturbing trend that bodes ill for liberty in America in the next decades.
In his Boston Globe Email Newsletter, Jeff Jacoby provides his explanation for this sad state among Zoomers:
…perhaps, [it] is that Generation Z has been indoctrinated to regard safety, not freedom, as the highest good — so much so that many would rather be under the nonstop watch of the state than face the possibility of being abused or endangered.”
If so, they are in for a fearful awakening. What little protection they might gain from being under the authorities’ constant watch is nothing compared with the peril they would face. Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition is as relevant as ever: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Inviting Big Brother into your home will not keep Gen Z-ers safe. And by the time they realize what they have given up, it will be too late to get it back.
Jacoby adds that the protagonist of Orwell’s novel, Winston Smith, is a weak man who resents the regime — and is ultimately broken for it. And the must-read book’s final words are haunting: “He loved Big Brother.”
Yet, after all we have seen and know about tyranny, almost a third of Generation Z is still prepared to love Big Brother too. Yes, we must be afraid. Very afraid.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
MAGA Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-CO) tunes in to Matt Whitaker’s podcast to discuss key issues facing America and how patriots can help take back their freedom.
Per Matt Whitaker:
Lauren became the first mom to represent Colorado’s Third District in Congress after unseating a five-term incumbent Congressman and then, despite being outspent nearly 2-1, defeated her Democrat opponent on November 3rd, 2020. Lauren’s historic victory showed that no amount of money can beat good, old-fashioned grassroots enthusiasm and hard work.
Lauren was the founder and former operator of Shooters Grill, a restaurant that earned national notoriety for staff that proudly open carry as they serve their customers. She gained additional recognition in September 2019 by attending presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s rally to tell him directly: “Hell, no, you won’t take our guns.”
When Colorado’s liberal Democrat Governor tried to shut down small businesses across the state, it was Lauren who stood against tyranny and kept her business open. They operated safely and took every precaution to keep her staff and her patrons healthy. Because of this, Lauren’s staff was able to continue making their hard-earned money and weren’t sent to the unemployment line. Lauren will ALWAYS fight for small businesses.
A Coloradoan living on the Western Slope, Lauren is active in her church and has spent years counseling at-risk women at the local jail, encouraging them to become self-sufficient and productive members of society who do not depend on government assistance.
Lauren’s husband, Jayson, has worked his entire adult life in oil and gas fields, primarily in Western Colorado. They are the proud parents of four boys.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The Biden administration is allegedly illegally concealing records on the unprecedented FBI raid on the home of former President Donald Trump, which comes as Trump leads President Joe Biden in polls ahead of a possible 2024 re-election contest.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced that, as of March 31, the National Archives has released only 1,276 pages of over 8,000 records on the federal government investigations of allegations Trump illegally retained and handled classified documents.
“The Biden administration’s National Archives is hiding almost every record it has about its manufactured records dispute with President Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
The released records were secured after Judicial Watch filed an August 2022 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, after the National Archives and Records Administration allegedly unlawfully failed to respond to a February 2022 FOIA request for:
“All records regarding the referral from NARA to the Department of Justice regarding the records management procedures of former President Donald Trump. This request includes all related records of communication between any official or employee of NARA and any official or employee of the Department of Justice and/or any other branch, department, agency, or office of the federal government.”
“All records regarding the retrieval of records from President Trump or any individual or entity acting on his behalf by the National Archives and Records Administration. This request includes related records of communication between any official or employee of NARA and President Trump and/or any individual or entity acting on his behalf.”
Judicial Watch claims the released records confirm how “the Biden White House was directly involved in the dispute by initiating ‘special access request’ that advanced an FBI investigation of Trump’s records.”
According to Judicial Watch, Gary Stern, general counsel for the National Archives wrote to his colleagues on August 23, 2022:
And, this evening the Post just published a new story detailing an April 12, email that I sent to the Trump reps concerning the DOJ special access request for the 15 Trump boxes, along with many other details concerning the DOJ request and the overall issue. [Redacted]
“On April 12, an Archives official emailed Philbin [former White House deputy counsel Pat Philbin] and John Eisenberg, another former deputy White House counsel, to tell them the Justice Department, via the Biden White House, had made the request. The email offered the lawyers the opportunity to view the documents as well, but said the documents were too sensitive to be removed from the agency’s secure facility.”
Conservatives expect further releases of documents will show how the investigation and the current Justice Department criminal investigation are driven by concerns Trump will defeat Biden, and do not show any criminal intent or offense.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Totally tone deaf. Just a little reminder of how ridiculously biased, partisan and idiotic our mainstream media has become, including the fluffy fashion forums.
First Lady Jill Biden, the incredibly unstylish, power-hungry, social climbing, faux intellectual with an unserious Doctor of Education (EdD), has again graced the cover of Vogue magazine.
This, her third time, right before the upcoming election. (RELATED: Poor Sign Placement Haunts Jill Biden At Hunter High School)
The New York Post noted how remarkably out of touch the Biden White House is:
After Biden’s horrific debate performance on Thursday, much of the media world reluctantly conceded that our 46th president looks like a lost toddler.
And then there’s Vogue — which literally couldn’t stop the presses. The fashion-bible-turned-Dem-PR-machine was already rolling out its July issue, with cover model Jill Biden in a silk cream Ralph Lauren dress that retails for $4,990.
The magazine landed on the internet Monday morning with a resounding, wincing thud.
It was tone deaf. It was tacky — but this shoot and interview, conducted months ago, would have been messy even if the debate disaster had never happened.
Fox News host Jimmy Failla on X had this to say about the horrible caregiver of the elderly and frail Joe Biden:
Melania Trump is an actual super model who speaks 5 languages but she’s NEVER been on the cover of Vogue. Jill Biden commits vicious elder abuse on the world stage and now has two Vogue covers to show for it. Congrats Jill, you’ll be great in “The Devil Wears Depends.”
Newsweek noted the backlash:
Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”
C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”
Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”
Dr. Jill, as she insists on being called, first appeared on a Vogue cover in 2021 right after Joe Biden was inaugurated. She later appeared on the cover of the digital Winter 2023 issue.
Meanwhile, Melania Trump, an actual former supermodel who speaks several languages, and was exemplary, and always stylish and immaculately attired, as first lady is still shunned by the fashion world.
Back in 2005, when she was getting married to The Donald, and well before Trump became president, Melania did get her own Vogue cover as Trump’s new bride. But oddly, she never again got a cover for Vogue or any other fashion, or mainstream magazine. (RELATED: Melania Trump Addresses Jan. 6 for First Time)
Newsweek noted the backlash:
Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”
C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”
Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”
The fact that she never landed a Vogue cover in her White House years was such a point of consternation that the former First Lady Trump criticized Wintour, who also serves as Condé Nast’s chief content officer, for it during a 2022 Fox News interview.
WWD reported:
As Jill Biden‘s role in encouraging President Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race — despite his lackluster performance in Thursday night’s debate with Donald Trump — continues to be hashed over in the media and around the globe, Vogue debuted its August issue with the first lady on its cover.
In this already deeply divided country, the Condé Nast fashion magazine — intentionally or not — has ratcheted up the public dispute about Biden’s full-steam-ahead plans. As of Monday afternoon, Vogue‘s post of the first lady’s cover had 51,960 likes and 5,286 comments. The first lady donned an ivory Ralph Lauren Collection dress for the Norman Jean Roy-shot cover that accompanied Maya Singer’s interview.
Of course, Vogue’s editorial direction is strongly liberal. WWD added:
Requests for comment from Vogue’s global editorial director Anna Wintour and Singer through a Vogue spokesperson were declined. The company spokesperson said, “It’s no secret that Anna has been a supporter of Democratic campaigns for decades. Our August cover story is a look at the tremendous work Dr. Biden has done, and the most urgent issues in 2024 and beyond.”
Meanwhile, a parting comment: Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt wrote, “Nice puff piece on the most valueless person in America and her bid to keep her corpse-like husband into the White House to stay relevant.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – ‘Go woke – Go Broke’ – The saga of Budweiser and Target’s disastrous forays into transgender politics is great for conservatives, and all Americans.
It shows how national grassroots pressure can force giant woke companies to lose billions of dollars in a matter of weeks.
But more importantly, it shows us other ways to fight back. To truly force change we have to effectively leverage these boycotts and go way beyond them.
We need to go after the behemoth investment firms that push and incentivize these corporations to go even more woke.
Elon Musk just hinted at the next battleground – courtrooms.
Referring to Target’s decision to sell LGBT-themed items and clothing aimed at families and kids (including ‘onesies’ for toddlers and books instructing kids on using transgender pronouns), and the ensuing financial backlash, Musk said Friday that it’s just a matter of time before Target faces lawsuits for “destruction of shareholder value.”
“Won’t be long before there are class-action lawsuits by shareholders against the company and board of directors for the destruction of shareholder value,” he tweeted.
Musk made the remarks in response to a tweet by conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who posted about JPMorgan downgrading Target’s stock after suffering its longest consecutive drop in decades.
Kirk replied by saying that shareholders should organize to get politics out of the “hyperpolitical” corporations of today.
And that is exactly what should be done.
Conservatives should also consider buying just one share of each offending company to give them legal rights as shareholders. And then take the companies to court.
These lawsuits won’t just put the offending companies on notice, but their huge investment firm backers too.
A big factor encouraging brands to promote transgender ideologies is an attempt to score points on lefty environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards that are being foisted on organizations all over the country.
And this is a product of leftist political pressures and aggressively activist investment firms.
During an appearance on Fox News, Anson Frericks, an ex-top Anheuser-Busch executive, said that quiet pressure from huge investment firms like New York-based BlackRock and Pennsylvania-based Vanguard is behind many of the controversial decisions by the woke companies they are heavily invested in.
He noted that BlackRock, Vanguard, and another firm, State Street, manage about $20 trillion in capital and use their power to promote leftist political agendas.
However, it’s also not necessarily coming from the investment firms organically, since they too are being pressured by progressive lawmakers overseeing giant government pension funds that the investment firms profit from.
These hyper-politicized monster government pension funds are the ones really calling the shots.
One of the huge investment firms mentioned earlier, manages California’s massive pension fund — the country’s biggest — and California’s leftist politicians have a big say in the corporate governance and politics of the firms the fund invests in, Frericks noted.
“In California, for example, they recently have mandated those large pension funds [sic] that they divest from things like fossil fuels and oil and gas…”
“But they also tell BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard if they’re going to manage their money, they have to commit to things like ESG — diversity, equity, inclusion — and adopt firm-wide commitments that they therefore then force onto all the major companies in corporate America,” he added.
So, we need to find ways to limit the power and influence of these monstrous and highly politicized government pension funds that use taxpayer funds to push radical agendas.
We should also note that this isn’t just a conservative issue. Erin Elmore at Turning Point USA, reported The Epoch Times, argued that calls to boycott Target are “not necessarily conservative.”
Instead, she said, “it’s common sense. Most parents don’t support satanists or little boys wearing girls’ bathing suits,” she tweeted on May 28.
This isn’t a conservative-liberal thing. It’s an American thing.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Top Trump Adviser Drops Vice President Suggestion and It’s Wild
A legendary political adviser to former President Donald Trump is offering up his suggestion for a possible 2024 vice presidential nominee – one that would shock the political establishment.
In a recent edition of his “Stone Cold Truth with Roger Stone” Substack, former Trump and Nixon White House adviser Roger Stone suggests that if Trump wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, he pick Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as his running mate.
“Given America’s state of peril, if RFK performs better than expected, the former President should consider the drafting of RFK as the Republican vice presidential candidate in a ‘bipartisan’ unity ticket,” Stone writes.
“This idea is not without precedent; Senator John McCain really wanted Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2008. McCain was ultimately talked out of the idea,” Stone notes.
Were Trump were to do that, it would be historic.
Kennedy, the son of former New York senator and United States Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, is currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination against President Joe Biden.
It would also be highly controversial.
In addition to strident left-wing political positions, Kennedy is also an outspoken conspiracy theorist and has been condemned by members of his own family for his public statements about what he believes to be a link between vaccinations and autism, along with health complications.
“Kennedy and President Donald Trump were good friends prior to Trump’s elevation to the presidency,” Stone writes.
“It has been reported that Trump, who shared Kennedy’s concerns regarding the link between vaccinations and autism, had promised RFK the appointment of a balanced blue-ribbon commission to study and report to the President on the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations,” Stone writes, adding “Trump’s failure to follow through on this pledge is most likely a significant factor in Kennedy’s decision to run in 2024.”
Nevertheless, Stone believes a Trump-Kennedy ticket could be strong.
“(T)he selection of RFK would silence those within the Republican Party who are today critical, in retrospect, of Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as building a bridge for thousands of Democrats and Independents disgusted by Biden’s fumbling foreign policy and the implication of the collapse of U.S. economic dominance to vote for Trump,” Stone writes.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.