Sunday, June 16, 2024

The Revolution Will Not Be What You Expect


Blind hatred of America is so yesterday.  It’s shadowboxing an opponent who has exited the ring.  Activists on college campuses today, whether agitating for Hamas, BLM, or Occupy Wall Street, are fighting a caricature of America from the 1950s and ’60s, an America that doesn’t exist anymore.  It’s the America of Bill Ayers and Richard Nixon — the radicals versus the squares and the capitalist pigs.  They are obsessed with a phantom that faded away years ago.

A movie called The Music Never Stopped tells the story of a young man named Gabriel, who left home just before high school graduation in 1968 after a fight with his father over his views on America and the Vietnam War.  Set in 1986, his parents haven’t seen him in 18 years, until they learn he is undergoing brain surgery to remove a benign tumor.  The tumor is large, and its removal affects his memory processing, making it difficult for him to form new memories and trapping him in the familiar environment of the ’60s.

As Gabriel recovers, he asks about his friend, Mark, whom he had last seen when Mark got his draft card.  His father tells him Mark died in Vietnam, and he cries out, “That bastard Nixon!”  Gabriel is still fighting the bogeyman of yesterday in 1986.  Today’s leftist protesters have a similar tumor on the brain, planted there by their university faculty.  Like the character in the movie, they are all fighting yesterday’s enemy.

America today is far removed from the unreconstructed America that student radicals in the ’60s hated.  From the boardroom to the stock room, America is now almost entirely woke, groveling in abject and continual apology.  Diversity and inclusion are enshrined in our national life, despite the constant lectures on race.  Movies and television are full of “people of color.”  Our national sports heroes are almost all black.  Mixed-race couples dominate our national advertising.  (Fortunately, we have an army of grievance professionals available to interpret the “systemic” racism in our every word and gesture, which they will do for large sums of money.)

In addition, marriage redefined is the law of the land.  Gay pride is celebrated for the entire month of June.  Homosexuality is mainstream.  On transgenderism, parents in some states are still trying to establish their right to stop their minor children from being sexually mutilated without their consent.  We’re woke, okay?  The jury has spoken.

Nonetheless, leftist radicals take today’s events and jam them into the Procrustean bed of a 1960s worldview.  College students with their Hamas sit-ins follow a playbook right out of the ’60s.  Fight the power!  Hillary Clinton, the student radical who insulted Republican senator Edward Brooke to his face while she addressed her graduating class at Wellesley, and Barack Obama, acolyte of radical organizer Saul Alinsky and Weatherman Bill Ayers in Chicago, would approve.

But the war is over.  The left fought for and won on civil rights, women’s rights, and sexual freedom.  It’s time to accept victory.

Young people are beginning to sense that white supremacists, uptight Christians, and big business aren’t really the problem anymore.  The problem today isn’t the “establishment” making life miserable for people who want to live the way they want to; today, the establishment is the government.  It’s the government’s power over their lives that young people should be fighting.  The outdated ideology forced on today’s young people is pointing them at the wrong targets.  An executive order forcing radical transgender policies on high schools and universities or a border policy allowing criminals and terrorists to flood into the country is much more likely to make an impact on their lives.

The radicals from the ’60s who wrote the playbook on campus activism went into the propaganda business at American colleges.  But the young radicals they trained who are coming out of college today aren’t true believers.  Their commitment is half-hearted, as demonstrated in their lack of understanding of the issues they protest, most recently the Hamas/Israel war.

Marxist radicals from the ’60s can’t accept that they didn’t carry the day back then, and they think they are poised to win now.  But they’re wrong.  Although the “vanguard” has expanded exponentially thanks to their campus indoctrination, the proletariat ain’t what it used to be.  That’s why young people and minority voters are flocking to Trump.

Fifty years ago, young people were radicalized by the Vietnam War and the cultural changes roiling America after World War II.  The Baby Boom gave that generation heft, and changes in American society created anxious young people acting out their anger against their square parents and an unjust war.

Similarly, black Americans were emerging from Jim Crow in the South and fighting for their rightful place in American society.  But that’s not the case today.  America is more diverse and integrated than ever before, despite what today’s DIE “experts” tell you, and people know it.  Meanwhile, technological change has created a higher standard of living for all, and mindless entertainment on our smartphones makes it difficult to generate the raw anger required for revolution.

It’s not hard to see why the professional activists in the Hamas protests got more pushback than traction.  America today is not fertile ground for Marxist revolution, despite all the funding being poured into it by George Soros and others.  The George Floyd riots were an Antifa-fueled COVID lockdown phenomenon, not likely to be repeated.  With little buy-in from the young generation, the ’60s playbook for revolution that leftist professors are pushing isn’t going to accomplish much.

Young people in this country are happy to be Americans, although they are worried about the future.  In the Hamas demonstrations, the crowds have a smattering of students, but they are largely professional anarchists like Antifa, antisemitic anti-Israel groups, Muslim supporters of the Hamas terrorists, and homosexual and transgender activists like Queers for Palestine.  (The cognitive dissonance of Queers for Palestine should give anybody a brain cramp.)  University students might come out briefly because the university propaganda machine trains them to respond, but real support is thin.

Widespread and vigorous activism among young people should be percolating today, both on college campuses and in the streets.  But it should be led by conservative activists, not radical leftists.  What should they be agitating about?  How about the national debt, which grows like a cancer, destroying the hopes and dreams of this generation, or Biden’s open border policy, bringing in wage competitors and criminals, or the looming threat of World War III, courtesy of our overseas military adventure in Ukraine.

If young people want to hit the streets this summer, grab a placard and do it for issues that will really affect your lives.  If activists could channel their energy into something other than the perpetual grievance machine, who knows what might come of it?  They might make the world a better place, instead of just complaining about it.



And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- June 16

 




Justin Trudeau Sure Is Acting Like Someone Who Thinks His Name Might Be On A List Of Less Than Loyal MPs

 Does the disloyalty go to the very top?

Sometimes, a truly massive scandal will generate a smaller reaction than a less serious one.


This is because a massive scandal – the kind that could bring down an entire government – has such huge stakes that all involved have a clear interest in pretending nothing is happening.

Since many people base their opinion of events on how others are reacting (the reason ‘fake it till you make it’ often works), a group of people involved in a scandal can sometimes get away with it for a while by pretending nothing is happening.

And it seems that may be what Justin Trudeau is doing.

In response to reports that numerous Canadian Parliamentarians essentially committed treason by working on behalf of hostile foreign states, Trudeau and the Liberals have refused to release the list of names.

And now, Trudeau is even attempting to cast doubt on the NSICOP report itself:

All in all, Trudeau is now acting like someone who is worried his name is on the list. If that was the case, the entire government would be brought down, and the legitimacy of the government itself would collapse. It would be a massive crisis, and the Liberals would face being branded as the ‘treason party’ for years and years to come.

Whether that’s the case or not is something Canadians can’t find out, as the Liberals refuse to list the names. Canadians have to ask ourselves why Trudeau seems so afraid of being honest with the people of our nation.

Spencer Fernando

It Was Quite A Week Of Media Stupidity


There used to be a barrier to entry for a lot of professions that kept incompetent boobs out of them. Doctors had to have a minimal level of understanding of science, for example, to even enter medical school, then they could fail out if that knowledge did not advance sufficiently. Now, med school applications are first run through the progressive food pyramid to see how many boxes get checked to determine what level of foreknowledge, if any, is required of applicants. Journalism is the same way – “Are you on the team?” is a more important question than “Are you in any way qualified to do the job?” 

With the barrier to entry being roughly “Can you pronounce your own name?” the standards, as low as they already were, have cratered for journalism – for God’s sake, Joy Reid claims to be one! In fact, all of MSNBC and CNN can, and do so regularly because they set their own standards. The only thing anyone can do to have any of these people declare someone not a journalist is work for Fox, otherwise, it’s game on.

That helps explain some of the garbage we saw this week reported as “news.” 

The week started with Hunter Biden being convicted on all of the gun charges against him. This was about as shocking as declaring water wet, and just about as consequential. Of course, he did it, he wrote about and filmed himself being a junkie at that time. The only defense against recording yourself committing a crime is to declare yourself so untrustworthy that you have to keep your valuables hidden from yourself. 

That defense, however, does not bode well against charges that someone desperate for money for drugs would sell access to his father. Sure, he’d commit felonies when it comes to purchasing a gun, he’d be a tax cheat, he’d also film himself having sex with prostitutes – many of which look underage and all seem to have been human trafficked from the other side of the planet (which weirdly is of no interest to anyone in journalism. Honestly, how hard do you think it would be to track down some of these women? There are pictures and videos, so it can’t be that hard for someone with the resources and commitment, but that word is the key…) and what was the story? 

“Mr. President, will you pardon your son?” There is no answer other than “No.” That’s also a lie. Damn right, he’ll pardon Hunter, but not until after the election, when he will never again face any consequences from voters. Why the hell wouldn’t he?

Dumber still were the people suggesting he’d get out of that on a technicality by commuting Hunter’s sentence. Why would he do that? Hunter is going to get probation and no jail time. Why go through the motions of a pardon with none of the benefits? What are you sparing him from, a couple of meetings with a parole officer? He’ll pardon him to wipe his record clean, not unburden him of the last few chats with a guy who likely thinks the meeting is as dumb as Hunter does. 

Then there was the saga of “Lia” Thomas, the “female” swimmer hindered only by skill and the water resistance coming from the penis in “her” bathing suit. 

“She” lost her appeal to force women’s swimming to allow “her” to try out for the women’s team in the Olympics. This was reported as “Swimmer Thomas denied the right to swim in the Olympics.” This is simply not true on any level. “Lia” can swim all “she” wants in the Olympics. All “she” has to do is qualify with other men, because “she’s” a man. 

The problem for “Lia” is he sucks as a male swimmer. I mean, he’s better than most men at swimming as far as the species goes, but he’s well down in the hundreds as far as the best male swimmers are concerned and the Olympic team is not that big. He has as much of a chance to qualify for the men’s team as he does in needing a tampon.

That’s not to say “she’s” pretending to be a woman for swimming contests – I suspect he’s got mental health issues that are being indulged rather than addressed, which will one day haunt him – but reality has to be at the forefront of sports, even if it’s not a factor in journalism.

Speaking of journalism without any sense of reality attached to it, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan put together one of the dumbest packages in the history of television journalism this week. Entitled, “These Trump supporters say America isn't a democracy. And they're okay with it,” this “dual citizen” should track down and sue whatever teacher taught him about American history because they failed him.

“What's happening here is that the word, and the concept of, ‘democracy’ is being attacked as a way to neutralize warnings about Trump being a danger to democracy. The argument goes -- Trump is a danger to democracy, so what? We are not and never were a democracy,” the moron tweeted

That’s so beyond stupid it’s hard to know where to start, but it is exactly what you’d expect to hear at left-wing editorial pitch meetings. 

Rather than point out the sheer stupidity of the concept, which is so obvious to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size, I want to point out how they get to that point. 

The leftist media operates under the belief that they are better and smarter than everyone else, and therefore have a responsibility to think for everyone else and protect the great unwashed from anyone they deem a threat. It’s a repackaging of the awful “progressive movement” of the early 20th century, which engaged in forced sterilizations, experiments on “undesirables” and led directly to the Nazi and communist progressive atrocities they now try to claim were somehow “right-wing.”

That’s why they “talk” about the “horrible” things Donald Trump has said…but they don’t show them. “Donald Trump called Nazis ‘very fine people,’” is one of their favorite lies. They don’t often, if ever, show the actual clip; they simply repeat the lie as though everyone was there and equally outraged. 

But the real reason they can’t show it is it would be maybe 3 seconds long, which would arise suspicions, because if it they gave it context they would have to show Trump saying, “And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis or the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” Pretty unambiguous, which is why they never show it. 

The same reason they don’t show Trump talking about being a dictator “on day one.” They talk about it all the time, but to show it would be to show how he was joking in response to a question about people like those leftist “journalists” saying he wants to be a dictator. 

When jokingly asked if he was going to be a dictator, as the left has declared, Trump responded, “No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.” 

They don’t show that clip because you can tell he was joking, “journalists” simply say Trump has stated he wants to be a dictator on day one. You have to be on as many drugs as Hunter Biden to believe that, so the only option is they are lying. 

You do have to ask yourself why people, whose position is based on trust with the audience, would lie so brazenly when all their audience would have to do is look something up for themselves and realize they’ve been lied to. It’s because they’re trained to not look things up for themselves, they’re trained to stay on the thought plantations of the various media outlets. It’s not, “We watch conservative media outlets so you don’t have to,” it’s, “We watch them so you won’t, so please don’t.”

Nothing terrifies the left like someone using their remote or a search engine to see something for themselves, because so little of what they put out there stands up to even basic scrutiny. Why do you think they hate what Elon Musk has done with Twitter? They controlled it before, but now people are allowed to post whatever they want, including full-context videos and actual research and opinions that progressive talking points cannot stand up to. 

Leftists aren’t used to being challenged or having to prove what they say, Rachel Maddow simply declaring something is proof enough inside their bubble. But the problem with any sealed bubble-like environment is you begin to run out of oxygen, which leads to brain damage. While leftists are not literally suffering from oxygen deprivation, intellectually they most certainly are. 

Confident people with the truth on their side do not fear opposing viewpoints or lie about them. If Donald Trump were half the monster they make him out to be, all they’d have to do is keep their cameras on him. But they don’t want people looking, they don’t want people to see without the filter of them in between. 

Liberals lie to their audiences about what conservatives say and want to do, conservatives show you what liberals say and do. Sure, we tell people how senile or angry Joe Biden is, or how he lies about his life and policies, but then we show you him doing just that. 

Media Democrats will tell you Republicans are “election deniers,” we can show you 24 minutes of clips of Democrats denying every election they’ve lost. Not asking questions about how things were conducted, declaring them stolen “without evidence,” a favorite phrase of the left.

I don’t expect honesty from the left, it’s not their strong suit. Instead, they have a form of Tourette’s Syndrome that has them belching our catchphrases and poll-tested tropes designed more to satiate than to inform. They are the Xanax of intellectual curiosity. When you can’t deny something is true, it’s much easier to deny it exists. This is the premise under which liberal media, and the Democratic Party, operate. And it’s why they need to be destroyed come November. 



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Why Choosing a Running Mate Is Different This Time Around

 The former president recently named a handful of VP contenders, and with a sentencing looming, there’s added pressure to choose early.

The field of potential vice presidential picks for former President Donald Trump appears to be narrowing, while his legal perils add to the urgency and significance of his choice.

“It'll be the most important VP selection we’ve had in recent history,” Florida political scientist Susan MacManus told The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/why-choosing-a-running-mate-is-different-this-time-around-5667025

Typically, the presidential running mate exerts little effect on voters’ choice for “the top of the ticket,” Ms. MacManus said. But this year’s unparalleled circumstances are creating top-of-mind concerns for the former president, for his potential running mate, and for American voters.

The former president recently stated that he is likely to designate his running mate at the Republican National Convention. But he is confronting potential imprisonment beforehand, which might induce him to make the announcement sooner, Ms. MacManus said.

Sentencing on his 34-count conviction is set for July 11 in New York, just four days before Republicans begin their three-day convention in Milwaukee, culminating in officially declaring him their 2024 presidential nominee.

Jed Rubenfeld, a Yale University law professor, said many people seem to think that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan will likely grant probation to the former president. But the professor said confinement remains a real possibility.

“Could Trump actually be put in jail? You bet he could,” Mr. Rubenfeld said in a video posted on social media.

The former president, who has been critical of the judge, faces four years in prison for each charge—a total of 136 years. There is no way the judge would impose that maximum, Mr. Rubenfeld said. The judge also could consider placing the former president under house arrest or on probation.

Ms. MacManus said that if the former president is unable to attend the convention, a vice presidential candidate will still need to be selected, “and that person is going to be under extreme scrutiny.”

VP Is Key for Both Trump and Biden

Aside from the former president’s legal predicament, many voters see another usual factor escalating the importance of the vice presidential choice. The two current presumed nominees rank among the oldest to seek the nation’s highest office.

Some voters worry that the men’s ages could increase the odds that the vice president may need to step in and fulfill the presidential role.

Democrat President Joe Biden, 81, is older than any prior U.S. sitting president. His running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, is 59. Most people expect Democrats will choose Biden–Harris as their ticket for the election, but some speculate a last-minute replacement could be named at the party’s’ convention in Chicago, Aug. 19–22, or even afterward.


Former President Trump turned 78 on June 14. The ages of his potential running mates run the gamut from their late 30s to their late 60s, with several in their 50s.

The leading independent candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is 70; in March, he announced 38-year-old Silicon Valley lawyer Nicole Shanahan as his running mate.
All three presidential candidates and their fans have pushed back against assertions that younger candidates might be better-suited to handle the rigors of the presidency.

A Mystery Choice?

Just a few days post-conviction, the 45th president publicly named a handful of VP contenders, shifting public discourse away from a criminal trial that dominated the news cycle for weeks.

As other names continue circulating, political insiders have noted that the presumed Republican nominee could privately be considering some undisclosed personal favorites.

His public declarations—and possible purposeful leaks to news outlets—are most likely “trial balloons,” designed to test public reaction and media reporting about potential VP picks, according to two political insiders who asked The Epoch Times to withhold their names.

The former president may pick “someone no one’s ever thought of,” one insider said, adding, “That would be ’so Trump.'”

The man who became his VP choice in 2016, then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, was somewhat of an unexpected choice; candidate Trump named him three days prior to the Republican convention. Mr. Pence, an evangelical Christian, is credited with attracting that voting bloc to the Trump–Pence ticket.

Mr. Pence became a political opponent in the Republican primary, but he discontinued his quest to become the presidential nominee in October 2023.

Now, as the former president continues with his third presidential run, his campaign pointed out that he has sole discretion over his VP pick.


Amid the recent spate of public interest about potential VPs, Brian Hughes, senior adviser for the Trump campaign, released a statement to The Epoch Times.

“Anyone claiming to know who or when President Trump will choose his VP is lying, unless the person is named Donald J. Trump,” Mr. Hughes stated.

Six Contenders—And a Few More

In months past, dozens of names have been floating around. But on June 4, the former president listed six possible VP picks during an interview with Newsmax.

That shortlist includes Sens. Tim Scott of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, and J.D. Vance of Ohio; Govs. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Ron DeSantis of Florida; and Dr. Ben Carson, a medical doctor who served as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Trump administration.

Five of the six have previously run for president; Mr. Vance is the only one who has not. All six have been vocal in their defense of the former president as he faced prosecution in New York and elsewhere. Most have also attended former President Trump’s New York trial to show support for him as the case neared its conclusion.

The new shortlist differs from one revealed several months ago when the former president gave an interview to Fox News.

Ohio biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, and former Democrat Hawaii congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard were on the first list, but they seem to have been dropped from consideration.

Mr. Scott is the sole name that President Trump acknowledged in both publicly revealed shortlists.

The South Carolina senator has been “unbelievable” in his vocal support, former President Trump said on Newsmax.


(Top L) Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.). (Top C) Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio). (Top R) Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). (Bottom L) Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Bottom C) North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum. (Bottom R) Dr. Ben Carson. (Madalina Vasiliu, Samira Bouaou, Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)

He said Mr. Scott’s performance as a Trump surrogate exceeded his self-advocacy efforts during the 2024 presidential race. Mr. Scott suspended his campaign in November 2023.

While Mr. Scott was still running, he and the former president refrained from attacking each other. That apparent mutual respect is one quality that helps Mr. Scott stand out among the possible VP contenders, insiders say.

In contrast, Mr. DeSantis and another Republican rival, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, both engaged in vigorous tit-for-tat with former President Trump before they quit the presidential race earlier this year.

In a social media post in May, former President Trump ruled out Ms. Haley, who served as United Nations ambassador during his administration. During the Newsmax interview, he hedged on whether he might change his mind about her.

A Harvard-CAPS-Harris poll conducted in May suggests that, among seven high-ranking possible VPs, Mr. Scott or Mr. Ramaswamy would most influence voters.

According to the poll, 23 percent of Democrat voters would be more likely to vote for former President Trump if Mr. Scott became his running mate. Mr. Scott also led the field of seven potential VPs for attracting nonwhite voters.

Among those contenders, Mr. Ramaswamy would help most with GOP voters, with 32 percent saying they would be more likely to vote for the former president if his name appeared alongside Mr. Ramaswamy’s.

But more than half of the voters surveyed said the VP choice would have no effect on their ballot-casting decision.

Shortlist May Have Shortcomings

Mark Caleb Smith, director of the center for political studies at Cedarville University in Cedarville, Ohio, cited what appear to be voids in the former president’s latest shortlist.

“None of them would help Trump secure a vulnerable state (like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, or Wisconsin),” Mr. Smith wrote in an email to The Epoch Times. Those states are considered toss-ups, where either President Biden or former President Trump could score a win.

And few of the potential Trump VPs would help him expand his base with a constituency that needs bolstering, Mr. Smith said. However, Mr. Rubio is Hispanic, and Mr. Scott and Dr. Carson, who are black, might help “eat into the Democrats’ historic advantage within the African-American community,” Mr. Smith said.

The professor noted that no women appear on the list, although Ms. Noem, Ms. Haley, and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) have been widely discussed.

Ms. Stefanik, a vocal defender of the former president in Congress, is the sole female named in a group of seven potential VPs reportedly undergoing a vetting process that the Trump campaign recently launched. The other six contenders who may have been sent “vetting paperwork” were: Dr. Carson, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), and Mr. Burgum, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Vance, and Mr. Scott.

The former president’s choice of running mate seemed to help him during his first presidential run in 2016.

“Trump was such a wildcard,” Mr. Smith said about the real-estate magnate who had never sought public office before running for the presidency.

“His vulnerability was with his most important voting bloc—evangelical Christians,” Mr. Smith said, underscoring Mr. Pence’s role in attracting more of those voters to the Trump-Pence ticket. It proved a winning combination in 2016, but fell short in the 2020 election.

Now, as Americans consider their presidential votes ahead of the Nov. 5 election, “Trump is a known quantity,” Mr. Smith said. “I am not sure the vice presidential pick will do much for or against him.”

As the former president contemplates his VP pick, he may be thinking about his legacy, Mr. Smith said.

“If he really wants to reshape the GOP, choosing a young, aggressive politician that will carry out his legacy might matter,” he said.

Strategic Considerations

Ms. MacManus, the Florida political scientist, says the former president must balance complex, intertwined factors while choosing from an array of possible VPs.

He's going to need somebody who can hold the base,” she said, “but also hold onto independents and the sort of ‘never-Trumpers’ that are iffy.”

In addition, there are multiple political strategy points he must consider. Two stand out, insiders say.

First, he needs to weigh how his choice might benefit his Electoral College vote count, which is essential to winning the presidency.

Florida, where the former president has lived since 2019, carries 30 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. But if he chooses a VP candidate from that state—Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Donalds, or Mr. Rubio—that creates a complication.

The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says electors from one state cannot vote for both a president and vice president who hail from that same state. Thus, for the Republican presidential nominee to maintain hold of Florida’s electoral votes, one of the players would need to relocate.

A second political strategy point is that if the former president chooses an existing officeholder such as one of those three Floridians, moving that person out of position could hurt the GOP’s standing.

Above all, the former president would be wise to consider which potential VP seems most reliable and solid to voters, especially amid such uncertainty, Ms. MacManus said.

The VP candidate would need to inspire confidence that he or she “could totally step in and govern a nation in need of redirection.”

The Associated Press contributed.