DeSantis 2024?

[KG1]

View attachment 290510

DeSantis is inviting hit and run gaslighter Kramala back down to Fla. to have a real sit-down discussion about their African American History studies standards. Fat chance of that happing and her accepting.

 

[KG1]

The ardent Trump supporters may indeed follow him to a third party if we go that route

Since DeSantis lacks those ardent supporters in any significant numbers, you will not have that problem to decide upon

Hey I simply posed that question after you busted jamil's chops for not committing to anything further to help the party than voting for Trump in the general election when you haven't even done so much as committed to at least doing the same for DeSantis and vote for him.

How is following Trump to a 3rd party doing anything to "make a maximum effort to assist the GOP party any way you can' to defeat the Democrats when It will most likely lead to a Democrat victory.

 

[jamil]

As I use teal for my own words, you should differentiate your additions in some way as I do when I make additions or adjustments to what others say

What next, having AI read your fabrications with my simulated voice?

It's a pain on a phone. But you got the idea.

 

[jamil]

So, slacktivism it is, then

One assumes that your lack of personal involvement/skin in the game will make it even easier to place blame for the results - on anyone but yourself

While you're out canvassing, you might want to stick with people who would vote for Trump anyway. I think your bedside manner might drive anyone else hard left.

 

[jamil]

You're kind of making my point

Oh. Did your point change to what I actually believe?

That pragmatism you claim should still have you voting Oz in Fetterman v Oz without reservation, but instead you feel the need to agonize/rationalize about it, which is what I said you would likely do - most likely because;Trump

You really like do like setting up those strawmen so you can pretend you knocked them down.

I mean the choice wouldn't be quite as easy for me as it would be for you. Trump's endorsement would actually affect your choice. I don't consult whether Trump endorses a candidate or not. So here's Bug's way. Did the candidate inhale Trump's...uh...ego? Yeah? Ooh. Feeling that tingling. No research required. Blindly flip that lever.

For me it's pretty much old school. You know. Looking at what the candidate stands for. What he's said in debates. His background. Qualifications. Did he ever **** a horse faced porn star while his wife was pregnant. That kind of thing informed voters did before they had cult leaders around to tell them who to vote for. So, for me, it's not as simple as "follow the cult". So while no actual agonizing happens, I do have to find the answers to the important questions.

 

[BugI02]

Hey I simply posed that question after you busted jamil's chops for not committing to anything further to help the party than voting for Trump in the general election when you haven't even done so much as committed to at least doing the same for DeSantis and vote for him.

How is following Trump to a 3rd party doing anything to "make a maximum effort to assist the GOP party any way you can' to defeat the Democrats when It will most likely lead to a Democrat victory.

Because I will still be pounding the pavement for GOP senate and house candidates as well as statewide officers and candidates for our own state legislature

How is backstabbing Trump so he wants to go third party in the first place doing anything positive

 

[BugI02]

Oh. Did your point change to what I actually believe?


View attachment 290548


You really like do like setting up those strawmen so you can pretend you knocked them down.

I mean the choice wouldn't be quite as easy for me as it would be for you. Trump's endorsement would actually affect your choice. I don't consult whether Trump endorses a candidate or not. So here's Bug's way. Did the candidate inhale Trump's...uh...ego? Yeah? Ooh. Feeling that tingling. No research required. Blindly flip that lever.

For me it's pretty much old school. You know. Looking at what the candidate stands for. What he's said in debates. His background. Qualifications. Did he ever **** a horse faced porn star while his wife was pregnant. That kind of thing informed voters did before they had cult leaders around to tell them who to vote for. So, for me, it's not as simple as "follow the cult". So while no actual agonizing happens, I do have to find the answers to the important questions.

If you have to think about how to vote in Oz v Fetterman for more than a second, you are part of the problem - even allowing needing to keep the careful consideration myth burnished

 

[jamil]

Dood, you are ALWAYS on about the even-handed careful consideration (not your exact words, short hand for the whole sorry spectacle so spare me the 'I never said that' dodge that has become standard) you bring to decisions. You are always trying to sell how your diligence is more due than anyone else and its just bull****

I've pushed back when you spout extraordinary teal**** without scrutiny. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When it comes to Trump you have an obvious blind spot.

I'm not saying that I'm beyond those kinds of blind spots. It depends how much stake I have in it, just like it does for you. But you mistake me calling you out for believing nonsense, uncritically, as me thinking I'm better than you. And I suspect that's where you got this stalking contempt for me. You don't like having your god tweaked. No. I'm not talking about that one.

If you were honest you would just admit you think anyone who disagrees with you hasn't done their homework.

I don't think that merely disagreeing with me means someone hasn't done their homework. I could just be wrong. But obviously you didn't do your homework on the Soros endorsing DeSantis nonsense. There are many more I could list if you'd like. I do think that if someone believes and spouts objectively utter nonsense, uncritically, they probably haven't done their homework. Or they're just disingenuous.

Example:

I'm not trying to disguise the fact that I have a guy who I want to see back in the whitehouse. You're the one trying to disguise you have a guy now and that if you feel the need to move on because of the eventual cratering of that guy then you'll have another guy who will not be Trump.

Okay, that was the straw.

If that isn't ABT, I don't know what is.

And that's you pretending to knock it down.

Most people think it's a two man race between Trump and DeSantis, but somehow I don't see you switching to Trump when DeSantis goes down despite the fact that he would be (to you) the next best candidate.

If you're being honest and that's what you actually think, you really haven't been paying attention. But I suspect it's actually you displaying bad faith. But, let's pretend you're being honest, so again I can tell you where you're wrong again.

Here's what I actually think. If DeSantis drops out, under no circumstances would I vote for the fat ass pussbag, Haley. Pence. Nor any other neocon/CoC that's running. Scott? I think he is too close to establishment, so that's a nope.

So do you get tired of being incorrect?

You'll start trying to prop up Ramaswamy or some other second tier candidate as the next GWH. But no, that isn't delusional or counter-productive because you automatically accord what you want to do as rational and effective solely because you want to do it

I like what Ramaswamy says. He's more articulate than DeSantis, and a bit more exciting to hear than DeSantis. But, if DeSantis is out, being a businessman and a billionaire isn't qualification to be a good President. I know. I know. Look how Trump turned out, you say. Don't sell it shor, you say. Yeah. I could be wrong about Rammy. But he's only 37. I think he has more life to experience before he can rule. He'd be better suited as a Veep at this stage.

Okay. Is there another US-first candidate? I think it's pretty much between those three. And one of them is too young and inexperienced. So wrong again.

And you know, I wouldn't begrudge you that except for that need to make a decision based on purely personal bias out to be some purely rational decision based on just the facts

Like I've said, I understand my biases. I'm not going to be very objective and rational if I have something I deeply care about at stake.

When you feel loyalty and some level of adoration for a politician you support, you're not going to be as objective as you would if you have no stake in it. You keep saying it like I'm claiming I am putting myself above my biases. It's more like I know where I'm biased and where I'm not, because I know what I care about and to what extent I have a stake in it.

The essence of bias having a stake in something you care deeply about. That's just human nature. You're no different. I'm not different.

For example, I didn't buy the kraken because I don't feel the same connection or loyalty to Trump that you have. That makes you biased. I did, however, believe that Trump was cheated, in the areas that we've discussed. But the claim did not have the backing it should require to believe it. I think that if I felt a connection with Trump and the loyalty like you do, I know I'd have bought into it too, with no more skepticism than you had.

So I don't think that makes me more objective and reasonable than you generally. It made me more objective in that case, because I had no stake in it to protect. I didn't have to have that feed my beliefs about the election.

It's like with my wife or family. I won't be objective they're at stake. They are the most important people in my life. I think it's unwise to grant that kind of adoration or loyalty to any person who wants to rule me (wife notwithstanding), because I understand that I won't be objective. And when someone rules over me, I need to be objective. I also need to be skeptical.

It's not that I think I carefully consider all the in's and out's of everything, and weigh and balance and whatever. And you don't. It depends on what it is and who has what stake in it. I'm not considering **** when it comes to my family. I'm on their side, automatically. If you're against them, you're wrong. Period. Every time. I suspect you're the same if you're normal. And the opposite is likely true when you don't have something at stake. You probably consider things more carefully, more objectively, more reasonably. Get it now? Or do you have more straw to throw?

 

[jamil]

[checks online dictionary]

con·de·scen·sion
noun
an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.

Nope, it means what I think it means and the usage is correct

Wrong. I'm not digging that Trump gif out again. It's not condescension. That's the straw you keep trying to erect. The teal**** if you will.

 

[jamil]

Because I will still be pounding the pavement for GOP senate and house candidates as well as statewide officers and candidates for our own state legislature

How is backstabbing Trump so he wants to go third party in the first place doing anything positive

Backstabbing? I can't wait to hear the complicated web you spin to get there.

 

[jamil]

If you have to think about how to vote in Oz v Fetterman for more than a second, you are part of the problem - even allowing needing to keep the careful consideration myth burnished

I would not vote for Oz or Fetterman. Fetterman is obvious. He's brain dead, so that disqualifies him automatically. Oz, I did have to look for his political beliefs before I said that's a nope. Him sucking Trump's "ego" isn't the automatic yes for me that it is for you. I think that blindly trusting an endorsement just because it comes from Trump makes you part of the problem. I think part of the solution is to go back to the time when we actually look at the issues and the candidates and be the informed voter. Make Voting Informed Again.

 

[jamil]

The ardent Trump supporters may indeed follow him to a third party if we go that route

Since DeSantis lacks those ardent supporters in any significant numbers, you will not have that problem to decide upon

Bug: "Neener, neener, we're in a cult and you're not, so yer not gonna win, and the cult will, so there."

Is it really any different what you're saying? C'mon man. The best situation would be if no politician had any such following. You won't complain when Trump goes off the constitutional script. You guys proved that in his last term. You denied. You made up elaborate excuses. You even said it's unimportant.

 

[jamil]

DeSantis is inviting hit and run gaslighter Kramala back down to Fla. to have a real sit-down discussion about their African American History studies standards. Fat chance of that happing and her accepting.

Yeah. Not gonna happen. Too much potential for embarrassment.

 

[KG1]

Yeah. Not gonna happen. Too much potential for embarrassment.

She would be easily exposed once again for the intellectually lacking fool that she pretends to be.

 

[jamil]

She would be easily exposed once again for the intellectually lacking fool that she pretends to be.

If people can't see it by now they ain't ever gonna see it.

 

[BugI02]

I'm not saying that I'm beyond those kinds of blind spots. It depends how much stake I have in it, just like it does for you. But you mistake me calling you out for believing nonsense, uncritically, as me thinking I'm better than you. And I suspect that's where you got this stalking contempt for me. You don't like having your god tweaked. No. I'm not talking about that one.

Your persistence in trying to derogate any view that is heterodox from your own as motivated by "worship", "cult-like devotion" and loose and shoddy thinking says it all. To the extent that I have any contempt for you it is in response to what you have exhibited towards me

Stalking is yet another attempt to prejudice our disagreement (and a tactic copied from Kut). We are active in many of the same threads. That our disagreements about the Trump candidacy should be all over the Trump and DeSantis threads should not be surprising. That it should spread to the Ramaswamy thread when it is obvious that he is being groomed to be the next big thing now that DeSantis is in a graveyard spiral should also be unsurprising

I really think that Trump is exactly what we need going forward and I'm not afraid to say it. In fact, he was what we needed going forward in 2020. I really think that by so often criticizing the character or your perception of the motivation of my posts rather than the content is de facto evidence that you do think your perception of events is superior to mine. The fact that you were wrong in 2016 and will be wrong again in 2024 I'm sure will trouble you not at all. The fact that your opinions are just that, opinions, and spring from no objectively superior analytical ability should not be contentious. To assert that ego infects my opinions but not yours merely highlights how huge your blindspot really is

 

[BugI02]

If you're being honest and that's what you actually think, you really haven't been paying attention. But I suspect it's actually you displaying bad faith. But, let's pretend you're being honest, so again I can tell you where you're wrong again.

Here's what I actually think. If DeSantis drops out, under no circumstances would I vote for the fat ass pussbag, Haley. Pence. Nor any other neocon/CoC that's running. Scott? I think he is too close to establishment, so that's a nope.

So do you get tired of being incorrect?

I notice you don't mention Trump at all and feign naïveté about the difference between 'eventually vote for' and 'support'

It would seem that under no circumstances will you articulate you would support Trump, hoping some other/any other choice will become available, until you end up having no other choice but a Democrat, where even you will draw the line

That, to me, is evidence enough that you are 'Anybody But Trump', and the progressively weaker candidates you are willing to support for the nomination is evidence of the severity of the problem. Your defense of yourself relies on a technicality, that you would support Trump in the breach, and is unconvincing. I could go with 'Anybody But Trump Until There Is No Other Choice' [ABTUTINOC]
if it makes you feel justified, although it wouldn't alter the essential truth only give that truth some of the awkwardness of LGBTQEIEIO

 

[BugI02]

I would not vote for Oz or Fetterman. Fetterman is obvious. He's brain dead, so that disqualifies him automatically. Oz, I did have to look for his political beliefs before I said that's a nope. Him sucking Trump's "ego" isn't the automatic yes for me that it is for you. I think that blindly trusting an endorsement just because it comes from Trump makes you part of the problem. I think part of the solution is to go back to the time when we actually look at the issues and the candidates and be the informed voter. Make Voting Informed Again.

You do realize I'm talking the election, yes; not the primary?

If you can write off the people choice, the need for numerical superiority in the senate and the lack of any other meaningful place to bestow your vote in that hypothetical, then you are indeed part of the problem - which is what I was intimating

 

[BugI02]

Bug: "Neener, neener, we're in a cult and you're not, so yer not gonna win, and the cult will, so there."

Is it really any different what you're saying? C'mon man. The best situation would be if no politician had any such following. You won't complain when Trump goes off the constitutional script. You guys proved that in his last term. You denied. You made up elaborate excuses. You even said it's unimportant.

Perhaps I have a ... less nuanced ... understanding of 'A house divided against itself cannot stand'

 

[BugI02]

Anti-Trump Conservatives are the Mark and They Don't Know It

The most popular line these days by anti-Trump conservatives and Republicans is that the DOJ is indicting former President Donald Trump to help him win the 2024 GOP nomination to make it easier for Democrats to beat Republicans in the fall.

gestetner.substack.com

Fourth, the loss by Trump in a few states and the loss by some of "his" candidates in 2022 was narrower than the impact that anti-Trump Cons have on politics. If not for GOP saboteurs and self-righteous cons criticizing Trump in ways Liberals never attack Dem presidents and then sitting out elections in the name of country over party, many states would have gone differently. In other words, Dems "want" Trump to be the face of the GOP because of the expectation that GOP Saboteurs and Self Righteous Cons (the ones who claim that Dems want Trump...) will again lead to more GOP losses. Those Cons don't notice that they are the mark!

Fifth, the counter to the above is that a candidate must consolidate all fractions of a political party and movement and can’t expect automatic support. True, but...

A) if you sabotage a candidate through malice or by not noticing that your opponents placed you on a self-defeating Country Over Party ride, you can't blame the candidate for losses that you claimed pre-election are for the good of the country and principles... You got what you wanted; you got what you were willing to swallow. Own it!