DeSantis 2024?

[jamil]

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

It's the primaries. In a two-party voting system such as ours, the people in each party get to choose among a number of candidates they want to represent the parties. You act like everyone should forego that process and just install DJT as the nominee before the primaries even start. Just calm yourself and let it play out. Likely DJT will be the winner and will go on, even if from jail, to run against Biden. But I'm sure that TPTB will have a lot more in store to ruin Trump's prospects of becoming POTUS.

 

[KG1]

It's the primaries. In a two-party voting system such as ours, the people in each party get to choose among a number of candidates they want to represent the parties. You act like everyone should forego that process and just install DJT as the nominee before the primaries even start. Just calm yourself and let it play out. Likely DJT will be the winner and will go on, even if from jail, to run against Biden. But I'm sure that TPTB will have a lot more in store to ruin Trump's prospects of becoming POTUS.

All the other candidates owe it to Trump to step aside and clear the decks.

 

[jamil]

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

First you're doing a bit of manipulation here. "any view that is heterodox?" is obviously not accurate. I've conversed with many Trumpers I've disagreed with on INGO without ever saying they have cult-like devotion. It's a pattern of behavior that makes the behavior. I think you appear to be incapable of critical thinking about Trump, evidenced by a complete lack of critical interest. You praise him when he's actually done something objectively wrong or questionable. That looks to me as a cult-like devotion.

And, c'mon. You've done your own share of derogatory commentary provoked by nothing more than someone criticizing Trump for something.

Stalking is yet another attempt to prejudice our disagreement (and a tactic copied from Kut).

You claiming I'm copying Kut is an attempt to predudice our disagreement. I say stalking because I can say something in an unrelated thread/topci, having nothing to do with you or Trump or our disagreements, and you pull some backhanded driveby.

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.

I don't care that you think Trump is exactly what we need. Lot's of people on INGO think that. I disagree, but respectfully. It's when you make the wild ass claims. I'm not talking about just minor things or soft points. I mean irrational stuff. Was Oz a wise choice for Trump to endorse? Not in any sane world. Was it wise for Trump to attempt to switch electors as a ploy to stay in office? Not in any sane world. Was the claim of Kraken well enough supported to believe it? Not in any sane world. I can go on.

You believed those things because you have a fierce loyalty and devotion to Trump, which causes you to be blind to legitimate criticisms. And it's not even that you're biased. We're all biased. But you'll make up some extraordinarily complicated scenario that you think proves you're right. Like the whole think about how Soros endorsed DeSantis. That was ridiculous. And then in retaliation you'll go around doing drive-bys feigned in purple.

So when it comes to Trump. Yeah. I think I'm a bit more objective than you are. I don't have a stake Trump being seen as good, or bad per se. I think my body of posts supports that. What I do care about is that whatever it is, it's accurate. And it works both ways. For example, it's not accurate to perceive Trump as any more racist than the people who accuse him of being one. It's not accurate to perceive Trump as being more popular than he is.

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

I can separate what is my opinion from what is objectively true, at least when I don't have a stake in an issue that I care deeply about. I don't know what you think I was wrong about in 2016, other than I thought Trump would lose. And objectively speaking, he came very close to losing. Add up the votes in a few states that could easily gone the other way but for just 10s of thousands of votes, and Trump wouldn't have won. We'd likely have Hillary for a second term right now. In 2024. What do you think I'll be wrong about? That sounds like we could probably dig some objective points out of that discussion.

Now, what makes you think that I think it's your ego that infects your opinions? I don't think that at all. I don't think you're egotistical particularly. My body of posts on the subject has made it absolutely clear that I think it's your "fierce loyalty and adoration" that makes your biases a blind spot concerning Trump. How could you not have made THAT connection. I've only posted variations of the same phrase at least hundreds of times on INGO.

I think it is not wise to have fierce loyalty and adoration for a politician who wants to rule you. I have been absolutely consistent on that over many years. And I'll tell you again why I say this. Because having a guy that you're fiercely loyal to and adore, will affect one's ability to be objective. Speaking of, you keep accusing me of having a guy without proof. Show me the posts. But show all of it, not cherry-picked out of context. What you will find is absolute consistency on that. No fierce loyalties for politicians. Period. We need the ability to criticize, not to idolize.

 

[jamil]

All the other candidates owe it to Trump to step aside and clear the decks.

No. They don't. Everyone who's in it has a right to be in the race until they decide not to be or they win.

 

[jamil]

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

---

If Trump is indicted for politics it suggests that the DOJ is out to get him, so how can one also claim he brought it upon himself? It's either or. It makes no sense to be both.

If the thinking is that it is both, namely, that Trump gave the DOJ stuff with what to work with, it leads to this point: The DOJ inserted itself in the politics of...

---

This is faulty logic. It's a false dichotomy. First, the claim that he brought it upon himself is actually in the respect that he gave them the rope to hang him with. It's not his fault that they are weaponizing the DOJ. But, he gave them a slam dunk way to indict him while getting sufficient public opinion behind indicting him. They also were able to use that to raid him and get more election fodder. It was idiotic for Trump, regardless of what IM says, to take those documents home. What did he need, as a re-minted civilian, with alleged military secrets? Why did he (allegedly) try to hide them al-Rawi style?

Both things can be true. 1) The DoJ is being weaponized against Trump. 2) Trump didn't have to give them the rope.

That's about all I have time for.

 

[jamil]

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

I was talking about the general election. If we need numerical superiority, why did Trump after losing in 2020 discourage Republican voters in GA from voting? If we need numerical superiority, then why endorse an idiot that a lot of GOP voters don't like? Would Oz actually be a reliable vote in the Senate?

 

[jamil]

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

You said you didn't think I'd switch to Trump, that I would go to someone else before Trump. I listed all the people that I would absolutely not vote for in the primary. I think it was pretty much everyone else but DeSantis, who is in this scenario, dropped out. You're a smart man. I don't have to say who is the lone person in the race besides all the other people I would not vote for if DeSantis dropped out. Can you guess who that is? Let's do this visually since you're having a difficult time with envisioning the result set when removing several objects from the set.

[Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, [everyone else]]

Who is left?

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

Now I have to scream from the rooftops? Are there any other in Bug's rules? You keep imagining I think things you have zero evidence for. I dunno. Maybe you just skim through the posts looking for words you think you can use to gen up some straw. It obviously isn't because you've actually read what I think.

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

And there it is. Endlessly clinging to the ABT straw. Your contempt is clouding your judgement. In this exchange I am absolutely claiming that I am more objective than you are. Again I'll challenge you to prove your thinking. And if you could take my advice, and ask yourself the question I like to ask, am I the one full of ****? Is jamil really a DeSantis fanboi? And this should lead you to go search my posts objectively, searching to prove once and for all, by my own words, that I am secretly a fiercely loyal DeSantis fanboi. No cheating though. No prevaricating. No cherry picking without showing full context. No complicated hypothetical scenarios for how words I used could possibly be taken by Australian aborigines, to mean that my criticisms of DeSantis are really love thoughts.

Now. One thing you have right. I will vote for Trump if he's left standing, but I am not calling that anything that looks like ardent support. If DeSantis won, I wouldn't be out there going door-to-door for him either. It's a thing I have against politicians. I'm the voter. Earn my vote. That's it. Trump would get the same as DeSantis. My vote. Don't like it? I don't care. You go give the zoomers a handy to vote for Trump.

 

[BugI02]

All the other candidates owe it to Trump to step aside and clear the decks.

That has ZERO to do with what is actually the crux of this discussion. Once Trump wins the nomination and any other candidates chances to head the Republican ticket have been mathematically reduced to zero, the faction that wants loyal Trump supporters to rally round the DeSantis (or Ramaswamy or whoever the latest Scott Walker stand in is) flag is indicating that their idea of supporting the nominee is sit on their hands until November 5th, grudgingly pull the lever for Trump and then bitch about it

My position is that seems a VERY faint idea of what support should mean. You'll get what you give if things break your way. Whether we would vote third party for Trump is a red herring, it is a decision you all have very little chance of facing. Voting third party would be supporting who we think is the best nominee, but I at least would be wholeheartedly supporting the rest of the ticket and can't even honestly say at this time if I would vote third party. The decision to burn it down turns on the likelihood something can be built from the ashes, but to roll over for those supposedly on our side who are devoting devoting every effort, fair or foul, to preventing me from having that choice is quite unpalatable. Perhaps they should be rewarded with real pain rather than supporting yet another CoCrublican gentleman loser

 

[jamil]

That has ZERO to do with what is actually the crux of this discussion. Once Trump wins the nomination and any other candidates chances to head the Republican ticket have been mathematically reduced to zero, the faction that wants loyal Trump supporters to rally round the DeSantis (or Ramaswamy or whoever the latest Scott Walker stand in is) flag is indicating that their idea of supporting the nominee is sit on their hands until November 5th, grudgingly pull the lever for Trump and then bitch about it

Here's the thing. I wouldn't expect you to do anything I wouldn't do. I would not expect you to enthusiastically support DeSantis, Or Ramaswammy. I think you're feeling slighted without anyone actually slighting you.

My position is that seems a VERY faint idea of what support should mean. You'll get what you give if things break your way. Whether we would vote third party for Trump is a red herring, it is a decision you all have very little chance of facing. Voting third party would be supporting who we think is the best nominee, but I at least would be wholeheartedly supporting the rest of the ticket and can't even honestly say at this time if I would vote third party. The decision to burn it down turns on the likelihood something can be built from the ashes, but to roll over for those supposedly on our side who are devoting devoting every effort, fair or foul, to preventing me from having that choice is quite unpalatable. Perhaps they should be rewarded with real pain rather than supporting yet another CoCrublican gentleman loser

I don't think whether you would vote third party for Trump is a red herring. I think it might as well be a preordained fact. If Trump goes third party, I think the election goes to Democrats. I mean. Talk about an agonizing decision.

If I were that loyal to Trump, and I had the kind of hope that you have invested in him, I'll freely admit that I would probably go third party to vote for him. But again, this is why politicians don't get my support. I want to be free enough from biases to be able to criticize or even not vote for them if there is a better victory to be won.

 

[BugI02]

You claiming I'm copying Kut is an attempt to predudice our disagreement. I say stalking because I can say something in an unrelated thread/topci, having nothing to do with you or Trump or our disagreements, and you pull some backhanded driveby.

How does that go? Oh, yeah ...

"And, c'mon. You've done your own share of derogatory commentary provoked by nothing more than someone [supporting] Trump for something"

Something something too hot something kitchen

 

[jamil]

How does that go? Oh, yeah ...

"And, c'mon. You've done your own share of derogatory commentary provoked by nothing more than someone [supporting] Trump for something"

Something something too hot something kitchen

I never said it was too hot. I said you did what you accuse me of doing.

 

[Twangbanger]

I'm uncritically supporting Trump (but not like a fanboi, that's too much) until he's in a jail cell, at which point I'll give lukewarm support to DeSantis, unless the conviction doesn't happen until after Trump's in office, in which case I reserve the right to not support whatever evangelical putz he names as Veep this time unless it's Nikki Haley, but only if she posts nude photos of herself combing another girl's **** hair and hitting a bong like Katie Hill, otherwise I'll support Ramaswamy, but only if Joe Blow strokes out and leaves Kamala in charge because I want to see an Indian-American Republican man turkey-stomping an Indian-American Democratic woman like she's his wife a prostitute, which might be kinda cool, unless he turns out to have a George Santos issue in which case I'll write-in Ron Paul because I'm INGO and of course I would, and put Tim Scott (M-W-F) and Jim Jordan (T-Th) for Veep.

/thread.

 

[KG1]

Here's the thing. I wouldn't expect you to do anything I wouldn't do. I would not expect you to enthusiastically support DeSantis, Or Ramaswammy. I think you're feeling slighted without anyone actually slighting you..

Bingo and don't expect anything more from me when you would not even do as much as I if the tables were turned.

 

[BugI02]

Like the whole think about how Soros endorsed DeSantis

This canard needs to be addressed, as it is the third or fourth time you have brought it up

I did not post the Soros thing and I believe I only commented on it once. That you need to lay that at my feet shows that either you immediately associate any wild claim about Trump solely with me or you are intentionally throwing shade

And BTW, although Trump endorsed him, Oz WAS the people's choice. Trump didn't see that his name was on the ticket, a popular vote did so. Trump doesn't have anywhere near the power over people's actions as you like to portray. Perhaps, as in my own case, few people thought a billionaire hedge fund manager was likely to represent anyone besides the country club GOP or be particularly AF. When people take actions you disagree with, you can't help but get testy about it and when you disagree with people's decisions you love present yourself as superiorly resistant to biases when you in no way meet that standard. THAT is what gravels me most about you, the insistence that there is something special about your cognitive skills. For god's sake, who besides a frustrated expat from debate club would even mention the Hegelian Dialectic in ordinary discussion. Get over yourself

 

[BugI02]

Speaking of, you keep accusing me of having a guy without proof. Show me the posts.

But weren't you the one who said that it wasn't necessary for me to post that I was 'fiercely loyal' to Trump, that it could be inferred from my arguments

Perhaps your inability to look for a candidate you can support in a field that includesTrump is equally indicative that the guy you do praise at every opportunity as well as make excuses for (remember a few posts ago you insisting that DeSantis was correct to crawfish to the GOPe on Ukraine being a territorial dispute? If it isn't about territory, what is it about?) is in fact, your guy. Your actions indicate that 'loyal to no one' is an eminence front

 

[BugI02]

Now I have to scream from the rooftops? Are there any other in Bug's rules? You keep imagining I think things you have zero evidence for.

You keep imagining that there is no evidence for the things I think. You believe you make decisions for rational reasons, I believe you make decisions based on rationalized reasoning

 

[BugI02]

I was talking about the general election. If we need numerical superiority, why did Trump after losing in 2020 discourage Republican voters in GA from voting? If we need numerical superiority, then why endorse an idiot that a lot of GOP voters don't like? Would Oz actually be a reliable vote in the Senate?

Didn't Oz win the Pennsylvania republican primary for that senate seat? Pennsylvania does not have open primaries, so the canard that Dems wanted Oz because they thought he would be easier to beat isn't available to you on this one.
So, was. Oz. not. the. PEOPLE'S. choice?

I would say Trump endorsed someone that could deliver a majority of republicans and had a path to winning. That's about all he can do, he can't guarantee the outcome. Why is it so hard to believe in the populist era that a majority of Pennsylvania republicans might just not feel a billionaire hedge fund manager turned politician was who they wanted representing them in that seat

The Georgia thing was crazy, even for me. I have no idea what any worthwhile goal of that could have been, it isn't like a quorum of voters is needed to elect someone. AOC is proof evenly 15000 people can elect a representative (by winning the primary in a district that always votes blue). But we aren't talking about Trump and Georgia and him recognizing the need for numerical superiority, we're talking about you ducking and weaving on the hypothetical of who you would vote for if you were an Oz-hating Pennsylvanian - and the fact you will put so much effort into not admitting in Oz v Fetterman you should vote Oz is ... instructive

 

[BugI02]

You said you didn't think I'd switch to Trump, that I would go to someone else before Trump. I listed all the people that I would absolutely not vote for in the primary. I think it was pretty much everyone else but DeSantis, who is in this scenario, dropped out. You're a smart man. I don't have to say who is the lone person in the race besides all the other people I would not vote for if DeSantis dropped out. Can you guess who that is? Let's do this visually since you're having a difficult time with envisioning the result set when removing several objects from the set.

[Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, [everyone else]]

Who is left?


Now I have to scream from the rooftops? Are there any other in Bug's rules? You keep imagining I think things you have zero evidence for. I dunno. Maybe you just skim through the posts looking for words you think you can use to gen up some straw. It obviously isn't because you've actually read what I think.


And there it is. Endlessly clinging to the ABT straw. Your contempt is clouding your judgement. In this exchange I am absolutely claiming that I am more objective than you are. Again I'll challenge you to prove your thinking. And if you could take my advice, and ask yourself the question I like to ask, am I the one full of ****? Is jamil really a DeSantis fanboi? And this should lead you to go search my posts objectively, searching to prove once and for all, by my own words, that I am secretly a fiercely loyal DeSantis fanboi. No cheating though. No prevaricating. No cherry picking without showing full context. No complicated hypothetical scenarios for how words I used could possibly be taken by Australian aborigines, to mean that my criticisms of DeSantis are really love thoughts.

Now. One thing you have right. I will vote for Trump if he's left standing, but I am not calling that anything that looks like ardent support. If DeSantis won, I wouldn't be out there going door-to-door for him either. It's a thing I have against politicians. I'm the voter. Earn my vote. That's it. Trump would get the same as DeSantis. My vote. Don't like it? I don't care. You go give the zoomers a handy to vote for Trump.

So you'll take a republican president if it's handed to you with minimal effort on your part.

In a word, slacktivism


con·de·scend
verb
show feelings of superiority; be patronizing.
do something in a haughty way, as though it is below one's dignity or level of importance

Bingo

 

[jamil]

I'm uncritically supporting Trump (but not like a fanboi, that's too much) until he's in a jail cell, at which point I'll give lukewarm support to DeSantis, unless the conviction doesn't happen until after Trump's in office, in which case I reserve the right to not support whatever evangelical putz he names as Veep this time unless it's Nikki Haley, but only if she posts nude photos of herself combing another girl's **** hair and hitting a bong like Katie Hill, otherwise I'll support Ramaswamy, but only if Joe Blow strokes out and leaves Kamala in charge because I want to see an Indian-American Republican man turkey-stomping an Indian-American Democratic woman like she's his wife a prostitute, which might be kinda cool, unless he turns out to have a George Santos issue in which case I'll write-in Ron Paul because I'm INGO and of course I would, and put Tim Scott (M-W-F) and Jim Jordan (T-Th) for Veep.

/thread.

Uh. I'm right there with you up to that last thing. Jim Jordan? WTF is wrong with you? Are you from Ohio or something? MTG baby.

 

[jamil]

But weren't you the one who said that it wasn't necessary for me to post that I was 'fiercely loyal' to Trump, that it could be inferred from my arguments

Uh. Wait. Are you now saying that you're actually NOT fiercely loyal? No? Anyway, I kinda doubt I said that. I've been making you wear the "fiercely loyal" thing since around the 2016 election, because YOU coined it. I had said something about about blind loyalty, and you push back claiming that I must wish I had a candidate that I would have such fierce loyalty to. Or something to that effect. So I've just been helping you wear the term for the last several years.

Perhaps your inability to look for a candidate you can support

Okay so no, you're not going to actually make a logical case for how I am secretly as loyal to DeSantis as you are to Trump. I mean, I don't blame you for deflecting here. Given my consistancy on the subject, it's a hard thing to fabricate.

in a field that includesTrump is equally indicative that the guy you do praise at every opportunity as well as make excuses for (remember a few posts ago you insisting that DeSantis was correct to crawfish to the GOPe on Ukraine being a territorial dispute? If it isn't about territory, what is it about?) is in fact, your guy. Your actions indicate that 'loyal to no one' is an eminence front

The guy I praise? At every opportunity? Well, then. I suppose there should be ample examples to make your case. Please. By all means. Post them. But. Remember the no cherry picking rule.

Now about Ukraine. Sure, it is broadly about territory, but it's reductive to characterize the whole war as simply a territorial dispute. It's reasonably US-first to say it's not our business. Being US-first does not require reductive language to claim the conflict is less than it actually is.

I think the mistake DeSantis made was to reduce it as simply a territorial dispute in the first place. And that cost him having to walk it back after he ****ed up. But he was right to walk it back. Characterizing it as me insisting that DeSantis was correct to crawfish to the GOP is ridiculous. I said no such thing.