DeSantis 2024?

[foszoe]

That paragraph distills exactly how I feel in a succinct way that I could never duplicate

Bravo, my hat is off

Trump has supported CFG candidates though ahainst non CFG ones. I sm not understanding how ties to CFG is an automatic disqualification.

 

[jamil]

Trump has supported CFG candidates though ahainst non CFG ones. I sm not understanding how ties to CFG is an automatic disqualification.

It’s the rulez If CfG supports Trump or his candidates, they’re good. If there is any competitor in the running who CfG supports, then they’re bad. The only reason Trumpers hate CfG is because the Trumper media told them to.

 

[BugI02]

Trump has supported CFG candidates though ahainst non CFG ones. I sm not understanding how ties to CFG is an automatic disqualification.

Perhaps go back and reread his paragraph I quoted, this time for comprehension?

 

[jamil]

Perhaps go back and reread his paragraph I quoted, this time for comprehension?

Why? It looks to me that he’s read the room accurately. If Trump endorses CfG candidates over non CfG candidates and you didn’t even blink at that, why do you pound this bit of dirt so hard?

Is it because you feel compelled to attack any potential opponent of Trump’s for any reason you can imagine? Isn't that what fiercely loyal people do? Doesn’t matter if there’s any merit or consistency to the reason. It’s dirt you can pound and that’s good enough.

 

[Ingomike]

“Despite speculation that DeSantis will announce a 2024 White House bid this summer, the governor is reportedly considering a 2028 run once Trump is out of the picture.“

"DeSantis wants to raise money and test the waters, but what he really wants to do is run in 2028 after Trump wins or loses, with him or without him. It's early days, but some donors are pushing for a partnership," the source continued.“

“This comes as a recent poll found that 58 percent of Republican primary voters said that they would support Trump, while only 21 percent said they would choose DeSantis.“

Turn of Events: Trump Reportedly Mulling DeSantis As 2024 Running Mate

townhall.com

 

[Ingomike]

FL Senate Passes Bill That Would Allow DeSantis to Remain Governor While Running for President

townhall.com

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You may find this intereating…

The New Baby-Killers

townhall.com

Yup... I agree. 6-weeks is viewed as extreme by more than a simple majority of voters.

 

[jamil]

Yup... I agree. 6-weeks is viewed as extreme by more than a simple majority of voters.

Democrats can get away with policies far outside Overton’s window because they don’t have to operate within any bounds. They have an army of media to gaslight people into going along with anything. Overton’s window effectively no longer applies to much of the country gullible enough to believe the grift.

On the other hand, Republicans can’t get away with anything outside the window. But they think they can.

 

[xwing]

With a 6-week heartbeat law on his resume, RDS is even more unelectable in the current environment, to "purple" areas. The media will make him look like Mike Pence.

I agree that signing that bill will harm him in the general election. But of course, he couldn't veto it and still survive the primaries. It would've been much better had the Florida legislature not put him in that impossible position.

Abortion is a terrible issue for Republicans on the national level (or any moderate state level). The official Republican party position is in marked opposition to the position of the general public, and plenty of people care enough to vote based on it. This issue is a loser, and it would do well to be pushed to the background. As long as it's "front and center", the Republican party will continue to lose elections because of it.

Yup... live by the political sword, die by the political sword... throwing stones in glass houses... etc, etc, etc.

DeSantis finally showed that conservatives can "push back" when companies go all political and aggressively push for left-wing policies. IMO the fight against Disney will help DeSantis more than harm him (but anything controversial cuts both ways.)

 

[xwing]

You may find this intereating…

The New Baby-Killers

townhall.com

Unfortunately, that article is accurate. Instead of compromise (e.g. requiring parental notification, banning partial birth abortions, putting some restrictions on the for-profit abortion engine), the pro-life folks are going for the whole enchilada, and we may lose the country because of it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I agree that signing that bill will harm him in the general election. But of course, he couldn't veto it and still survive the primaries. It would've been much better had the Florida legislature not put him in that impossible position.

I agree 6-week bans are election losers... not so sure this was "forced" down his throat as he's supported heartbeat bans since 2018... though RVW was in force at the time.

Putnam and DeSantis vow to sign abortion-ban law if elected

Abortion laws have come under scrutiny since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday.

www.politico.com

Abortion is a terrible issue for Republicans on the national level (or any moderate state level). The official Republican party position is in marked opposition to the position of the general public, and plenty of people care enough to vote based on it. This issue is a loser, and it would do well to be pushed to the background. As long as it's "front and center", the Republican party will continue to lose elections because of it.

I really think that Republicans can pick up some votes on the issue if they hold the line at the 15-week mark with some/few exceptions. I do think they need to make this the new "normal" for quite a period of time for it to me anything more than a marginal gain of votes from the independents.

BUT, extreme positions, versus the majority of the voters feelings, and 6-week bans qualify, can lose far more votes than can be gained... IMO, it can be a small plus, or a large minus for Rs.

DeSantis finally showed that conservatives can "push back" when companies go all political and aggressively push for left-wing policies. IMO the fight against Disney will help DeSantis more than harm him (but anything controversial cuts both ways.)

Yes, I think it is a big winner for DeSantis... his opposition supports "teaching kindergartners LGBTQ queer-theory..." Should a Corp that supports that and attempts to influence legislation have sweet-heart deals with the state?

I think it's a winner with more than just conservatives, anyone who hasn't swallowed the "woke" kool-aid and shaved their heads will likely agree with DeSantis and say "IT'S ABOUT TIME!".
Well the wokesters, hard left Dems, MSM and the Trump die-hards.

ETA: Forgot to add, opposed by CoC/CfG Rinos as well.

 

[Ingomike]

I agree that signing that bill will harm him in the general election. But of course, he couldn't veto it and still survive the primaries. It would've been much better had the Florida legislature not put him in that impossible position.

Abortion is a terrible issue for Republicans on the national level (or any moderate state level). The official Republican party position is in marked opposition to the position of the general public, and plenty of people care enough to vote based on it. This issue is a loser, and it would do well to be pushed to the background. As long as it's "front and center", the Republican party will continue to lose elections because of it.

Many years ago I read a well thought out article about how the SCOTUS decision on roe was actually a tactical advantage to republicans. Republicans could always work against abortion from a reasonable angle, while on the other side, since the decision was in the dems favor they had to defend the heinous, like partial birth abortion.

We are now seeing republicans. used to that tactical advantage, not understanding they do not have that any longer, now the dems are using the “reasonable“ against them.

 

[BugI02]

Why? It looks to me that he’s read the room accurately. If Trump endorses CfG candidates over non CfG candidates and you didn’t even blink at that, why do you pound this bit of dirt so hard?

I think you need to go check some of those 'CfG candidates' and see whether Trump endorsed them first and CfG was drafting off his popularity

Is it because you feel compelled to attack any potential opponent of Trump’s for any reason you can imagine? Isn't that what fiercely loyal people do? Doesn’t matter if there’s any merit or consistency to the reason. It’s dirt you can pound and that’s good enough.

Why do you need to pound this bit of sand so hard? For someone who has spent years questioning my integrity, you sure get fussy in a hurry when someone questions yours or that of the 'guy' you don't have. As I've said before, if you really do look at everything in an unbiased manner that should be self-evident - you won't need to sell it so hard

I'm not hiding the fact that I am a Trumper, IMO you are hiding the fact you are an anybody but Trumper behind a fog of faux intellectualism and rationalization

I am anti-CfG primarily because I am anti-unrestricted immigration and anti-free trade when that is used to strip America and American workers of the basis for a stable economy and society. I am anti-billionaires giving heavily to any candidates because in every situation billionaires want to influence policy in the direction of what makes them the most money not what's good for America. I have little doubt that if CfG was backing Trump right now you would have a negative opinion of them. Since we're on the subject, I think it likely you will be becoming a big fan of the NY Post soon because they are pushing DeSantis that guy you don't have over Trump

I don't expect you to do the work, but if you go back far enough you could find that I was skeptical of CfG for those exact reasons long before DeSantis the guy you don't have was even governor. I expect you will attribute that, trivially, to the fact that they worked against Trump during the run up to 2016 - a fact that should rather have you looking at who they did back. If they're such a 'libertarian' organization, why didn't they back Rand Paul for president in 2016? Only a month after Rand dropped out they made their 'first ever' endorsement of a presidential candidate by endorsing Cruz, why not endorse someone aligned with your supposed ideology a few months sooner?

Could it be Rand, like Trump, could not be counted on to do their bidding and Cruz would? Or that by that time they had grown desperate to slow the Trump juggernaut

 

[Twangbanger]

Many years ago I read a well thought out article about how the SCOTUS decision on roe was actually a tactical advantage to republicans. Republicans could always work against abortion from a reasonable angle, while on the other side, since the decision was in the dems favor they had to defend the heinous, like partial birth abortion.

We are now seeing republicans. used to that tactical advantage, not understanding they do not have that any longer, now the dems are using the “reasonable“ against them.

You nailed it. In ripping the scab off a 50 year old topic, they've regained the privilege of losing elections over an issue that used to be settled.

The White House is now a five-city election: Phoenix, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia decide for the Nation.

If you're going to try to force a federal abortion ban onto blue and purple states, you may as well be stuffing the democrats' ballot boxes for them.

 

[Ingomike]

The White House is now a five-city election: Phoenix, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia decide for the Nation.

A true, though terrifying point…

 

[KLB]

You nailed it. In ripping the scab off a 50 year old topic, they've regained the privilege of losing elections over an issue that used to be settled.

The White House is now a five-city election: Phoenix, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia decide for the Nation.

If you're going to try to force a federal abortion ban onto blue and purple states, you may as well be stuffing the democrats' ballot boxes for them.

Any R candidate should be saying The USSC said it was a an issue for the States, and they agree that is where it belongs.

 

[Ingomike]

Any R candidate should be saying The USSC said it was a an issue for the States, and they agree that is where it belongs.

THIS!

 

[KG1]

Any R candidate should be saying The USSC said it was a an issue for the States, and they agree that is where it belongs.

DeSantis agreed. The legislature of the state of Fla decided the issue and as governor of the state DeSantis was adhering to that and signed the bill. They agreed with the USSC that it is a state issue. and acted accordingly as it should be.

Should DeSantis abstain from making decisions as a state executive because he may be running as a national candidate, and it may have implications?

 

[jamil]

I think you need to go check some of those 'CfG candidates' and see whether Trump endorsed them first and CfG was drafting off his popularity

Why do you need to pound this bit of sand so hard? For someone who has spent years questioning my integrity, you sure get fussy in a hurry when someone questions yours or that of the 'guy' you don't have. As I've said before, if you really do look at everything in an unbiased manner that should be self-evident - you won't need to sell it so hard

Spent years questioning your integrity? Bull ****. When I have something to say critical of Trump, you take it personally and go off. BTW, if you're willing to do the work, go back through this and other threads. See what I've had to say about DeSantis. All of it. I have some good and bad things to say about DeSantis. Just like I have some good and bad things to say about Trump. But you're unable to handle criticism of Trump. I suspect you don't typically make it through even the short posts. You probably won't make it through this one. Because if you have, and your reading comprehension isn't affected by your resentment you might discover some reality about what I actually think of DeSantis. But maybe because I don't think he's literally Satan, you think I must think he's Jesus.

I'm not hiding the fact that I am a Trumper, IMO you are hiding the fact you are an anybody but Trumper behind a fog of faux intellectualism and rationalization

I fully understand you're a Trumper. That's fine. My body of posts make that abundantly clear. I have made no secret that I am not a Trumper. If you think I'm hiding that fact then you really haven't read anything. But, I'm obviously NOT *anybody but Trump* or I would not have voted for him Twice. And I would not be prepared to vote for him again if he is the nominee. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to get it. Maybe it's that you're incapable of even discerning the not so subtle states in between never Trump and always Trump.

I will say it as plainly as I can. I'll use short words. Let's see if you can follow. I am not a Trump fan. If you've misunderstood any intent on my part, ask anyone else on INGO, I think they can vouch for the fact that I am not a Trump fan. But, I'm not anybody but Trump. I would not vote for Trump if I think someone is better. But I would not vote for Nikki Haley over Trump. I would not vote for any Democrat over Trump. And if DeSantis keeps making unforced errors, I may not even vote for him over Trump. At this point I not sure who I will vote for. That will be a game time decision.

Does that clear it up for you? Do you understand the difference now between anyone but Trump and always Trump? I hope so. It's not a complicated concept. And anyone on INGO who bothers to read my posts, and doesn't have some ulterior need to paint me into a corner I've never visited understands that.

I am anti-CfG primarily because I am anti-unrestricted immigration and anti-free trade when that is used to strip America and American workers of the basis for a stable economy and society. I am anti-billionaires giving heavily to any candidates because in every situation billionaires want to influence policy in the direction of what makes them the most money not what's good for America.

Sorry. I don't recall any posts where you've railed against CfG until you disparately started pound that dirt in the DeSantis thread. Now, there could be other reasons I don't remember than that you didn't actually say it. Maybe you did. And I didn't read it. I don't always read every post. It also might be that I don't remember it. My recollection isn't as good as it used to be. But I don't remember anything of the sort.

According to your list of principles up there, you and I are not far apart other than, you like Trump and I don't. You think he's the unique and best answer for America's problems. I don't. But he's better than any Democrat. Better than any CoC neocon Republican. You're welcome to disagree. You're welcome to believe that DeSantis is a CoC neocon Republican. I'm not seeing it. But you're not welcome to declare what I believe, especially when you've made it obvious you can't even read what I write. You misunderstand everything, and then use that misunderstanding to justify more.

I have little doubt that if CfG was backing Trump right now you would have a negative opinion of them. Since we're on the subject, I think it likely you will be becoming a big fan of the NY Post soon because they are pushing DeSantis that guy you don't have over Trump

I am not now a big fan of NYP. I distrust media. I don't pay any attention to endorsements. But, you're not gonna read that. So it doesn't matter. I might as well have written Lorem Ipsom. That's how much you'll comprehend from it. You'll just read, blah blah blah and assume it confirms everything you believe.

I don't expect you to do the work, but if you go back far enough you could find that I was skeptical of CfG for those exact reasons long before DeSantis the guy you don't have was even governor. I expect you will attribute that, trivially, to the fact that they worked against Trump during the run up to 2016 - a fact that should rather have you looking at who they did back. If they're such a 'libertarian' organization, why didn't they back Rand Paul for president in 2016? Only a month after Rand dropped out they made their 'first ever' endorsement of a presidential candidate by endorsing Cruz, why not endorse someone aligned with your supposed ideology a few months sooner?

Like I said, I don't recall you saying jack **** about CfG. I'll have to take your word for it because ***damn straight I'm not spending my time looking up your posts. If it makes you feel better, YOU look them up and post 'em. I'd be happy to read them and congratulate you for disliking CfG before DeSantis came along. But just remember, as I've said elsewhere, just like I didn't hold it against Trump that white nationalists supported him, I don't hold it against DeSantis for CfG to donate to him. I don't play that collectivist left wing disavowal tag. It's retarded. And it's a stupid guilt by association game. But you probably didn't read that then, and probably aren't reading it now.

Could it be Rand, like Trump, could not be counted on to do their bidding and Cruz would? Or that by that time they had grown desperate to slow the Trump juggernaut

I think you put too much imagination into your thinking. That is some wild ass speculation. And there's nothing wrong with speculating during a discussion, as long as you understand that it's speculation. Especially when it's wild ass speculation. And I'd define wild ass speculation as saying something you act like you believe is true without having any evidence for it but your own suspicions or paranoia.

 

[Ingomike]

Clearly INGO needs a character limit…