Trump 2024 ???

[SheepDog4Life]

Republicans Are Missing the Point of Trump — Again - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Casting about for someone to hold accountable after Republicans performed below expectations in the midterm elections, many Republicans offered a simple

spectator.org

And that same article also endorses Gov. DeSantis as the obvious way forward... moving on from Trump while embracing Trumpism:

There obviously is a path forward here. Gov. Ron DeSantis won big in Florida and captured quite a lot of the Trump vote by embracing many of the same Trump policies without as much of the accompanying Trumpy baggage. Indeed, this and other similar conservative wins help instantiate this piece’s key lesson for Republicans throughout the country: This time, as Republicans wrestle with the issues posed by another Trump run at the presidency, they should remember that — for all his flaws — the former president spoke for a lot of average people tired of the bullies throwing them under the bus.

 

[printcraft]

As much as a lot of you would like to hammer Trump here, I'll remind you, he wasn't on the ballot.
The spoiler MVP was the "anonymous" leak at the Supreme Court with the abortion mess.
It got the insane base and women (but I repeat myself) fired up, it's not anymore complicated than that.
The "Republicans" beating on him now are looking for a scapegoat when they are the ones that ran their own dick in the dirt.

 

[foszoe]

As much as a lot of you would like to

Define a lot

 

[KG1]

Sarcasm doesn't help anyone.

Taking a stance to an extreme to try and mock it just helps start arguments.

I try to avoid arguments online. Arguments are dysfunctional.

You might detect a hit of sarcasm but there is some truth in what I was trying to convey. I believe in the policy and if I want more then it should be promoted. I will try to focus on that. Fair enough?

 

[printcraft]

Define a lot

Plenty

 

[foszoe]

Plenty

Yeah. Like 3

 

[J Galt]

Covid Spending bills. Can't get any more specific and you only believe he did.

Yes, I believe he did. If I don't know for a fact, then what is your preferred wording? You seem to be antagonistic with how you are approaching this. Again, I'm not here to argue or change anyone's mind. I am expressing a different perspective on things.

I confess my ignorance. I do not know how many bills he signed. I do not know what was contained in the bill(s).

I think Indyblue made the point earlier that it's not known what deal was made, what pressure was applied, or what advise was given that led to the signing.

Giving money away is a bad move. Shutting down the country and infringing on rights (assembly and religion) are unlawful. I disagree with these 2 points (if they were parts of the bill(s)). Or in your preferred wording, I admit that these 2 points are bad moves. Just keep in mind that that is not the correct use of the word admit since I already agree and nothing is being disclosed that was not known.

Are you asking me to "admit" that DJT signing the bill(s) was wrong? I would be expressing an uninformed, ignorant, opinion without more knowledge. I don't agree with everything he did. Overall it was a net positive and there is no one better qualified than him available.

It's times like this I wish I had Mike Rowe's gift with responses.

 

[foszoe]

Yes, I believe he did. If I don't know for a fact, then what is your preferred wording? You seem to be antagonistic with how you are approaching this. Again, I'm not here to argue or change anyone's mind. I am expressing a different perspective on things.

I confess my ignorance. I do not know how many bills he signed. I do not know what was contained in the bill(s).

I think Indyblue made the point earlier that it's not known what deal was made, what pressure was applied, or what advise was given that led to the signing.

Giving money away is a bad move. Shutting down the country and infringing on rights (assembly and religion) are unlawful. I disagree with these 2 points (if they were parts of the bill(s)). Or in your preferred wording, I admit that these 2 points are bad moves. Just keep in mind that that is not the correct use of the word admit since I already agree and nothing is being disclosed that was not known.

Are you asking me to "admit" that DJT signing the bill(s) was wrong? I would be expressing an uninformed, ignorant, opinion without more knowledge. I don't agree with everything he did. Overall it was a net positive and there is no one better qualified than him available.

It's times like this I wish I had Mike Rowe's gift with responses.

Well then, basically, I see our conversation as I point out my main point of contention against trump, and you are not sure if he did what I said. That's fine.

But then I won't change my mind on that point.

I am with you on not agreeing with everything he did.

That means you should be with me on another candidate, should one step forward, that you agree with more.

That's where I'm at

 

[J Galt]

You might detect a hit of sarcasm but there is some truth in what I was trying to convey. I believe in the policy and if I want more then it should be promoted. I will try to focus on that. Fair enough?

That is completely fair and very reasonable.

We're F****** up the internet by coming to a compromise and not calling each other names or engaging in antagonistic behavior.

I feel like I should make some half assed cheap shot just to not F*** up the theme of political posts.

In all seriousness, I respect your reply. Thank you.

 

[J Galt]

Well then, basically, I see our conversation as I point out my main point of contention against trump, and you are not sure if he did what I said. That's fine.

But then I won't change my mind on that point.

I am with you on not agreeing with everything he did.

That means you should be with me on another candidate, should one step forward, that you agree with more.

That's where I'm at

No, that isn't what I meant. I am assuming you are right in him signing corona bill(s). I honestly don't remember and definitely do not know what was contained in them. I also do not pretend to know why he signed them and if it was a net positive or negative.

I never asked that you change your mind on anything. In fact, I think I typed that out specifically more than once. I am not interested in changing anyone's mind on anything.

No, that does not mean I should be with you on another candidate should one step up that I agree with more. I sincerely have no idea how you made that jump. DJT has a track record that extends over several decades. He has also held the office of POTUS. He is a known variable, he's a constant. Anyone else would be an unknown. This applies even if it is someone who is not a career politician.

I am satisfied with the way he represented the United States internationally. I am satisfied with the progress he was able to make domestically despite 'everyone' opposing him. Obviously I do not agree with everything that he did but the positive is greater than the negative. I would like to see him in office for a second term. If his ego allows I would like to see him in congress after his next presidency. THAT would be a disruptor to the status quo!!!

I actually believe he loves our country. I believe that he cares for the well being of all Americans. That is not something you see in many politicians, or in many citizens, today. We need more of that.

 

[Ingomike]

Made money on NFT's though which as far as I can tell were for personal gain not his campaign. I did question you about this but you did not answer.

Trump wants to make money fine. As a contributor to not 1 but 2 Trump campaigns I don't want to here your criticism or anyone else on financial matters unless you also contributed.

At the very least an honest candidate should make sure its obvious if I am contributing to a campaign or personal fortune.

Keep up. I did respond. I believe others even quoted it. With a self funded candidate what difference does it make which pocket the money goes in? It does not.

I did contribute to Trump for the record and to the NRA to get out the vote.

 

[Ingomike]

Do you think he is doing all of that for nothing?

For all I can find Trump is not involved in Trumpy Bear. What do you see?

 

[KG1]

That is completely fair and very reasonable.

We're F****** up the internet by coming to a compromise and not calling each other names or engaging in antagonistic behavior.

I feel like I should make some half assed cheap shot just to not F*** up the theme of political posts.

In all seriousness, I respect your reply. Thank you.

It does seem like we always tend to get into a rocky start but eventually it ends somewhat amicable in tenor that we can walk away from. I think to a certain extent it can be attributed to misunderstanding which is also quite common on the "internet field of battle".

 

[Ingomike]

How Trump Cost Republicans the Senate | National Review

When you look at the big Senate races, it is clear that Donald Trump blew his party’s chances at claiming the majority.

www.nationalreview.com

Meticulous detail how Trump inserted his clowns into the AZ, GA and PA Senate races and how they drastically under-performed the generic Republican brand.

He picked losers... in races that counted... and gave Schumer the gavel... again.

Great, an anti Trump group blames Trump, who would have thought that?

 

[foszoe]

Keep up. I did respond. I believe others even quoted it. With a self funded candidate what difference does it make which pocket the money goes in? It does not.

I did contribute to Trump for the record and to the NRA to get out the vote.

If we both contributed to him, how are we defining self funded? What difference does it make is not an answer, I will grant you it is a response.

 

[foszoe]

Great, an anti Trump group blames Trump, who would have thought that?

???
Name me a Pro Trump group that blames Trump.

 

[J Galt]

It does seem like we always tend to get into a rocky start but eventually it ends somewhat amicable in tenor that we can away from. I think to a certain extent it can be attributed to misunderstanding which is also quite common on the "internet field of battle".

Typed words suck compared to an in-person conversation.

Twitter is a great example of this.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Really, the National Review, who has been hyper-critical of Trump since the beginning?

So, at National Review they have everything from ardent Trump fans to a handful of Never Trumpers (all but one have left).

And everyone of them explain to the hilt their positions... read them all and take your pick based upon what it important to you.

Of course, with Trump, any criticism is "hyper-critical" because he has skin so thin it makes tissue paper look hefty. An ego so fragile is must be Faberge.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Great, an anti Trump group blames Trump, who would have thought that?

Read it... tell me where he's wrong. He goes through the facts, the history, the election trends, the Trump candidate versus EVERY OTHER comparable Republican in that state.

Trump picked clowns because they would kiss his *** and they lost because that's all they were, ***-kissing clowns.

 

[KG1]

???
Name me a Pro Trump group that blames Trump.

That would be novel. Blaming Trump by definition is anti-Trump.