Trump 2024 ???

[BugI02]

You. By suggesting the offering of a candidate the left does not hate. The candidate examples I gave were both heralded by the MSM but as soon as they were the nominated candidate the narrative changed. Yep, they pulled the football again…

THIS ^^^^. Somehow when the media and the left push the idea that republicans should prefer DeSantis over Trump, I doubt they are doing so because they feel DeSantis will be harder to beat in the general. I think they are doing it because they wish to derail a Trump candidacy ASAP by any means possible and then they can sink DeSantis at their leisure

Much was made of Dems supporting AF/Trump connected candidates in primaries because they thought they would be easier to beat in the general. Why would anyone who thought that believe that the left/MSM pushing a DeSantis candidacy would be anything but more of the same

 

[JTScribe]

I admit I did not initially. I went back and read it. I'm skeptical about the post. I'm not familiar with the page publisher.

Did she not sign legislation stopping biological males from competing in women's sports?

It's possible the article calling her a bitch is unbiased and factual. It is also possible it is an attack against a governor that kept the state open from the beginning of the corona panic.

If what they are saying is true, it is (to say the least) concerning. I'm not willing to lose faith in her over one article that calls her a bitch and makes other accusations. It's pretty well known that media engages in coordinated attacks against people who are targeted.

If this article is true, this is not meant to take away from her responsibility, but where are the parents that send their kids to this school? Why are they not making a bigger issue of this?

After vetoing it and catching hell from voters, yes, she eventually signed another version. That right there is a prime example of shaky initial instincts.

 

[J Galt]

After vetoing it and catching hell from voters, yes, she eventually signed another version. That right there is a prime example of shaky initial instincts.

Honestly, I don't agree with that. Trying to judge intent based on one action that is reported by corporate media is sketchy. I don't mean that directed at you, just as a general statement.

I'd like to know more about the back story of both (the child molester show and biological males in women's sports) before changing my opinion of her. I'm not saying that that is not what happened, just that I would like more info prior to getting my torch and pitchfork.

 

[jamil]

No. I notice you don't even consider the second part, where you assert that is just a cover for ignoring 'legitimate complaints about Trump', ignoring as well that blanket-labeling the many and varied complaints as 'legitimate' is begging the question at its finest

That proves the point, any admission that Trump is not a perfect candidate is not enough. You merely want to hear your opinions coming out of my mouth

The second part is assumed.

You hide behind the belief that any criticism at all must be because people expect perfection. But I said I don't expect perfection. I don't expect silly excuses why every legitimate criticism can't be a mistake by Trump either. It doesn't matter the criticism. You guys can always find some silly way, usually involving some behind the scenes un-evidenced genius on Trump's part, to excuse it or just outright deny it.

What intellectual honesty does not look like is denying a claim when the facts in evidence are indisputable. A prime example is when Trump ordered the BATF'krs to ban bump stocks by redefining words established by an act of congress. Some of you guys denied he did it. So we presented the order. You guys said, well that doesn't count because it's a memo and not an EO. Well, it was a memo signed by the POTUS directing the BATF'krs to do the thing. So the manor of order is irrelevant. It's not a suggestion. It's a directive. He signed it and they had to do it.

So then you guys went with the genius 4D chess angle. "Oh, Trump was just appeasing the left so they won't do worse." Wait...I thought appeasing the left was a bad thing to do. You guys say you like Trump because he doesn't do that. But when he does it, it's fine.

So intellectual honesty in that situation would have been simply, if you're going to comment at all on it, maybe something like... "Yeah. That was a mistake." But if the dissonance hurts too bad to say it, you can always just ignore it and not say anything.

So if you did any of the intellectually honest things, would saying what is objectively true for any 2A supporting person, only be my opinion coming out of your mouth?

 

[jamil]

Honestly, I don't agree with that. Trying to judge intent based on one action that is reported by corporate media is sketchy. I don't mean that directed at you, just as a general statement.

I'd like to know more about the back story of both (the child molester show and biological males in women's sports) before changing my opinion of her. I'm not saying that that is not what happened, just that I would like more info prior to getting my torch and pitchfork.

That's fair. It's possible that the reporting is faulty. If true, I think it's problematic.

 

[foszoe]

You're bound and determined to be offended and I just don't give a dry ****. I'm also not the one who used the language that has knotted your knickers. I merely offered an alternative interpretation to the one that someone meant to imply you betrayed Christ

So, ball's in your court (at least with respect to me)

Point of order, I'm not offended. I couldn't possibly even be until Ziggidy answered my questions to him. Which he chose not to.

 

[BugI02]

If someone were to tell Trump he shouldn't have used the term, "Sh!thole Countries" in public, would you accuse them of trying to make him more palatable to The Left? Or is that just saying, "Hey, be less of a Big A-hole?"

You don't seem to understand the difference. Any suggestion that he would do a better job of winning elections by not being such an a-hole, is met by "You're trying to pick someone to appease the Left!"

I don't think you understand the difference between "owning the libs" and "being an a-hole." The two are not the same. Roasting the Pope for criticizing border walls while living behind a wall himself, was classic Trump being the effective politician that we all loved. Calling other countries "Sh!thole Countries" in public was an example of being an a-hole. There's a difference. Saying "I prefer people who didn't get captured" is being an a-hole. There's a difference. It makes people cringe. Even people who support him.

If you're saying "some" people like yourself will not vote for Trump if he quits "owning the libs" by being less of an a-hole, then it sounds to me like Trumpers are the ones destroying Trump's chances, not the people who want him to be less of an a-hole.

No, we're saying that you always sound like you believe that if Patton hadn't slapped the gold-bricking soldier he would have been a better general. He would not have been, he just would have perhaps furthered his career

We are saying that expecting Trump to self-censor in the interest of furthering his career is suicidal. If he becomes just another polling driven political climber he will no longer appeal to the base; and conversely, anyone who would appeal to the base will have to show real conviction and not just focus-group driven pandering. Anyone but Trump starts at a disadvantage with a significant part of the republican electorate unless and until they prove their bona fides

If you don't believe that, then why try so hard to convince us not to write him in in '24? 'Protest' voting used to be all the rage on INGO. Gimme some of that handwash

 

[Leadeye]

I've always figured a good part of Trump's victory was hrc's poor appeal to older union voters. Comments like putting coal miners out of work really cost her with those folks. Union buddy joe was sold to these people as a figure head, even though the people really making the decisions are from a different political philosophy. The dc curia is running the country, the identity of which still remains concealed, and it's loyalty is to whoever pays it.

 

[jamil]

THIS ^^^^. Somehow when the media and the left push the idea that republicans should prefer DeSantis over Trump, I doubt they are doing so because they feel DeSantis will be harder to beat in the general. I think they are doing it because they wish to derail a Trump candidacy ASAP by any means possible and then they can sink DeSantis at their leisure

Much was made of Dems supporting AF/Trump connected candidates in primaries because they thought they would be easier to beat in the general. Why would anyone who thought that believe that the left/MSM pushing a DeSantis candidacy would be anything but more of the same

They were easier to beat. It's been brought out how Trump's chosen candidates did great in the districts where you'd expect any Republican to win. It's in the swing districts they performed poorly.

Is the left/MSM pushing DeSantis? I don't really listen to it so I have no idea who they're pushing. I see some headlines every now and again. But if they are. Could it also be a strategy to try to demoralize Trump voters? Give what you said about sitting it out made me think a good strategy for dems might be to go all in on DeSantis and in the process demoralize Trumpers to sit out the general election and give dems a big win over DeSantis. Best thing they could do is **** off the Trumpers and get you to stay home.

I don't think the division is healthy. I don't Trump as the enemy like you see DeSantis as. You're on team Trump and it looks to me like you're falling into a Trump or nothing mentality. Neither has a chance if that's how it is.

 

[Twangbanger]

There are enough Trump supporters to win. And there are more out there if there is a will to win. There always have been. Why do you think the left is doing all it does, both legal and illegal to win.

Could you show the math on this? I don't want you to get defensive; I just want to be shown how 75 million votes translates to victory, when it didn't in 2020, and with Democrats getting better and better at mail ballots every time around.

And if the predictable response is, "But don't you see they cheated!", then fine - how do you propose that Trump gets around that, when at least 40% of white voters find him poisonous? If Trump couldn't get around "the steal" in 2020, how does he get around it in 2024? Republicans cannot win "close ones." Trump guarantees the GOP can never do better than "close."

 

[BugI02]

Point of order, I'm not offended. I couldn't possibly even be until Ziggidy answered my questions to him. Which he chose not to.

If you are addressing such to me out of some some idea that I could or would somehow encourage Ziggidy to take up your gauntlet, you obviously don't understand what 'I don't give a dry ****' actually means

May I perhaps recommend the Urban Dictionary

 

[jamil]

If someone were to tell Trump he shouldn't have used the term, "Sh!thole Countries" in public, would you accuse them of trying to make him more palatable to The Left? Or is that just saying, "Hey, be less of a Big A-hole?"

You don't seem to understand the difference. Any suggestion that he would do a better job of winning elections by not being such an a-hole, is met by "You're trying to pick someone to appease the Left!"

I don't think you understand the difference between "owning the libs" and "being an a-hole." The two are not the same. Roasting the Pope for criticizing border walls while living behind a wall himself, was classic Trump being the effective politician that we all loved. Calling other countries "Sh!thole Countries" in public was an example of being an a-hole. There's a difference. Saying "I prefer people who didn't get captured" is being an a-hole. There's a difference. It makes people cringe. Even people who support him.

If you're saying "some" people like yourself will not vote for Trump if he quits "owning the libs" by being less of an a-hole, then it sounds to me like Trumpers are the ones destroying Trump's chances, not the people who want him to be less of an a-hole.

Honestly I liked that he said "****hole countries". But I guess maybe I'm a little bit of an ***hole too. I was entertained by it, but, not everyone appreciates the humor in that. It would have been politically better for him not to say that, or say it in a way that doesn't turn people off. Another one was his inarticulate way of saying about Mexicans, "they're not sending their best." And of course he was talking about MS13. But he lofted a floater down the middle in the strike zone and the dishonest media smacked it. That was another unforced error.

 

[Twangbanger]

Do you doubt more 'people' might vote for him or 'more white people'? I've been told on INGO before that it was white college educated women that sank his election effort. He made significant inroads into black and hispanic support for Democrats without pandering. Why is it so hard to conceive that as a candidate he could gain minority support sufficient to outweigh the left leaning 'independent' support that he loses, and why would you assume that someone like Competence Man could capitalize on that same split in the minority Demographic. Trump delivered for that demographic but I don't see them being anxious to trust just any Republican yet just because they have an 'R' next to their name

There are two ways this approach fails.

1) There are about twice as many white people in America, as black and hispanic combined. 10% of those particular minorities is nowhere near equivalent to 10% of white people in the US. (I'm leaving "asian" out of this, because nobody here is making the claim that Trump is making inroads among asians).

So just in terms of raw hypothetical numbers, if Trump wins an additional 10% of black votes, and an additional 10% of hispanic votes - all it takes is a 5% "loss" among white voters (versus a hypothetically less-a$$holish GOP candidate), to completely null out his gains among minorities.

2) Furthermore, if Trump bettered the GOP's black performance in a hypothetical example from 7% to 15% - but black turnout increased overall in opposition to Trump - the GOP gains get canceled out pretty quickly, without even considering what the white vote does. A better share of an increasing pie that's still against you by a wide margin is not a "win," if turnout among that group goes up even marginally. Winning a higher percentage doesn't help if the overall absolute numbers are a net loss due to higher adverse turnout.

Minorities are not going to save Trump's election chances, if enough white people see him as an a$$hole. And right now, that "point of no return" among white voters is about 39%, according to the Democrats' own internal polling they use to advise their candidates.

The path to victory for the GOP is not getting a few more minorities, at the expense of a substantial number of white voters. The path to victory for the GOP, is holding onto as many white people as possible, while minimizing opposing turnout among minorities (and, most importantly, white people with "Just Be Kind" signs in their yard).

 

[J Galt]

Could you show the math on this? I don't want you to get defensive; I just want to be shown how 75 million votes translates to victory, when it didn't in 2020, and with Democrats getting better and better at mail ballots every time around.

And if the predictable response is, "But don't you see they cheated!", then fine - how do you propose that Trump gets around that, when at least 40% of white voters find him poisonous? If Trump couldn't get around "the steal" in 2020, how does he get around it in 2024? Republicans cannot win "close ones." Trump guarantees the GOP can never do better than "close."

Serious question. How can anyone believe polls, or use them to base conclusions, on or use them in any discussion?

Agree on the questionable vote counting. If that was an issue previously, nothing has been done to correct it as of this post. Kari Lake has her day in AZ court, re vote irregularities, but I don't know how that is going.

 

[foszoe]

If you are addressing such to me out of some some idea that I could or would somehow encourage Ziggidy to take up your gauntlet, you obviously don't understand what 'I don't give a dry ****' actually means

May I perhaps recommend the Urban Dictionary

Since I had not responded to Ziggidy, I figured we were done with the subject. You came in and decided to interject into the conversation...twice and twice said you didn't care....i think you're right. When you say you don't give a whatever, it's got a different meaning because you keep responding.

 

[BugI02]

They were easier to beat. It's been brought out how Trump's chosen candidates did great in the districts where you'd expect any Republican to win. It's in the swing districts they performed poorly.

Is the left/MSM pushing DeSantis? I don't really listen to it so I have no idea who they're pushing. I see some headlines every now and again. But if they are. Could it also be a strategy to try to demoralize Trump voters? Give what you said about sitting it out made me think a good strategy for dems might be to go all in on DeSantis and in the process demoralize Trumpers to sit out the general election and give dems a big win over DeSantis. Best thing they could do is **** off the Trumpers and get you to stay home.

I don't think the division is healthy. I don't Trump as the enemy like you see DeSantis as. You're on team Trump and it looks to me like you're falling into a Trump or nothing mentality. Neither has a chance if that's how it is.

I have been at pains to tell you that it is the general tolerance of, and awarding plaudits to, those who say they will not vote for Trump ever again, even if he is the nominee, that make me reconsider my commitment to vote for the nominee even if it isn't Trump. Why should I accept such a one-sided arrangement. Get back to me when the 'muh principles won't allow me to vote for Trump in the general' cadre are admonished to take one for the team just like I am

 

[BugI02]

Since I had not responded to Ziggidy, I figured we were done with the subject. You came in and decided to interject into the conversation...twice and twice said you didn't care....i think you're right. When you say you don't give a whatever, it's got a different meaning because you keep responding.

I came back in because you kept mentioning me specifically in posts as if I was also in some way at fault for your little hissy fit

Keep my name outta yo' 'mouth' and we will be done

 

[jamil]

No, we're saying that you always sound like you believe that if Patton hadn't slapped the gold-bricking soldier he would have been a better general. He would not have been, he just would have perhaps furthered his career

We are saying that expecting Trump to self-censor in the interest of furthering his career is suicidal. If he becomes just another polling driven political climber he will no longer appeal to the base; and conversely, anyone who would appeal to the base will have to show real conviction and not just focus-group driven pandering. Anyone but Trump starts at a disadvantage with a significant part of the republican electorate unless and until they prove their bona fides

If you don't believe that, then why try so hard to convince us not to write him in in '24? 'Protest' voting used to be all the rage on INGO. Gimme some of that handwash

Another binary that's absurd. There's a hell of a lot of space between tempering your speech so as not to give people the impression that you're just an ***hole, and self-censoring to the point of using poll-driven speech-making. That's something well pointed out by giving an example of Trump's awesome take-down of the pope, compared to just acting like an ***hole. You guys conflate all of that as "mean tweets" because you can't see the difference in affect.

I thought Trump's line against Hillary in the debates about using the corrupt system they created to his own advantage was also very effective. I mean. It's neither here nor there. We can point out good-trump bad-trump all day long and you'll just say if he tries to minimize the things he does wrong, he'll stop being Trump. I mean. Is self improvement such a bad thing?

 

[BugI02]

he better understand exactly the world he's operating in now and bring the best people in to help him exploit it.

Because he was an unknown long shot and the establishment wing of his own party was also against his ideas, he did not have much of a bench to choose from the first time. That resulted in some appointees being just there to stand on his shoulders so they could reach the next rung of their ladder up.

The ongoing effort to limit blame to only Trump for 2020 as well as demonize him personally and having the establishment wing still against him will pretty much guarantee that is again the case

What mystifies me is why they think anyone who IS America First to the bone won't get the same ****ty end of that stick, or conversely why they think anyone who the establishment wing is willing to tolerate could in any way be authentically America First. Something has to change. I, and those similarly aligned, have had a taste of having a president who is genuinely America First, who accomplished a lot given the overwhelming nature of opposition to him, who fought for the ideals he espoused and who still hasn't given up. There is no going back

Anyone who wants to be heir apparent has big shoes to fill

 

[jamil]

There are enough Trump supporters to win. And there are more out there if there is a will to win. There always have been. Why do you think the left is doing all it does, both legal and illegal to win.

Nope. I think that used to be true but not any longer. I think most people in the US lean left, but could potentially vote Republican under some circumstances. Trumps approval is at best low 40s. And that includes the Trumpers plus the independents who thought he did a good job. Trump has to get out every one of those votes and then some to come anywhere close to beating whatever Democrat they run. I seriously doubt the DNC would be dumb enough to run HRC again, so he's not gonna have that in his favor.

The left does whatever it can to win because they have a pragmatic view of it. Remember Harry Reid? When called out for lying about Romney's taxes, he said publicly, "so? It worked didn't it?"

What really helped Trump was the union voters. Some of them are Trumpers, I think most are not. Trump lost them in 2020 in enough numbers that mattered. I think your belief that most people are more like you is wistful thinking.