Trump 2024 ???

[DoggyDaddy]

foszoe and I both drink water.

I think @foszoe only drinks Guinness.

 

[BugI02]

I would have cheered out loud if Trump had fired Victoria Coates' ass for disloyalty. (Regardless of any civil service or whatever other BS laws might have prohibited it - IANAL and don't care).

Why part of conservative bona-fides requires you to be an a$$hole? Why couldn't Trump point out RINO, CoC, and NeoCons' fecklessness without saying stupid things like "I prefer people who didn't get captured?" Why are the two simultaneously necessary in your mind? [Trump used that vector to attack the fact that McCain had been making bank as a politician on his captivity for 40+ years. The phrasing may have been awkward, but the criticism resonated. McCain certainly acted honorably as a POW, but that is somewhat different from being a war hero through accolades won in battle]

I know why Trump can't change, and I don't expect him to. But you seem to have a philosophical objection to mathematical reality. You can't accept that this motivates a certain set of voters to show up and oppose him. It's true whether you accept it or not. It doesn't have to make sense to you. There are not enough Trumpers to win a general election. That means he has to win people over. Things like those mentioned above sabotage his ability to do that. [And you can't seem to accept that a certain set of voters, maybe a larger set than those fickle 'independents', are sick to death of business as usual Republicans and may not vote for someone cut from the Romney/McCain/Bush cloth ever again, and the more you give a pass to the 'I can never vote for Trump again' group, the less inclined I am to hold up the reciprocal side of the 'vote for the nominee' side of the bargain. The way I'm feeling now is if I have to choose between voting for an establishment approved republican and a democrat, I'll write in Trump a go find the hand soap. If you think you can trap my part of the base into voting for another establishment approved candidate you will be disappointed in that calculation, because that is just the same as having a democrat only the deterioration and decay is just a bit slower paced]

If Trumpers will not vote for Trump if he tones down his a$$hole rhetoric, then it's really Trumpers who are destroying our chances of having a conservative President. [Burn it down and start over, then. Waiting for you to tell me how the 18 'republican' senators who voted with the Dems for that $1.7 trillion spending bill that funds government until the end of the fiscal year and undercuts any leverage the next (republican-led) house would have had is Trump's fault, because I'm sure in your mind (and sheepdogs) it is]

 

[BugI02]

I mistakenly spoke negatively about binaries. I mean. Who does that?

D'accord

 

[BugI02]

Clearly it is. We typed the same words, in completely different posts, so obviously that means we are totally aligned.

foszoe and I both drink water. Clearly that means we are "literally" the same person.

Senseless posts detract from any credibility the person making it may have.

That's exactly what a jamill account WOULD say

 

[Twangbanger]

... [Trump used that vector to attack the fact that McCain had been making bank as a politician on his captivity for 40+ years. The phrasing may have been awkward, but the criticism resonated. McCain certainly acted honorably as a POW, but that is somewhat from being a war hero through accolades won in battle] ...

[And you can't seem to accept that a certain set of voters, maybe a larger set than those fickle 'independents', are sick to death of business as usual Republicans and may not vote for someone cut from the Romney/McCain/Bush cloth ever again, and the more you give a pass to the 'I can never vote for trump again' group, the less inclined I am to hold up the reciprocal side of the 'vote for the nominee' side of the bargain. The way I'm feeling now is if I have to choose between voting for an establishment approved republican and a democrat, I'll write in Trump a go find the hand soap. If you think you can trap my part of the base into voting for another establishment approved candidate you will be disappointed in that calculation, because that is just the same as having a democrat only the deterioration and decay is just a bit slower paced]

... [Burn it down and start over, then. Waiting for you to tell me how the 18 'republican' senators who voted with the Dems for that $1.7 trillion spending bill that funds government until the end of the fiscal year and undercuts any leverage the next (republican-led) house would have had is Trump's fault, because I'm sure in your mind (and sheepdogs) it is]...

I don't intend to vote for any CoC establishment Republican candidate, and don't expect you to, either. (But you know that). You're putting words in others' text-boxes, as usual. If DeSantis or any other candidate starts mouthing the Koch Brothers Libertarian line about Trade and Immigration, like Ted Cruz did in 2016, I am out of there. I don't care who wins, then, because it doesn't matter.

But again, you show an (I think intentional) unwillingness to differentiate between "Not Being Establishment" and "Being an A$$hole." Because the two are not the same. If another candidate articulates America First principles, without DJT-style a$$holishess, we should all be happy as hell about that. Because it shows the America First policy set is capable of transferring to other candidates besides just Trump, therefore giving it a shot at long-term survival. Without which, America was always going to be screwed, anyway. Donald Trump is one, term-limited human being with a finite life span. If we have no plan after him, then none of this matters. At some point, the AF policy set has to be able to transfer to other individuals, for America as we know it to continue to exist. That is true whether Trump wins, or not.

So if another candidate truly stands for AF policies without the a$$holish behavior, and Trumpers won't support him, then AF is not what really motivates them. They are "a$$hole behavior enthusiasts" and should just own up to that. Because "a$$holish behavior" is not the essence of America First policies. No matter how much DJT "personality enthusiasts" want to say it is.

 

[jamil]

Trump used that vector to attack the fact that McCain had been making bank as a politician on his captivity for 40+ years. The phrasing may have been awkward, but the criticism resonated. McCain certainly acted honorably as a POW, but that is somewhat different from being a war hero through accolades won in battle

This illustrates the point about Trump's inarticulate language impeding his success. You had to explain what was *really* going on in Trump's mind. Why? Was Trump's own language not sufficient to convey the message?

And let's assume you're correct. That you guys are some kind of soul mates and you know his every motivation. Or however you know it. If Trump could have used the language that you just did to make his point about McCain, yeah, some people would still have been pissed. But not as many would have been aggrieved by it. I thought the way Trump said it made him look like an ***hole. The way you said it explained the nuance.

More people might have actually taken the point to heart and said, ya know what? Maybe automatic reverence for former POW's shouldn't excuse all sins. But you and Trump missed a point. The media should not get a pass for their inconsistency. Is it forbidden for a candidate to take a swipe, albeit the articulate version, at a former POW but fair game for the media?

Trump couldn't make that point because he's already earned the ***hole status. Had he said it the way you did, when the media points fingers, he could point right back to them and ask why they weren't as deferential to McCain as they expected him to be, back when McCain ran against Obama?

 

[indyblue]

besides just Trump, therefore giving it a shot at long-term survival. Without which, America was always going to be screwed, anyway. At some point, the AF policy set has to transfer to another individual, whether Trump wins, or not. He is one term-limited human being with a finite life span. If we have no plan after him, then none of this matters.

True. But we could sure use the 4 extra years to find, vet, and groom the next AF/MAGA candidate. DeSantis letting Trump do his thing this go-around would go a long way to garnering more trust in him.

 

[Twangbanger]

True. But we could sure use the 4 extra years to find, vet, and groom the next AF/MAGA candidate. DeSantis letting Trump do his thing this go-around would go a long way to garnering more trust in him.

So, it's "Trump's Turn," and everyone else should "clear the field" and let Trump have a clear, unimpeded shot at the nomination. (Even though Trump lost the right to an uncontested primary by losing in 2020).

I'm just going to point out, that's exactly how the Democrats got Hillary in 2016. Democrats "Cleared the Field" for someone with "high negatives," because she had a proven past record of political success and it was "Her Turn."

I actually agree with you, in one sense, because I think the best thing for DeSantis would be to sit this race out, and wait for the Open Seat in 2018. It would give America Four More Years of Nappy Joe, and time to get good and ready for the alternative. Not saying it would be best for America. But it would probably be best for DeSantis, from a purely personal standpoint.

 

[indyblue]

So, it's "Trump's Turn," and everyone else should "clear the field" and let Trump have a clear, unimpeded shot at the nomination. Even though Trump lost the right to an uncontested primary by losing in 2020.

I'm just going to point out, that's exactly how the Democrats got Hillary in 2016. "Clearing the Field" for someone with "high negatives," because she had a proven past record of political success. "It was her turn."

Well, there is also the issue of losing the FL electoral votes.

 

[jamil]

And you can't seem to accept that a certain set of voters, maybe a larger set than those fickle 'independents', are sick to death of business as usual Republicans and may not vote for someone cut from the Romney/McCain/Bush cloth ever again,

I'm sick of the Romney/McCain/Bush type Republican too. But that certain set of voters who has to have Trump or no one is large enough to **** everyone, but too small to do it on their own.

and the more you give a pass to the 'I can never vote for trump again' group, the less inclined I am to hold up the reciprocal side of the 'vote for the nominee' side of the bargain.

Isn't that more like "Bug's taking his football and leaving" kind of sentiment? How is that not just pure spite? You're not giving a pass to the "I can never vote for Trump again" group. You've been complaining about all three of them the whole thread, while also blaming those of us capable of understanding the concept of good Trump/bad Trump.

The way I'm feeling now is if I have to choose between voting for an establishment approved republican and a democrat, I'll write in Trump a go find the hand soap. If you think you can trap my part of the base into voting for another establishment approved candidate you will be disappointed in that calculation, because that is just the same as having a democrat only the deterioration and decay is just a bit slower paced

Well. Let's just cut any pretense now. You're talking about DeSantis. What if that's a delusion? I started seeing some of the same comments against DeSantis about the time some of you guys started repeating them here. So I can pretty much guess where you're getting some of that stuff. I don't know if or how much any of it is true. What I see is the same kind of stuff I see in left media. The media repeats a phrase over and over. And then you start seeing people you know say the same thing over and over, and act as if it was their own original thought.

Are you as impervious to media manipulation as you think you are? I don't think any of us are. It's why I'm skeptical of every news source. I think they try to manipulate us. I'm skeptical of anyone who wants to be a leader. Maybe DeSantis is some kind of closet CoC/Neocon. Maybe some people who don't want him to be a front runner are pushing narratives on those right wing news sources.

 

[foszoe]

Uh, I think I asked you for an explanation of the "Judas of 2000 years ago". I still don't know why it's relevant that it's specific. I'd kinda like to know.

I posted the following in response to INGOMike and you. you may have missed it. I added one line at the end.



If Ziggidy is not willing to answer my direct questions to him then I am not going to be answering that question or Jamils.

I will drop a hint that you and Jamil can answer on your own.

Is there a difference between Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold in your opinions?

If you can't find one I would be wasting my time anyway.

I believe in definite articles.

 

[foszoe]

Personally I don't think any of it matters. At all. Any more.

After this latest passage of the omnibus bill, we conservatives are done for! They just proved the UNIparty has complete and utter control.

They keep referring to themselves as leaders. In this Democratic Republic we aren't supposed to have any leaders, we're supposed to have REPRESENTITVES that REPRESENT the will of their constituents; We The People. Clearly that's no longer the case.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination, or if he does and loses again I am officially through with all of them. I'll vote indepentdent no matter what the cost because what we're doing isn't working and to keep voting R or D won't fix it either and won't cost any more.

Obama won. He was right when he said "Today we begin the fundamental transformation of the USA" and he has.

EDIT: Oh, and it wasn't Trump that divided us, it was Obammy that started the great divide.

Wait. Foz is not my shill account. Just wanted to correct my shill account account on that.

Deny it all you want

 

[foszoe]

I think @foszoe only drinks Guinness.

I would drink a Guinness with anyone, but I would enjoy it with you.

Oh I finally broke down and bought a Kegerator.....guess what will be in it.

 

[BugI02]

Well. Let's just cut any pretense now. You're talking about DeSantis. What if that's a delusion? I started seeing some of the same comments against DeSantis about the time some of you guys started repeating them here. So I can pretty much guess where you're getting some of that stuff. I don't know if or how much any of it is true. What I see is the same kind of stuff I see in left media. The media repeats a phrase over and over. And then you start seeing people you know say the same thing over and over, and act as if it was their own original thought.

In my case, if you do the research (which I know you won't) I believe you will find I was ahead of the curve on being skeptical of DeSantis in relation to when the left picked up on some of the same themes. I was doing a deep dive on DeSantis and reading articles from 2019 wherein his leash holder (McIntosh) was talking up how crucial CfG's support had been throughout DeSantis career and saying what was expected of him going forward.

One need not be prescient to see that DeSantis could be the Jeb candidate of the 'republican' establishment and thus spend some time researching him. I've mentioned 'great white hope' syndrome a number of times. I'm not saying DeSantis couldn't get big enough to slip the lead but I am saying he might not want to. All of the high profile AF things DeSantis has done have pretty much been since he can see a path to the nomination. I want to hear what he wants to accomplish and see how well that matches up to AF and I want to see if there is any daylight between him and the establishment. If he starts talking bipartisan this and comes off as just one more go along to get along guy he's dead to me

 

[jamil]

In my case, if you do the research (which I know you won't) I believe you will find I was ahead of the curve on being skeptical of DeSantis in relation to when the left picked up on some of the same themes. I was doing a deep dive on DeSantis and reading articles from 2019 wherein his leash holder (McIntosh) was talking up how crucial CfG's support had been throughout DeSantis career and saying what was expected of him going forward.

One need not be prescient to see that DeSantis could be the Jeb candidate of the 'republican' establishment and thus spend some time researching him. I've mentioned 'great white hope' syndrome a number of times. I'm not saying DeSantis couldn't get big enough to slip the lead but I am saying he might not want to. All of the high profile AF things DeSantis has done have pretty much been since he can see a path to the nomination. I want to hear what he wants to accomplish and see how well that matches up to AF and I want to see if there is any daylight between him and the establishment. If he starts talking bipartisan this and comes off as just one more go along to get along guy he's dead to me

I'm not talking about left wing media. It was right wing media.

 

[jamil]

I would drink a Guinness with anyone, but I would enjoy it with you.

Oh I finally broke down and bought a Kegerator.....guess what will be in it.

Get a room guys.

 

[Ingomike]

Some keep asking how republicans can win in the next election, here is one way. But the BIGGEST problem is getting the 80 year old party leaders to understand the woke college degree crowd and the global corporations they are employed by are permanently lost.

But it ain’t cool to represent the working class…

Another Key Voting Bloc Is Fleeing the Democratic Party

townhall.com

 

[Twangbanger]

...For example, I disagree broadly with republicans when it comes to immigration, and I disagree enough with your framing of the issue that I doubt the two of us will find common ground there.

I suspect you're right. I simply don't accept the Left's framing of the Immigration issue as a binary moral absolute. It is a practical governance issue, and I think ever since the Milton Friedman libertarian economic hijack of the Republican party in the 80s, conservatives have been trapped into accepting binary moral absolutes as a trump-card conversation-ender on a lot of topics. ("You can't have tariffs because it's Protectionism! That's a violation of Capitalism!") The fact that a lot of conservatives are Christian social traditionalists, catechized since birth to see life in binary, black-and-white, right-or-wrong terms, has greatly assisted the Chamber of Commerce types in successfully completing this hijacking.

(*Jamil - I used it three times...)

 

[jamil]

Some keep asking how republicans can win in the next election, here is one way. But the BIGGEST problem is getting the 80 year old party leaders to understand the woke college degree crowd and the global corporations they are employed by are permanently lost.

But it ain’t cool to represent the working class…

Another Key Voting Bloc Is Fleeing the Democratic Party

townhall.com

Working class people have been utterly ignored and taken for granted by Democrats. Ignoring them should give Republicans an opportunity. But CoC/Neocons just don't see any value in pursuing them. Trump couldn't have won without them in 2016. Also, is the Republican thinking that because a majority of a demographic group doesn't vote Republican that pursuing that demographic has no value.

Every vote contributes to the outcome if it's cast and counted. Maybe 80% of adult zoomers support Democrats. Don't give up on that 20%. Don't reach them as their primary demographic. Demographics intersect. Maybe they're working class. Reach out to them as that. I think the new Republican party needs to learn how to increase the size of their tent beyond the chamber of commerce and rural conservatives.

 

[Ingomike]

For example, I disagree broadly with republicans when it comes to immigration

What do you perceive is the republican platform concerning immigration?