Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

That‘s quite a wall of text, I’ll do my best to address everything.

To start, I think you are taking some of your assumptions too far, and stretching the veracity of some of those conclusions. I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way.

I gave a broad example in my post of the type of candidate I would prefer to see from the Republicans, not a 1:1 critique of Trump (or any other candidate, for that matter).

Trump didn’t lose my vote due to his position on culture war issues…he lost my vote on trustworthiness and political competence. In my view he possesses neither.

I‘m saying I prefer a Mitch Daniels-type over a Mike Pence-type on the right and a Pete Buttigieg-type over a Stacey Abrams-type on the left.

You should not invoke that name on INGO. You'd have known better if you were involved in the daylight saving time thread. I would ask for lenience on this transgression if I were you. I'm not saying INGO will grant it. But it couldn't hurt.

In messaging, I prefer substance over outrage, maybe that’s a better way of getting to the core of my point.

Like, "they're destroying our democracy?" Any candidate that utters those words without specific and clear evidence of such should be shunned by any voter, if they have their head on straight.

As far as specific culture war issues go, I have no interest in litigating them here.

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.

Wait. Did you just not want to litigate them and then bring one up? But, since you did, fair game. Do you understand Republican's position on immigration? Can you try to steelman it so that I can be confident that you disagree with their actual position rather than a straw man of it.

 

[jamil]

What, that you were a Libertarian?

I alluded to Pilate washing his hands quite a bit among the 'muh principles' subset of NTs and ABTs going into the'16 election and opined that I thought TLex must be fronting the Manus Lavis party but I don't believe I ever called you Pilate or a modern Pilate or any some such formulation

I do think that the people getting fired up about Pilate for more than hand-washing seem to skip over the guilt of the people themselves in Christ's crucifixion in that they chose Barabbas over Jesus as the one to be pardoned at Passover. The lesson of Pilate is that you can't keep your hands clean just because you fail to participate fully in events

No. I think you referenced me specifically. I dunno. Maybe a few weeks or so ago. I think it was possibly during the "don't show up to the town square until it's time" argument.

 

[jamil]

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

So three people say that and that's worth your vote?

 

[jamil]

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

Bug, Bug, Bug, Bug, Bug...in perpetuity.



I'm sorry. I'm just a nonconformist.

 

[jamil]

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.

Okay. I just wanted to nail that down. I think my reply to that then was accurate.

 

[jamil]

What do you perceive is the republican platform concerning immigration?

I hope it's more accurate than, "keep those messican's out!"

 

[bwframe]

 

[Ziggidy]

 

[foszoe]

Merry Christmas Bug!

 

[Ingomike]

That's correct.

It did not take balls to turn Trump down. He did the right thing. If it had gone to court I doubt it would have gone anywhere close to Trump's way.

Isn’t it just coincidental that in the mega Omnibus bill has a provision to stop the VP from having any power to reject disputed votes. I read on INGO that couldn’t happen but apparently it could and the swamp converged to restrict that ability.

“The election legislation attached to the funding bill would close loopholes in federal law that Trump and his allies sought to exploit on Jan. 6, 2021”

“It would revise the 1887 Electoral Count Act to clarify that the vice president’s role is simply to count votes, and it would raise the threshold to force a vote to object to a state's electoral votes from one member of the House and Senate to one-fifth of each chamber. It would also beef up laws involving state certification of elections, in an attempt to avoid future competing slates of electors, and smooth the presidential transition process.”

Here's the Election Law Tweak the Dems Rolled Into the Omnibus Bill

townhall.com

 

[KG1]

I don't believe Pence ever would have rejected disputed votes even if he had the power to do so and he proved it. I think it was a miscalculation by Trump to believe that Pence would have done it on his behalf.

IDK what the expectations were of having any success in changing the outcome on whatever they did at the Capitol on 1/6. Whatever it was it did'nt work.


Even those that did the rioting and breaking in of the Capitol would never have changed the outcome by force. It only had the opposite effect and strengthened the bipartisan resolve of Congress.

Going forward I don't believe any future VP would do such a thing even if they did'nt revise the Electorial Count Act to clarify the role of the VP, especially after what happened on 1/6.

 

[KLB]

Isn’t it just coincidental that in the mega Omnibus bill has a provision to stop the VP from having any power to reject disputed votes. I read on INGO that couldn’t happen but apparently it could and the swamp converged to restrict that ability.

“The election legislation attached to the funding bill would close loopholes in federal law that Trump and his allies sought to exploit on Jan. 6, 2021”

“It would revise the 1887 Electoral Count Act to clarify that the vice president’s role is simply to count votes, and it would raise the threshold to force a vote to object to a state's electoral votes from one member of the House and Senate to one-fifth of each chamber. It would also beef up laws involving state certification of elections, in an attempt to avoid future competing slates of electors, and smooth the presidential transition process.”

Here's the Election Law Tweak the Dems Rolled Into the Omnibus Bill

townhall.com

That doesn't mean he had the power before. It means they want to remove any doubt. We will never know how the courts would have ruled.

 

[jamil]

That doesn't mean he had the power before. It means they want to remove any doubt. We will never know how the courts would have ruled.

Yep. It would have been left to the courts to determine if the VP had that power. Making a law pretty much answers the question.

But, should they? Should there be better checks on corruption? I dunno. It’s pretty sticky. I think that one side felt the need to do so only makes it clear that we’re deeply divided and no matter what, one side would be outraged over the result to the point of rioting. It’s an artifact of political division.

 

[jamil]

I don't believe Pence ever would have rejected disputed votes even if he had the power to do so and he proved it. I think it was a miscalculation by Trump to believe that Pence would have done it on his behalf.

IDK what the expectations were of having any success in changing the outcome on whatever they did at the Capitol on 1/6. Whatever it was it did'nt work.


Even those that did the rioting and breaking in of the Capitol would never have changed the outcome by force. It only had the opposite effect and strengthened the bipartisan resolve of Congress.

Going forward I don't believe any future VP would do such a thing even if they did'nt revise the Electorial Count Act especially after what happened on 1/6.

Well. I’d really like to know exactly how it all unfolded. Was it far right propaganda egging the Trumpers on? What did the Trumpers think they were doing? Are they really that stupid to think that all you have to do to take over the government is occupy the speaker’s office and sit in her chair?

Or, was the propoganda primarily performed by democrats? Instigate a riot to create public outrage against republicans. That result was achieved. What takes fewer astonishing facts?

Honestly, the more I think about it, I think it’s a little of both. Trump sure played a role in convincing Americans that he was behind it. But someone who’s behavior is as deterministic as his can be played like a fiddle. Idunno. I’d give even odds of either narrative being true.

 

[KG1]

Well like KLB said it's too late to know if the VP had the power. Even if the court would have ruled that he did It's a moot point now. Pence did what he did and IDK if he wouldn't have done the same thing anyway.

Even if he had the power it does'nt automatically mean that he would've felt obligated to use it.

 

[Ingomike]

That doesn't mean he had the power before. It means they want to remove any doubt. We will never know how the courts would have ruled.

I read this as presupposing that I and others are putting forth that Pence could have just created a Trump team win and everyone would have moved on. The whole purpose of the gambit was to force the courts to do their job, that includes ruling definitively on the case, whatever the outcome.

So the thinking is correct they believe Pence could have executed the maneuver and the swamp wanted to remove that ability…

 

[SheepDog4Life]

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.

Suburban soccer moms... but keep whacking on your own made up straw-man.

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

Because he did not in 2020... nor did his hand-picked candidates in 2022.

Could he? Maybe.

Did he? Nope!

Will he? I doubt it... just too easy to push his buttons to the point that he vomits forth something to alienate those constituencies. Evidence... just ask Jewish voters for the most recent example.

 

[jamil]

Well like KLB said it's too late to know if the VP had the power. Even if the court would have ruled that he did It's a moot point now. Pence did what he did and IDK if he wouldn't have done the same thing anyway.

Even if he had the power it does'nt automatically mean that he would've felt obligated to use it.

Either way he wouldn’t have done it. It’s relevance is in replying to the idea that it must have been legal or else they wouldn’t have made it illegal.

It was a legal theory that Trump’s legal team tried to put into practice. It failed because Pence refused to go along. And congress wanted to be sure to put the legal theory to rest so that in the future, no administration could use it.

 

[Ingomike]

That doesn't mean he had the power before. It means they want to remove any doubt. We will never know how the courts would have ruled.

So they just did this out if an abundance of caution? They still really don’t believe it could have been done? BS

They did this to remove or limit the ability to get these types of situations to the courts…

 

[KG1]

Well. I’d really like to know exactly how it all unfolded. Was it far right propaganda egging the Trumpers on? What did the Trumpers think they were doing? Are they really that stupid to think that all you have to do to take over the government is occupy the speaker’s office and sit in her chair?

Or, was the propoganda primarily performed by democrats? Instigate a riot to create public outrage against republicans. That result was achieved. What takes fewer astonishing facts?

Honestly, the more I think about it, I think it’s a little of both. Trump sure played a role in convincing Americans that he was behind it. But someone who’s behavior is as deterministic as his can be played like a fiddle. Idunno. I’d give even odds of either narrative being true.

One way or another something manipulated them into falsely believing that they could change the outcome by force on 1/6 and it worked. If it was propaganda primarily performed by the democrats to make Trump and the republicans look bad, they surely fell into that trap.

If Trump had a plan to instigate such a thing (not saying he did necessarily) then he played right into the hands of the democrats.

Like I said whatever happened on 1/6 backfired on the part of the rioters that fell for the manipulation, and it never would have resulted in changing the outcome resulting in making Trump and the republicans look bad.