Trump 2024 ???

[Ingomike]

Again, you're throwing up straw-men and generally acting like incapable of having a good-faith intellectual conversation.

1) Just because TPTB legislated against something, doesn't mean it was legal to begin with.

Common sense dictates that if they changed it at the minimum they believed it possible. So just stop it with the obfuscation.

 

[Ingomike]

Which "leftist talking point" did I regurgitate? Anyone who disagrees with you is regurgitating a leftist talking point? You seem incapable of maintaining a mature conversation. You are taking valid arguments, and re-labeling them as "leftist talking points." You are not fooling anybody with this childish display.

That the courts rule based on who appointed them…

”If they weren't going to do it after 4 years of Trump appointing federal judges,”

Did you not say that?

 

[jamil]

So are you saying you believe that dem appointees always rule for the left and republican appointees always rule for conservatives?

No. I didn't say that.

It is a leftist talking point that cases dismissed by Trump appointees are somehow ruling for truth because Trump appointed them.

I think that's something they say. What I think about that is that we don't always know if bias was involved in a decision. Ruling against the obvious bias doesn't make the ruling objective or "for truth". It just makes it less obvious it was because of bias when it goes against the obvious bias.

Also, stating such doesn't make one adherent to leftist talking points even when they might say something similar. It's odd that you make such claims.

We clearly see who some people really are in these posts and it is a joke to think any of them will stand up for what is right. Something about Queenberry Rules against an enemy that does not abide rules.

It's nothing about Queensberry rules. But now you're back to that? I mean. Just stick to the conversation and quit making **** up about what something must mean when something is said. You're sounding like you've been taking argumentation lessons from Cathy Newman. You're all over the place with these irrelevant interpretations. I just want to get you to admit that some obvious things are obvious.

 

[Ingomike]

Pointing that out burns some people down into hissy-fits.

Seems the hissy fits are from those with TDS…

 

[jamil]

Common sense dictates that if they changed it at the minimum they believed it possible. So just stop it with the obfuscation.

Or they didn’t want to leave it up to courts to decide. That’s a fickle proposition. It’s not obfuscation to point out other obvious reasons for things.

 

[jamil]

Seems the hissy fits are from those with TDS…

You look at this thread and that’s obviously not true. Very few people in this thread have even displayed legit TDS. But with your expanded definition I can see why you might think so.

 

[Twangbanger]

That the courts rule based on who appointed them…

”If they weren't going to do it after 4 years of Trump appointing federal judges,”

Did you not say that?

Yes, I said that. You are either misconstruing it, or just not understanding it.

It is not reasonable to believe that judges appointed by, for example, Barack Obama, are going to be as favorable to "Stop the Steal" as Trump appointees.

Trump got the maximum chance in the courts that he's ever going to get. Four years of Joe Biden appointing judges are not going to increase his chances.

If Trump couldn't prevail in the courts in 2021, he never will. That's not a "leftist talking point." Dude, that's just reality.

 

[Ingomike]

If Trump couldn't prevail in the courts in 2021, he never will. That's not a "leftist talking point." Dude, that's just reality.

How can one prevail if the court will not take the case?

 

[BugI02]

Repudiate and lose the hard-core Trump fans... embrace it and lose the people in the middle who decide those races.

Or, you go looking for people to enlist in the battle with progressivism that can outweigh the inDEMpendents

You need to decide which will cost you more votes, losing the hard-core Trump fans or losing the independents. Once you figure that out, then you need to figure some way to appeal to those underrepresented groups who are fed up with the system as it is and can be convinced to change sides - you know, real independents rather than the faux undecideds who always seem to be marxist light

America First is the way to do that and Trump is the only proven torch bearer for that so far. Or, if the situation is truly lose - lose as you say, might as well end it all now 'cause you aren't convincing many 'hard-core Trump fans' that anyone else can do better by just dogging Trump

 

[BugI02]

I am unsure why you think Trump is the only person who can do that.

I'm saying Trump is the only one who has proven he can do that at the national level. Doesn't mean DeSantis couldn't do it but it isn't proven that he has that capability outside of FL

 

[Ziggidy]

The results argument isn't enough. Many of you guys wrap a lot of issues with Trump into the ever dismissive "bad orange man". Is there really only one person who can save us? You really think that? If it's down to one man, especially that man, we're all ****ed.

Trump did accomplish a lot of good during his term. it's all wiped away now. What legislation did he get accomplished? He had to do everything with a pen and a phone. And then 0Biden wiped it all out with a few strokes of his. That's one area Trump has not proven himself. Getting lasting change. The scotus nominees helped in a lot of areas, but aren't all that helpful in others. Passed legislation would have been a much better, much more long term accomplishment. And I know he had everyone, including many in his own party fighting against him. And that just speaks against his inability to get it done in a second term.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.......

Are you blaming Trump for the viscious attacks on him since 2015? You know, the attacks where crap was made up but nothing to date has stuck? Is that is? Or can it be that the new administration does what every other new administration does, change previous changes! Is that it? Or can it be that Mitch and the others never really supported the president and we now see the real characters of such people, aligning with the socialists instead of representing us. Can that be it?

Is Trump save all? I never once said that nor will I; however, we have less than 2 years to go and he is the only candidate at this time. The write ins (i.e. DeSantis) hasn't said a word. Who's gonna run?

What is YOUR POSITIVE in making this country great again? All I hear is the never Trumper's building a path to yet another loss.

The USA is a crap hole at this time; what are you gonna do about it that is any better than what Trump can bring?

 

[BugI02]

Short of any other cure, he might be the best hope if there were no others. Ananke help us if we're down to that though. But some people devoted to a certain man have to have that man be the cure or no one.

And some people devoted to [anyone but a certain man] seem suspiciously unwilling to let the primaries play out in '24 and are pushing the narrative that [a certain man] not even be considered pretty hard

 

[BugI02]

Why must you change confidence that a QB can deliver the win into some kind of hero worship?

Alinsky's rules for radicals #5

 

[foszoe]

And some people devoted to [anyone but a certain man] seem suspiciously unwilling to let the primaries play out in '24 and are pushing the narrative that [a certain man] not even be considered pretty hard

Did you say that you are considering not voting if Trump isn't the guy?

 

[BugI02]

Did you say that you are considering not voting if Trump isn't the guy?

I said I consider the pact to vote for the nominee whoever it is has been broken

When I point out the people who are saying they just can't vote for Trump are receiving no pushback - ie: tacit approval - I am told that it is only three people. Well, I am just one person, so why is it such a big deal if I write in Trump - you're still two votes ahead

 

[foszoe]

I said I consider the pact to vote for the nominee whoever it is has been broken

When I point out the people who are saying they just can't vote for Trump are receiving no pushback - ie: tacit approval - I am told that it is only three people. Well, I am just one person, so why is it such a big deal if I write in Trump - you're still two votes ahead

That's why I thanked you for finally understanding why I vote Libertarian! I am only one person.

 

[BugI02]

That's why I thanked you for finally understanding why I vote Libertarian! I am only one person.

I, however, have no illusions about the hem of my garment

 

[foszoe]

I, however, have no illusions about the hem of my garment

Same.

So If Trump is not the candidate are you just not voting?

 

[BugI02]

Same.

So If Trump is not the candidate are you just not voting?

What part of 'write in Trump' is giving you the most trouble?

 

[foszoe]

What part of 'write in Trump' is giving you the most trouble?

Oh. That's your plan