Trump 2024 ???

[SheepDog4Life]

Maybe when you've already given your opinion publicly you don't feel the need to post up on your campaign site? I believe the second quote makes quite clear that he thinks Europe should be taking the lead on money for Ukraine, and since they have given about 1/6 of what we have I think his intent in the matter is clear

Ok, sure... his stance is the EU should be giving more. What about us, the US?

Also, where do you get the 1/6th number? I'm not seeing any source for that and the sources I have don't show anything like that.

Not sure how Trump not using exactly the words you think he should, while actually HAVING a Ukraine position, contrasts unfavorably somehow with the GWH having none

What is his stance for US policy?

Some here think the number should be zero an not our business.

Some think the support should be big, maybe even the amount spent and passed to be spent.

Others might be somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps any words about whether it's too hot, too cold, or just right?

And what the **** is a GWH?

 

[jamil]

First off more of your putting words in others mouths. A belief that Trump is best suited to the challenge is not “rooted in persona” it is rooted in actual evaluations of what the individual did previously under unprecedented fire.

I'm inferring from the facts in evidence that there aren't many reasonable conclusions left to draw.

For example, what did trump do under unprecedented fire? My counterpoint is not to deny what's obvious, that he was under unprecedented fire. Who survives two trumped up impeachments in one term? My counterpoint is two-fold, that:

1) Trump did not make any lasting, noticeable changes (other than picking judges from McConnell's list). So the accomplishment argument only works if temporary accomplishments is the goal. But also as I've said, it's not nothing, and if that's all we could hope to gain, it maybe buys time.

2) Since Trump was under unprecedented fire, such that you can use it as an excuse for why Trump didn't accomplish anything long term, what makes you think he won't be under the same or increased fire, or that he is any better equipped this time?

Can you address that without denying the things that are true? I think a sane case can be made that doesn't require you to deny the things that are true. In an argument it's okay to admit what's good or bad, but when you don't, it makes it look like you're not arguing in good faith. There is no point or counterpoint that you'll accept just for the facts.

 

[KLB]

I'm inferring from the facts in evidence that there aren't many reasonable conclusions left to draw.

For example, what did trump do under unprecedented fire? My counterpoint is not to deny what's obvious, that he was under unprecedented fire. Who survives two trumped up impeachments in one term? My counterpoint is two-fold, that:

1) Trump did not make any lasting, noticeable changes (other than picking judges from McConnell's list). So the accomplishment argument only works if temporary accomplishments is the goal. But also as I've said, it's not nothing, and if that's all we could hope to gain, it maybe buys time.

2) Since Trump was under unprecedented fire, such that you can use it as an excuse for why Trump didn't accomplish anything long term, what makes you think he won't be under the same or increased fire, or that he is any better equipped this time?

Can you address that without denying the things that are true? I think a sane case can be made that doesn't require you to deny the things that are true. In an argument it's okay to admit what's good or bad, but when you don't, it makes it look like you're not arguing in good faith. There is no point or counterpoint that you'll accept just for the facts.

He did lead the change in the tax laws,

 

[KLB]

I don't want to know who you guys follow…

(I do not follow anyone at the current time.)

I haven't noticed you lashing out at any other possible candidates like some have, so I don't know that I would include you in that.

 

[jamil]

I don't think there will ever be a consensus on where that line is to be drawn. Some see all criticism as bashing, others feel that a certain amount of criticism is within the bounds.

I'll admit I probably push the boundaries quite a bit. The safe space video was maybe a little over the top. But that was to make the point that no one should think that political discussions should be held in ideologically safe bubbles. Hash it out or don't participate. You make wild ass claims about stuff, a proportionally wild ass sarcastic response is suitable, IMHO. If others wish to hold me to that and dish it right back, I can take a well placed joke. But at least throw some imagination into it.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm inferring from the facts in evidence that there aren't many reasonable conclusions left to draw.

For example, what did trump do under unprecedented fire? My counterpoint is not to deny what's obvious, that he was under unprecedented fire. Who survives two trumped up impeachments in one term? My counterpoint is two-fold, that:

1) Trump did not make any lasting, noticeable changes (other than picking judges from McConnell's list). So the accomplishment argument only works if temporary accomplishments is the goal. But also as I've said, it's not nothing, and if that's all we could hope to gain, it maybe buys time.

2) Since Trump was under unprecedented fire, such that you can use it as an excuse for why Trump didn't accomplish anything long term, what makes you think he won't be under the same or increased fire, or that he is any better equipped this time?

Can you address that without denying the things that are true? I think a sane case can be made that doesn't require you to deny the things that are true. In an argument it's okay to admit what's good or bad, but when you don't, it makes it look like you're not arguing in good faith. There is no point or counterpoint that you'll accept just for the facts.

Blaming Trump for the failures of the republican party I see. I am sure The CoC candidates will be able to deliver “lasting noticeable changes”.

40 members of the house, including the speaker, retired rather than contribute to “lasting noticeable changes”. The senate was lost with McConnell playing politics instead of winning.

I can tell you this for certain, any candidate that wins and does not face the level of opposition Trump does is a Manchurian candidate…

 

[jamil]

I'd post DeSantis' opinion on corruption in and unlimited support for Ukraine - if he had one

You would think someone people want to position as America First would be on the record as against involvement or at least restrained involvement

If DeSantis throws his hat into the ring, I expect a position on this. Any seriously AF candidate should frown on Military support unless Americans get something worth it in return. That would definitely figure in with my voting decisions.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I don't know about Trump.

Which was my point... he said something, but what does it mean? More support, but EU needs to shoulder a bigger share? Or not our (USA) problem?

My number is zero. Ukraine is a corrupt **** hole. I feel bad for the people of Ukraine. I don't think they have a lot of choice in the corruption. I'd be for sending humanitarian aid. Military aid? Nope. Just sayin'.

Yup, it is corrupt. I would say that humanitarian and financial aid is, and historically has been, susceptible to the sticky fingers of corruption.

Military aid? I disagree... but that's for the Ukraine thread... and a Taiwan thread if the is one.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

If DeSantis throws his hat into the ring, I expect a position on this. Any seriously AF candidate should frown on Military support unless Americans get something worth it in return. That would definitely figure in with my voting decisions.

Dead commies without US boots on the ground. IMO, that's a win-win for US and in our interest. Making the CCP think twice about invading Taiwan... gravy.

 

[jamil]

Blaming Trump for the failures of the republican party I see. I am sure The CoC candidates will be able to deliver “lasting noticeable changes”.

See? Wild ass claims. That's all I get.

40 members of the house, including the speaker, retired rather than contribute to “lasting noticeable changes”. The senate was lost with McConnell playing politics instead of winning.

Okay. We'll go through this again. If you're making an excuse for Trump that he couldn't get anything done because of interference from his own party, fair point. I haven't denied that. But, it's still an excuse. How is he going to fix that? Any ideas? What is your confidence that he can do anything as President other than EO's that can be undone with a stroke of pen?

I would hope your answer would be probably not high, because that's realistic.

But, what about someone else? Would they have the same problem? Idunno. To what extent did Trump exacerbate his own problems by his own behavior? I don't expect an intellectually honest answer to that because I haven't gotten one yet. All I've gotten is, "that's what people love about Trump." Or, it's the press's fault. Sorry. Neither are serious answers.

If what people love about Trump makes >1/2 of the country hate him, is that really an asset? How about an intellectually honest answer to that?

It is the media's fault to a large extent. But it's not hard to make him look like Literally Hitler when his own words are so easy to paint the picture. How about an intellectually honest answer to that?

I'm not asking you to drop your support for Trump. I can see some circumstances where I have to throw my own support behind him. How about answering some pretty troubling criticisms that are legit?

I can tell you this for certain, any candidate that wins and does not face the level of opposition Trump does is a Manchurian candidate…

Possibly. Or it may mean that a candidate is better suited to handling the level of opposition. It's hard to be pinned as Literally Hitler when your obvious behavior is nothing like it, and you challenge it every time it's aimed at you. Trump didn't really do that. He just replied in ways that could be further used against him. I mean. At least make them work for it.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm inferring from the facts in evidence that there aren't many reasonable conclusions left to draw.

For example, what did trump do under unprecedented fire? My counterpoint is not to deny what's obvious, that he was under unprecedented fire. Who survives two trumped up impeachments in one term? My counterpoint is two-fold, that:

1) Trump did not make any lasting, noticeable changes (other than picking judges from McConnell's list). So the accomplishment argument only works if temporary accomplishments is the goal. But also as I've said, it's not nothing, and if that's all we could hope to gain, it maybe buys time.

2) Since Trump was under unprecedented fire, such that you can use it as an excuse for why Trump didn't accomplish anything long term, what makes you think he won't be under the same or increased fire, or that he is any better equipped this time?

Can you address that without denying the things that are true? I think a sane case can be made that doesn't require you to deny the things that are true. In an argument it's okay to admit what's good or bad, but when you don't, it makes it look like you're not arguing in good faith. There is no point or counterpoint that you'll accept just for the facts.

You seem to have a bias that Trump alone gets more enemy fire than other potential candidates will and choosing one of benign nature will magically reduce the rate of that fire. You seem to believe that it is Trumps abrasive and at times rude personality that creates a target for that fire. It is not. It is what he espouses that is the actual target. Trump gets more fire because he is over the target.

It's hard to be pinned as Literally Hitler when your obvious behavior is nothing like it, and you challenge it every time it's aimed at you.

To believe that a benign candidate will draw less fire one must ignore the treatment of McCain and Romney as Presidential candidates even though both were hold your nose candidates for many conservatives. Both were smeared as literally Hitler and their coiffed nature and press sucking up had no bearing on being smeared.

 

[jamil]

Which was my point... he said something, but what does it mean? More support, but EU needs to shoulder a bigger share? Or not our (USA) problem?

Just going from Judging Trump's past commentary, I think it means, it's not our problem. Which it isn't.

Yup, it is corrupt. I would say that humanitarian and financial aid is, and historically has been, susceptible to the sticky fingers of corruption.

Military aid? I disagree... but that's for the Ukraine thread... and a Taiwan thread if the is one.

I stay out of the Ukraine thread. There is nothing good happening in Ukraine worth talking about. But that's my opinion.

 

[jamil]

Dead commies without US boots on the ground. IMO, that's a win-win for US and in our interest. Making the CCP think twice about invading Taiwan... gravy.

Nah, but that's for the Ukraine thread which I stay out of mostly.

 

[Ingomike]

See? Wild ass claims. That's all I get.

So a party fails to support the President elected by their voters but somehow it is the President’s fault? Talk about wild ass claims.

 

[foszoe]

How true

Yeah. They might even just write in one!

 

[Ingomike]

Okay. We'll go through this again. If you're making an excuse for Trump that he couldn't get anything done because of interference from his own party, fair point. I haven't denied that. But, it's still an excuse. How is he going to fix that? Any ideas? What is your confidence that he can do anything as President other than EO's that can be undone with a stroke of pen?

I would hope your answer would be probably not high, because that's realistic.

But, what about someone else? Would they have the same problem? Idunno. To what extent did Trump exacerbate his own problems by his own behavior? I don't expect an intellectually honest answer to that because I haven't gotten one yet. All I've gotten is, "that's what people love about Trump." Or, it's the press's fault. Sorry. Neither are serious answers.

If what people love about Trump makes >1/2 of the country hate him, is that really an asset? How about an intellectually honest answer to that?

It is the media's fault to a large extent. But it's not hard to make him look like Literally Hitler when his own words are so easy to paint the picture. How about an intellectually honest answer to that?

I'm not asking you to drop your support for Trump. I can see some circumstances where I have to throw my own support behind him. How about answering some pretty troubling criticisms that are legit?

At the end of the day what is going on cannot be measured by the traditional milestones of our politics. We are in unprecedented times politically. We have polarization at levels unknown since the civil war. We have one party unified and the other in a battle for its identity.

The idea that a president is great or effective if he can unify his majority party in both houses and pass a big bill are over. You post like you believe that just getting elected is enough to give a president the tools to make massive changes in the conservative direction. This is a war for the soul of our constitutional republic and a presidential election is but one small battle. Anyone that believes differently has unrealistic expectations.

To me the question that should be asked is did Trump do all he could, given the circumstances, when he had the opportunity? I was very satisfied that he did and support giving him another opportunity to do more.

 

[jamil]

You seem to have a bias that Trump alone gets more enemy fire than other potential candidates will and choosing one of benign nature will magically reduce the rate of that fire. You seem to believe that it is Trumps abrasive and at times rude personality that creates a target for that fire. It is not. It is what he espouses that is the actual target. Trump gets more fire because he is over the target.

This is another example of not hearing or reading all the points. If you had, you'd already know what my reply would be.

Indeed I do I think any candidate going against the machine will get attacked viciously. Rather, I strongly suspect that it's possible to deflect the attacks much better than Trump has. You should know that this would be my reply to those accusations because I've already stated to that effect elsewhere.

Is there a candidate who will be able do it better than Trump? I don't know. I do know Trump can't because it's not in his nature, and he hasn't so far.

Am I saying that the way to go about it is to be sanguin? Am I advocating Marquis of Queensberry rules? If you've read my replies to that nonsense when it was brought up before, you would know.

But, in case it was TL'DR, it's this. I think what Kari Lake has done much closer to what's needed than what Trump has done. Even in defeat, at least she got the facts out into the public about what was going on at the polls, and got the other side to admit to much of it.

But you go on believing what you think I'm saying. I'm throwing out a wild ass guess that you'll be trotting out Marquis of Queensberry again in a week or two.

To believe that a benign candidate will draw less fire one must ignore the treatment of McCain and Romney as Presidential candidates even though both were hold your nose candidates for many conservatives. Both were smeared as literally Hitler and their coiffed nature and press sucking up had no bearing on being smeared.

Who is asking for a benign candidate? Is there only two choices? Milquetoast or Bull in a china shop? I don't think Kari Lake is ready for prime time. But I'd like a lot more candidates to look at what an intelligent rebuttal to the world that bat **** progressives propose looks like. I think she's the real deal and I hope she refines her game.

In 2024? To me, Trump is the candidate I'd settle for if nothing better comes along. That's my opinion. You're entitled to your own. But I'm gonna push back if you dig under every rock to find a way to justify it.

 

[BugI02]

Or they are doing it the "traditional" way... especially for Governors, they tend to announce after the legislative session is over, both so they can do their job... and so they can show their recent accomplishments.

And, for Florida governor, their current law is that state officials must resign to run for national office... quitting immediately after being elected is a very bad look.

Finally, Trump's very early announcement was meant, I think, to be bold and powerful... and to clear the field of anyone else considering a run. It didn't come off that way... quite the opposite.

I notice you no longer seem to be claiming Trump doesn't have a Ukraine position or the DeSantis does. I don't believe he has to resign as governor to opine on Ukraine or any AF position

Saying 'If I were in charge I would [some concrete position]' is not the same as announcing your candidacy. Waiting as long as you can to commit to some policy is the mark of a politician, not a leader

 

[jamil]

At the end of the day what is going on cannot be measured by the traditional milestones of our politics. We are in unprecedented times politically. We have polarization at levels unknown since the civil war. We have one party unified and the other in a battle for its identity.

No disagreement there.

The idea that a president is great or effective if he can unify his majority party in both houses and pass a big bill are over. You post like you believe that just getting elected is enough to give a president the tools to make massive changes in the conservative direction. This is a war for the soul of our constitutional republic and a presidential election is but one small battle. Anyone that believes differently has unrealistic expectations.

WTF do you think a president is going to do outside of that? I don't disagree with what's at stake. The only way to make lasting changes is legislation. And that's a tough political fight when you have people who don't want the system they've profited on for years to go away. Maybe that takes digging into some key Senator's secrets. Maybe some strong-arming. Certainly it means you don't make unforced errors. You can't afford that.

To me the question that should be asked is did Trump do all he could, given the circumstances, when he had the opportunity? I was very satisfied that he did and support giving him another opportunity to do more.

If what he did didn't last, how does that justify me giving him a another shot at it?

If he did his best but for the limitations of his abilities, how is that any better than a participation trophy?

I'd rather think it's more beneficial to posit that he didn't do all he had the capacity to do, that there's still more capacity in him to do it. I think Bug kinda made that argument. And if that potential could be displayed convincingly, it's a good point. So wouldn't you rather argue that? Go ahead and make that case because that's what it would take for me to vote for Trump over another AF candidate in the primaries assuming there is a viable one.

 

[jamil]

I notice you no longer seem to be claiming Trump doesn't have a Ukraine position or the DeSantis does. I don't believe he has to resign as governor to opine on Ukraine or any AF position

Saying 'If I were in charge I would [some concrete position]' is not the same as announcing your candidacy. Waiting as long as you can to commit to some policy is the mark of a politician, not a leader

As far as DeSantis goes, I think that would have to come after he announces, assuming he does. It's not abnormal for people contemplating a run to not opine on national issues prematurely. And thus I think it's premature to complain that he hasn't. If/when he announces, if it's not in his platform, I'll be complaining too.