Trump 2024 ???

[J Galt]

If all you can make out of 125 pages of patiently-explained, fact-based criticisms of Trump is “orange man bad”, and “but muh mean tweets”, the problem is in your reception…not the transmission.

A lot of people are telling you why they aren’t going to go along with Trump this time. You are free to ignore them, but what advantage does it gain you?

Trump isn’t going to win, but neither will any other Republican without the support of the Trumpers…that’s where you guys have leverage…make your key issues the tent poles that support the republicans tent, and they will be forced to negotiate with you time and again.

Trump just gave them an easy scapegoat, as evidenced by his current treatment from formerly “loyal” supporters.

"fact-based criticisms"


Remember, no names were named.

 

[J Galt]

Standing by for more triggered people.

There REALLY needs to be a s*** stirring emoji.

Remember, no names were named. If you feel compelled to reply, then it must apply.

 

[Twangbanger]

We will have to disagree on this point. He garnered the whole outsider taking on the establishment thing being abrasive…

If you read my post, I said Trump won 2016 on the issues.

You countered by saying he won by being abrasive.

We can agree to disagree, but I'm just going to point out: Jamil was right. The above post by you is basically admitting "it's the personality, not the issues."

 

[SheepDog4Life]

jamil called it, minimize the truth when you can't avoid it

Ha, you didn't even bother to quote a selectively edited phrase of a post of mine. No idea what your talking about or to whom....

Trump had that particular position 6 months before he announced, and has held the position we should not be involved in wars that don't further our country's aims since at least 2016

Ok, then, one last time... what is his position on Ukraine and military aid?

It cannot be zero because his administration sent $400M in lethal aid, including the Javeline anti-tank missiles that stopped the Russian tank columns.

It cannot be $400M was enough because he (rightly, IMO) criticized Biden for not sending more military aid early in the war... March IIRC.

So, more than $400M, right?

He's not even clear that $40B is too much, he only questions that amount because Europe is not doing enough (again, rightly IMO, much like with NATO and the Europeans not pulling their 2% GDP).

If the Europeans, particularly Germany and France pulled their weight, would $40B be alright? Is it in the US interest for Ukraine to defeat and drive back the Russians?

I say yes... I think Trump agrees. We discussed this back in 2017 debating the Javelins, I was for it, and Trump did it. One of the many policy reasons I voted for him in 2020.

Should we send ground or air troops? **** no.

I think the problem is that some Trumpers think the number should be $0 and were against the $400M Trump sent during his administration. Some Trumpers are all for killin' commies. That's difference is a circle that cannot be squared, so the unified answer is "same as he's said since 2016".

It's called congitive dissonance.

As a Buckeye, I can tell you 'playing not to lose' doesn't come to a very good end; but keep telling yourself ABT

Never interrupt your opponent when he's in the process of making mistakes.

And, I'll raise your ABT (whatever the **** that is) and call you a DTLFB.

 

[foszoe]

Again. No names were named, to protect the innocent.

Ok. Everyone who voted for Trump is an emotional basket case.....but I won't name any names.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Wasn't Trump being investigated and impeached the first time during that period? Was that somehow related to something Trump did (besides be a populist) so that he deserved/earned that in your 'mind'?

Wait, so his first impeachment was an excuse for not building a winning coalition? Or are you just running away from that? Something about minimizing the truth when you cannot avoid it.

Besides, you're trolling under the wrong bridge and forgetting I voted for him in 2020.

Perhaps if you wanted a rational, worthwhile comparison it would be better to look at how Clinton did in the midterms after he beat his rap

Ummm... that was the mid-term election in Clinton's second term... the second term which he won by switching gears after getting HAMMERED in his first-term mid-term in 1994.

Millennials in diapers at the time might not remember it, but Clinton definitely changed his tune after that shellacking. He wanted a second term.

 

[jamil]

As J Gault said, feelz…

But muh Trump!

 

[jamil]

View attachment 244762
this guy should have everyone sing Kumbaya

Like I said before. If that guy announces his run for president, and he doesn’t have rotten tomatoes thrown at him. There’s something wrong. Maybe people choosing to back in the matrix.

 

[Ingomike]

But muh Trump!

But yore feels...

 

[J Galt]

Ok. Everyone who voted for Trump is an emotional basket case.....but I won't name any names.

Parroting what someone else writes is very juvenile.

I view this as a screening process. People are self-selecting.

Apologies. I could not resist.

 

[Ingomike]

Wait, so his first impeachment was an excuse for not building a winning coalition? Or are you just running away from that? Something about minimizing the truth when you cannot avoid it.

Besides, you're trolling under the wrong bridge and forgetting I voted for him in 2020.



Ummm... that was the mid-term election in Clinton's second term... the second term which he won by switching gears after getting HAMMERED in his first-term mid-term in 1994.

Millennials in diapers at the time might not remember it, but Clinton definitely changed his tune after that shellacking. He wanted a second term.

The reason conservatives lose to dems a lot is so many cannot take wins and as exhibited in this thread many don’t even know what winning looks like, or what to expect. What a crock of excrement to think an outsider is going to beat the juggernaut, then build a formidable coalition against both parties, all while being impeached, investigated, and harangued.

My guess is if we went through the impeachment threads some of the same posters were wringing their hands while buying into the deceptions. Then when proven to be deceptions had nothing to say. But that gave the dems support and cover to hamstring Trump, and now they want to use that as an explanation for Trump being ineffective.

Trump is the most effective President we have had since the founders. No one had to endure what he did and he came out of it with his head held high and still delivered on what he had control of.

 

[foszoe]

Parroting what someone else writes is very juvenile.

I view this as a screening process. People are self-selecting.

Apologies. I could not resist.

No need to apologize. I am incapable of understanding what you wrote anyway.

 

[jamil]

The reason conservatives lose to dems a lot is so many cannot take wins and as exhibited in this thread many don’t even know what winning looks like, or what to expect. What a crock of excrement to think an outsider is going to beat the juggernaut, then build a formidable coalition against both parties, all while being impeached, investigated, and harangued.

Oh. I know exactly what winning looks like. Winning looks like having meaningful, lasting changes. Winning looks like picking candidates that can win in swing districts. Winning looks like leading in a way that doesn't repulse many of the people who voted for Trump.

It's true enough that Trump has faced a lot of adversity. And that a lot of that adversity was unearned. There is a point where "orange man bad" is a true sentiment. It doesn't cover all of it. Trump earned a lot of what he got back from his own party because he said and did things you guys like, but no one else does. He alienated his own party to a large extent.

But a point you guys fail to address, what's he gonna do now? What makes you think that he can do jack **** even if he does manage to get elected. I don't think he can. But you're confident he is more likely to be elected, and then do something more meaningful than anyone else could. Okay. So what's changed? How has Trump improved his game? How is he going to change enough hearts and minds to elect him. How is he going to get any legislation passed? Can you at least answer that?

My guess is if we went through the impeachment threads some of the same posters were wringing their hands while buying into the deceptions. Then when proven to be deceptions had nothing to say. But that gave the dems support and cover to hamstring Trump, and now they want to use that as an explanation for Trump being ineffective.

Trump was ineffective because, for a guy who is supposed to be a great negotiator, he did not know how to negotiate in DC. And not that he isn't a good negotiator. There are plenty of examples where he did just fine. He couldn't even negotiate deals with his own party because he made himself poison to them. He did that by doing the thing you guys like him to do. Insult his enemies. Well. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

Trump is the most effective President we have had since the founders. No one had to endure what he did and he came out of it with his head held high and still delivered on what he had control of.

Trump did do a lot of good. If he's all that's left in the primary by May, I'll have to vote for him. I'd rather a better candidate emergees. Someone who is not poison. Oh. and holding your head high after behaving like a petulant child is not a positive thing to brag about.

 

[jamil]

jamil called it, minimize the truth when you can't avoid it

Trump had that particular position 6 months before he announced, and has held the position we should not be involved in wars that don't further our country's aims since at least 2016

As a Buckeye, I can tell you 'playing not to lose' doesn't come to a very good end; but keep telling yourself ABT

I mean. This isn't the hill you think it is to stand firm on. The time to put out one's platform is usually when you announce. You start putting positions on national issues on a website or whatever and you might as well announce right then.

If or when he announces, if he doesn't have whatever positions posted that you think he should have, then you can make a big deal about it.

 

[Ziggidy]

The nevertrumpers are a lot like the liberaltarians. They feed off of each other, with no plan for a fix. They just bitch and whine about someone who HAS PROVEN their worth, yet doesn't meet the purity standard. The "perfect" is the enemy of the good.


.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Ingomike]

Oh. I know exactly what winning looks like. Winning looks like having meaningful, lasting changes. Winning looks like picking candidates that can win in swing districts. Winning looks like leading in a way that doesn't repulse many of the people who voted for Trump.

Who was the last conservative/republican president that delivered “meaningful, lasting changes” by your estimation? It always seems to go left, no matter the party.

Obummer delivered the death of healthcare with obummercare.

GWB delivered patriot act for neocons.

Clinton delivered NAFTA.

My best guess is Regan and his major tax restructuring.

 

[BugI02]

especially when one is on record as saying they would vote for him again in a general election.

So what is your position on a theoretically conservative voter ruling out voting Trump in the 2024 general, even if he is the nominee - because they 'just can't vote for Trump again' - or something

 

[BugI02]

Two phrases that seem childish but are continually used against those who voted for Trump twice but don't think he is God....

For someone who gets the vapors when you think someone is comparing you to Judas Iscariot, you sure do throw accusations of having a god before God around quite lightly

Seems a bit modern day pharisee to me

 

[BugI02]

And if you're talking about the 2022 elections, McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund Super-PAC poured $135M into the GA, PA and OH races, more than ALL OTHER RACES combined. (there were like, 33-34 Senate races)

Now do McConnell and AZ

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This thread... My reaction to it.