Trump 2024 ???

[KG1]

Okay. Fine. Shame be upon you SD4L for not voting for the republican nominee if Trump wins the primaries.

Does that work? Was there anyone else? Foz? You too?

I'm detecting just a hint of insincerity.

 

[jamil]

Hey. I said the words. Should be fine.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I had said when challenged just after 2020 that I would support the nominee and would have done so if they were also not tolerant of views like yours. Why is it necessary for only some of us to pledge to support the nominee, whoever it is?

Ok, that sounds a lot like hurt feelz on your part.

I've stated, I think very clearly, why I don't support Trump to be our nominee... and that is a massive loss to the progs at every level in 2024. History being the best predictor of the future.

I've also stated, again I think very clearly, why Trump has disqualified himself from ever receiving my vote, and that is IMO, he violated his oath of office in attempting to stuff the electoral ballot box and that his clams of massive fraud throwing the election were all talk and no substance. I came to that conclusion, not as a starting point based upon some narrative, but from the opposite end, wanting to believe it's true but looking at evidence INCLUDING and especially what was filed in the courts on his behalf. There's no there there.

I've also stated very publicly that I am ****ed off that it came to this. I am not one bit happy about it to reach these conclusions about someone I voted for twice... once because there was no choice, but the second time with full conviction and support. Trump EARNED my vote in 2020.

I've stated this publicly on this forum and invited you and others to give me something, anything to help me see that I'm wrong.

I've gotten very little in return... I've received a lot of "did the bad orange man say something that hurt your feelz?" Been called a never Trump'er. Insinuated that I would accept anybody but Trump.

At times, I've not reacted well to it, other times I've just ignored it. It's taken a bit, but I think I get it now. I think I recognize where that comes from... it's the denial and anger that either proceeds or impedes accepting that there's been a tremendous betrayal by someone that you and I have put our trust in.

Most of us in this thread are old farts. We've learned to be, and earned the right to be, cynical of politician's promises. Most of us in this thread broke through that cynicism and BELIEVED in Trump and what he was doing and attempting to do. It's a hard place to reach... and an even harder place to leave. At least it was for me... I get it.

And, I'm sorry to say, I truly believe that Trump betrayed us.

 

[DragonGunner]

Ain’t no saviors.

Well we know there is only one. It was Rand Paul many years ago that said “the democrats don’t have the answers for Americas problem, neither do the republicans. Only God has the answers. What we need is a spiritual revival in America.” I have always agreed.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Well we know there is only one. It was Rand Paul many years ago that said “the democrats don’t have the answers for Americas problem, neither do the republicans. Only God has the answers. What we need is a spiritual revival in America.” I have always agreed.

…and then it’s the simple matter of agreeing on what God is telling us, a task at which we humans have historically excelled, so no real problem there.

 

[foszoe]

Okay. Fine. Shame be upon you SD4L for not voting for the republican nominee if Trump wins the primaries.

Does that work? Was there anyone else? Foz? You too?

Nah. I'd vote for Trump in the general...well unless someone on INGO says I am an ABT, or suffer from TDS.

I take my INGO pacts seriously until my feelings get hurt.

 

[BugI02]

I’ve never attacked you for wanting to vote for Trump. And you want me to attack someone else for their choice? Maybe for a Democrat I would.

You are delusional, you have been on my case within the last couple of pages for saying I might write in Trump under the new RoE

And I am not saying attack them, I'm saying treat us both the same. If it is cool to rule out Trump, nominee or not, then it should be OK to rule out anyone not Trump, nominee or not. The two cases are equivalent

Or we could just go back to not ruling anyone out who captures the nomination. You can try to color that any way you want, but you are fine with ruling out Trump because that aligns with how you feel but seem unable to admit

 

[foszoe]

God don't save countries, saves persons.

 

[BugI02]

Ok, that sounds a lot like hurt feelz on your part.

I've stated, I think very clearly, why I don't support Trump to be our nominee... and that is a massive loss to the progs at every level in 2024. History being the best predictor of the future.

I've also stated, again I think very clearly, why Trump has disqualified himself from ever receiving my vote, and that is IMO, he violated his oath of office in attempting to stuff the electoral ballot box and that his clams of massive fraud throwing the election were all talk and no substance. I came to that conclusion, not as a starting point based upon some narrative, but from the opposite end, wanting to believe it's true but looking at evidence INCLUDING and especially what was filed in the courts on his behalf. There's no there there.

I've also stated very publicly that I am ****ed off that it came to this. I am not one bit happy about it to reach these conclusions about someone I voted for twice... once because there was no choice, but the second time with full conviction and support. Trump EARNED my vote in 2020.

I've stated this publicly on this forum and invited you and others to give me something, anything to help me see that I'm wrong.

I've gotten very little in return... I've received a lot of "did the bad orange man say something that hurt your feelz?" Been called a never Trump'er. Insinuated that I would accept anybody but Trump.

At times, I've not reacted well to it, other times I've just ignored it. It's taken a bit, but I think I get it now. I think I recognize where that comes from... it's the denial and anger that either proceeds or impedes accepting that there's been a tremendous betrayal by someone that you and I have put our trust in.

Most of us in this thread are old farts. We've learned to be, and earned the right to be, cynical of politician's promises. Most of us in this thread broke through that cynicism and BELIEVED in Trump and what he was doing and attempting to do. It's a hard place to reach... and an even harder place to leave. At least it was for me... I get it.

And, I'm sorry to say, I truly believe that Trump betrayed us.

I really don't see the attempts to have alternate slates of electors certified as being the problem that you see it as. I see an election that was clearly fraudulent and I see in some cases slates of electors certified by people such as the Secretary of State (PA for example) where the constitution gives that authority exclusively to the legislature. In cases where the legislature was willing to certify an alternate state of electors, I see nothing wrong with trying to have Pence certify one set over the other and send the issue of election irregularities to the courts. Given SCOTUS' behavior in the election issues that were raised, I'm not sure that would have worked out like Trump thought, but I really would have liked to see all the issue hashed out in court, preferably with discovery

I do not fault Trump for not lying down and taking it, that is just who he is. He never failed to obey a court order binding on his behavior, he never tried to use force to install himself as president, he simply tried to ' preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' in the best way he knew how - and I think the behavior of those who placed themselves in power via that fraud shows that his instincts were right

He saw a legal gray area and sought to take advantage of it not to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States but to try to remedy the corrupt alliance of power that had suborned the electoral process

Assuming the most uncharitable motives for Trump's actions, as well as pop psychoanalyzing him or claiming unsupported knowledge of his 'real' reasons for doing things is endemic as well as not persuasive

 

[DragonGunner]

God don't save countries, saves persons.

Isaiah would disagree. Depending on your use of save. It talks about God turning a country around and healing the land if his people repent.

 

[jamil]

You are delusional

Eh, it's always possible I guess.

you have been on my case within the last couple of pages for saying I might write in Trump under the new RoE

I don't know if I'd classify it as being on your case. I said that you saying that kinda reveals that it's more about the person than about the platform. But when you said it was my doing. I dunno. I am starting to come around to the idea it might only be butthurt + spite.

And I am not saying attack them, I'm saying treat us both the same. If it is cool to rule out Trump, nominee or not, then it should be OK to rule out anyone not Trump, nominee or not. The two cases are equivalent

Well. No. Now I'm pretty sure I'm not the delusional one. They're not equivalent. SD4L explained in detail why he is not voting for Trump again. Here's the executive version of that in case you didn't read his latest reiteration of that. It's not because of spite. For him, it's about Trump being the wrong guy. For you, it's about other people. You're just pissed because you think rules of engagement have changed. Whatever the **** that means.

Or we could just go back to not ruling anyone out who captures the nomination. You can try to color that any way you want, but you are fine with ruling out Trump because that aligns with how you feel but seem unable to admit

Between the two of us, only one of us have ruled out whoever captures the nomination. That person isn't me. I think that your reasoning, that I haven't properly scolded someone for not voting for Trump in the general, is a petty reason to sit this election out if you don't get your guy. That's what I've been saying WRT that.

We get to a point where Trump wins the nomination and SDFL still refuses to vote for him, I'll try to convince him otherwise. For whatever that's worth. He's not gonna be any worse than the guy who's in office now.

 

[foszoe]

Isaiah would disagree. Depending on your use of save. It talks about God turning a country around and healing the land if his people repent.

Who does the repenting?

 

[jamil]

I really don't see the attempts to have alternate slates of electors certified as being the problem that you see it as.

Let me explain the problem with it. If the president can just get his VP to certify the votes of an alternate slate of electors, why wouldn't every president just do that? Why even bother going through an election. Just get your own electors to gather in their respective states, cast their ballots for the current POTUS, and then have the VEEP certify them? Hell. It wouldn't even have to be the current administration. Just pay off the Veep to certify your electors. Kamala could have bypassed the whole ****ing thing. Just offer Pence a knoby and he certifies Her as winner. Who cares if she wasn't the nominee. Veep has POWER baby!

I see an election that was clearly fraudulent and I see in some cases slates of electors certified by people such as the Secretary of State (PA for example) where the constitution gives that authority exclusively to the legislature. In cases where the legislature was willing to certify an alternate state of electors, I see nothing wrong with trying to have Pence certify one set over the other and send the issue of election irregularities to the courts. Given SCOTUS' behavior in the election issues that were raised, I'm not sure that would have worked out like Trump thought, but I really would have liked to see all the issue hashed out in court, preferably with discovery

You see that the election was clearly fraudulent. 60% of the nation did not. Whether it was or wasn't has to get resolved by official means, not by you. Not even by Trump unilaterally. If Pence would have done that no one would have accepted Trump as POTUS except devout Trumpers. It's unfortunate that you see nothing wrong with Trump doing that. But at least now you guys are willing to admit that Trump did try to switch electors. Before you guys were only saying that he was just trying to get Pence not to certify the real elector's vote.

I do not fault Trump for not lying down and taking it, that is just who he is. He never failed to obey a court order binding on his behavior, he never tried to use force to install himself as president, he simply tried to ' preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' in the best way he knew how - and I think the behavior of those who placed themselves in power via that fraud shows that his instincts were right

I don't think Trump should lie down and take it. Using means outside of the constitution is not the right way to handle it. It's dirty and played into the Dem's claims that Trump would try to stay in office if he lost. It was a bad move.

He saw a legal gray area and sought to take advantage of it not to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States but to try to remedy the corrupt alliance of power that had suborned the electoral process

That wasn't even a grey area. If any Democrat tried the same, I'm pretty sure you'd figure out what's wrong with it.

Assuming the most uncharitable motives for Trump's actions, as well as pop psychoanalyzing him or claiming unsupported knowledge of his 'real' reasons for doing things is endemic as well as not persuasive

The most uncharitable motive, of course, would be that Trump refused to accept his defeat and was staging a coop of sorts. The most charitable, was that, as is his custom, he looks for pragmatic ways to get things done, and if people don't like it, they can take him to court and let the courts decide.

We complained when 0Biden said that he knew the thing he was doing was unconstitutional, but said he's doing it anyway. I do not want the President to do things against the constitution, knowingly or not. But it's against his oath of office to knowingly act against it. Biden should have been impeached for as much. It's not as certain that Trump knew it's unconstitutional. But it is.

 

[jamil]

Stormy Daniels got $130,000

I mean. That's a bit past the line. And that's coming from someone who's probably stretched a line or two in the heat of things.

 

[Ingomike]

Let me explain the problem with it. If the president can just get his VP to certify the votes of an alternate slate of electors, why wouldn't every president just do that? Why even bother going through an election. Just get your own electors to gather in their respective states, cast their ballots for the current POTUS, and then have the VEEP certify them? Hell. It wouldn't even have to be the current administration. Just pay off the Veep to certify your electors. Kamala could have bypassed the whole ****ing thing. Just offer Pence a knoby and he certifies Her as winner. Who cares if she wasn't the nominee. Veep has POWER baby!


You see that the election was clearly fraudulent. 60% of the nation did not. Whether it was or wasn't has to get resolved by official means, not by you. Not even by Trump unilaterally. If Pence would have done that no one would have accepted Trump as POTUS except devout Trumpers. It's unfortunate that you see nothing wrong with Trump doing that. But at least now you guys are willing to admit that Trump did try to switch electors. Before you guys were only saying that he was just trying to get Pence not to certify the real elector's vote.


I don't think Trump should lie down and take it. Using means outside of the constitution is not the right way to handle it. It's dirty and played into the Dem's claims that Trump would try to stay in office if he lost. It was a bad move.


That wasn't even a grey area. If any Democrat tried the same, I'm pretty sure you'd figure out what's wrong with it.


The most uncharitable motive, of course, would be that Trump refused to accept his defeat and was staging a coop of sorts. The most charitable, was that, as is his custom, he looks for pragmatic ways to get things done, and if people don't like it, they can take him to court and let the courts decide.

We complained when 0Biden said that he knew the thing he was doing was unconstitutional, but said he's doing it anyway. I do not want the President to do things against the constitution, knowingly or not. But it's against his oath of office to knowingly act against it. Biden should have been impeached for as much. It's not as certain that Trump knew it's unconstitutional. But it is.

The Pennsylvania electors were not selected per the legislature therefore are just as unconstitutional as any alternative slates, which should have triggered a case to be adjudicated by the courts.

 

[BugI02]

I don't know if I'd classify it as being on your case. I said that you saying that kinda reveals that it's more about the person than about the platform. But when you said it was my doing. I dunno. I am starting to come around to the idea it might only be butthurt + spite.

That's because you seem to need to belittle and ridicule anyone who doesn't share your worldview

What's that perfume? Alinsky #5?

 

[BugI02]

Well. No. Now I'm pretty sure I'm not the delusional one. They're not equivalent. SD4L explained in detail why he is not voting for Trump again. Here's the executive version of that in case you didn't read his latest reiteration of that. It's not because of spite. For him, it's about Trump being the wrong guy. For you, it's about other people. You're just pissed because you think rules of engagement have changed. Whatever the **** that means.

The way I see it is you're telling me I need to vote for the nominee, whoever it is, for the greater good and then you're telling someone else that it's OK to not vote for the nominee if it is Trump, greater good be damned I guess

That seems ... inconsistent

So which is it? We can vote the way we want , we have to vote the greater good or we can vote the way we want so long as you approve of our choices

 

[foszoe]

Not exactly my fight, but I say vote your conscience is the consistent path.

 

[KG1]

I mean. That's a bit past the line. And that's coming from someone who's probably stretched a line or two in the heat of things.

Yep. Personal foul. Un Sportsman like conduct.

 

[BugI02]

Let me explain the problem with it. If the president can just get his VP to certify the votes of an alternate slate of electors, why wouldn't every president just do that? Why even bother going through an election. Just get your own electors to gather in their respective states, cast their ballots for the current POTUS, and then have the VEEP certify them? Hell. It wouldn't even have to be the current administration. Just pay off the Veep to certify your electors. Kamala could have bypassed the whole ****ing thing. Just offer Pence a knoby and he certifies Her as winner. Who cares if she wasn't the nominee. Veep has POWER baby!

So, go with the ridicule again I see. I guess it beats listening to you drone on about how carefully you weighed all sides of the discussion

You oversimplify. An alternate slate of electors would need to be selected by the legislature of the state involved, and for this example that would only happen if the legislature believed there was fraud sufficient to change the popular vote outcome in their state AND an official not the legislature certified the election results. That then could be an illegitimate slate of electors and the legislature could advance its own alternate slate

Only then would it be possible for the VP to have an alternate slate of electors to recognize. He doesn't select the alternate electors, he only rules that one slate is illegitimately certified according to what the legislature of the involved state asserts. Congress then rules on the question of which slate is legitimate

To me it seems a mechanism designed to mitigate against fraud not create it, unless you think somehow the state legislature doesn't accurately reflect the people