Trump 2024 ???

[KLB]

Then why would you expect Trump to?

Who did I expect Trump to support unconditionally?

 

[oze]

I have a serious question; I hope to get at least some serious answers. Would you take a similar pledge? That is, to support (or at least vote for in the general election) whomever wins the Republican nomination for President? Perhaps with some difficulty, I would.

 

[jamil]

Then if you are so certain, you should be able to quantify how many people in DC qualify as actual swamp dwellers and cite verifiable information that their numbers did not decline between early 2017 and late 2020

I would be willing to bet you have no idea how many people you are talking about and no verifiable figures on the change in their numbers over time. That is what I am referring to. I'm sure it is deeply satisfying to some to deliver a hit piece of a sound bite like 'the swamp was just as full when Trump left office as when he took office' but do you have any data to back that up? How many government employees exercised decision making authority when Trump was inaugurated? Are there officials with decision making authority who should not be considered swamp dwellers? If so, how many and what is count for actual swamp dwellers.?
How has this number changed over time?

Where is your evidence to support your opinion? Should not the standards you wish to apply to claims of election fraud at least be the minimum standard for claims of Trump failures as well? Otherwise you are again claiming facts not in evidence

I'm sure I can look forward to citations to support your claims in the near future

Deflection to some postulated flaw in the minutae of my argument as a distraction from ever putting up or shutting up incoming in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

I have no idea how many swamp dwellers there are. I don't need to know that. What I need to know is how many people with power have been neutered as a result of Trump's swamp draining efforts. Can you cite any evidence any swamp has been drained?

I can say that the swamp was pretty effective at screwing Trump out of an election while he was in office. How's that for swamp power? It looks to me like the swamp was every bit as powerful on Trump's exit as they were on his entrance. The whole point was to say Trump didn't do jack **** with the swamp, other than schedule F, which he never got to use. But you keep dying on that hill. And it's unnecessary. The best response to Trump didn't do jack **** with the swamp is, so? But no. You guys need to alter reality to maintain a facade of perfection.

 

[jamil]

I have a serious question; I hope to get at least some serious answers. Would you take a similar pledge? That is, to support (or at least vote for in the general election) whomever wins the Republican nomination for President? Perhaps with some difficulty, I would.

I can answer that. No. I can't pledge that. If it's a chamber-o-commerce neocon who wins the nomination I would not support that person in the general election. So I'm not voting for someone like Chris Christie at all ever. I'd vote the Libertarian candidate for POTUS before I do that. Probably if Trump were running 3rd party, I'd go that route before Christie. That dude would just do what Democrats do. Pretty much the same with any of the neocons. I'd vote for Trump if he won. I'd vote for DeSantis if he won. I think I could vote for Rammiswamy if he won, but let's see him get through debates before pulling that lever.

 

[Ingomike]

Deflection and non-answer... so he is weak and fearful?

Definitely not a confident stance.

Your post was the deflection of my question. You are scared Trump will win again…

 

[jamil]

I'm sure Marcus Junius Brutus, Gaius Cassius Longinus and the rest would have been happy to sign a pledge of support for Caesar prior to the Ides of March

The difference, is they have the upper hand of being able to get away with it after Caesar was murdered. In this case, Trump has the last word. If they **** him in the primaries, he can **** them worse in the general election by running third party.

 

[jamil]

Then why would you expect Trump to?

I wouldn't. Like I said, if they want Trump to commit to the Republican party, then there has to be a quid pro quo. They have to commit to him if he wins.

 

[KG1]

Why would Trump take the pledge to support "losers" and "clowns" that are disloyal as he calls them?

 

[BugI02]

Who did I expect Trump to support unconditionally?

If you expect him to sign the 'loyalty pledge', then whoever the smoke filled room declares is the nominee

 

[BugI02]

I have no idea how many swamp dwellers there are. I don't need to know that. What I need to know is how many people with power have been neutered as a result of Trump's swamp draining efforts. Can you cite any evidence any swamp has been drained?

I can say that the swamp was pretty effective at screwing Trump out of an election while he was in office. How's that for swamp power? It looks to me like the swamp was every bit as powerful on Trump's exit as they were on his entrance. The whole point was to say Trump didn't do jack **** with the swamp, other than schedule F, which he never got to use. But you keep dying on that hill. And it's unnecessary. The best response to Trump didn't do jack **** with the swamp is, so? But no. You guys need to alter reality to maintain a facade of perfection.

No, I personally enjoy holding you to the same standards of proof you use for claims of election fraud. Preponderance of evidence doesn't Kut it

You cannot prove that the swamp is just as full on Trump's departure as it was on his arrival because, as you admitted, you don't know the swamp-count either for early 2017 or late 2020. You have no proof to offer, where Trump is concerned you just utter whatever slander makes your leg tingle

 

[BugI02]

The best response to Trump didn't do jack **** with the swamp is, so?

No, actually it is to call bull**** unless you can prove it

 

[KLB]

If you expect him to sign the 'loyalty pledge', then whoever the smoke filled room declares is the nominee

Not running against is far from supporting unconditionally. Where do you get this ?

 

[BugI02]

I wouldn't. Like I said, if they want Trump to commit to the Republican party, then there has to be a quid pro quo. They have to commit to him if he wins.

What assurances could they offer Trump that they could be trusted not to renege upon? The depth of their perfidy has been proven to know no bounds

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What assurances could they offer Trump that they could be trusted not to renege upon? The depth of their perfidy has been proven to know no bounds

Okay, I had to look up "perfidy". I was thinking, "How much you payin' fer yer bullits?" "'Bout 10 bucks perfidy."

 

[KG1]

Okay, I had to look up "perfidy". I was thinking, "How much you payin' fer yer bullits?" "'Bout 10 bucks perfidy."

Hey you should know this vocabulary. You were 6th in your HS class

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Hey you should know this vocabulary. You were 6th in your HS class

Hey, it's taken a long time to forget stuff! Okay, I'm not gonna lie... I never did know what perfidy meant.

 

[jamil]

I don't believe he has ruled out that option, just not willing to blindly commit to an outcome still in flux

You should be quite familiar with what motivations will drive a person to withhold their support for any particular candidate in the hope some better option will possibly be on offer, yes?

I’ve already said Trump should attach strings to any commitments to the Republican Party. He should absolutely not blindly commit. Of course none of that has anything to do with what’s in purple.

 

[jamil]

Who did I expect Trump to support unconditionally?

Not your guy of course.

 

[jamil]

No, actually it is to call bull**** unless you can prove it

What did he do? You guys are big on claiming “deep state”. Did Trump do anything or not? You’re not gonna answer that question because you’re just quarreling.

 

[jamil]

No, I personally enjoy holding you to the same standards of proof you use for claims of election fraud. Preponderance of evidence doesn't Kut it

You cannot prove that the swamp is just as full on Trump's departure as it was on his arrival because, as you admitted, you don't know the swamp-count either for early 2017 or late 2020. You have no proof to offer, where Trump is concerned you just utter whatever slander makes your leg tingle

I don’t have to prove that to say that Trump didn’t do jack ****. What role did the swamp take in preventing Trump to win? Seems to me the results are evidence enough.

But you’re not arguing that anyway. Your ass is chapped because I told you it was ridiculous to believe Sydney Powell’s wild ass claims without a shred of evidence. And so you want to argue that saying the swamp didn’t change is a wild ass claim? Nah, don’t work like that dawg. It’s not a wild ass claim to say Trump did not do anything to drain the swamp other than write the schedule F EO. There isn’t any evidence of a drained swamp. In fact there is better evidence of a more robust swamp given what transpired in January.