Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Seems to ignore how toxic the Trump brand is to the center and several in the party who dislike Biden but won’t vote Trump. DeSantis does way better in head to heads with Biden. Someone like Burgum would win by ten.

Well. I don't know that I'd say "way better". At one point that was true but lately not so much. But DeSantis is staying within margin of error. So it's not a lot more than wistful thinking for Mike to cling so desperately to the delusional words of others who pull these ideas their backsides.


RCP DeSantis Vs Biden was retrieved at 5:08 on 8/12. If DeSantis falls behind > 10 points after we're well into the voting part of the primary season, then maybe Mike can reasonably believe this moron who thinks anyone who supports Trump now could not vote for DeSantis if DeSantis won the nomination. He's forgetting the polls that show if Trump is convicted, he loses the election bigly.

 

[Super Bee]

Good thing he is there now because when the Iowa Caucus is going on he will be sitting in the middle of a court room. He could very well miss 20 primaries due to being in court.

Not a coincidence Jack Smith scheduled it to start on January 6th.

 

[Quiet Observer]

Who did I expect Trump to support unconditionally?

Seems to ignore how toxic the Trump brand is to the center and several in the party who dislike Biden but won’t vote Trump. DeSantis does way better in head to heads with Biden. Someone like Burgum would win by ten.

Interesting thing about polls is that when the results match what someone likes, they are gospel; but when the polls go the other way, the polls become fake news.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Interesting thing about polls is that when the results match what someone likes, they are gospel; but when the polls go the other way, the polls become fake news.

Well, I don’t need polls to see how Trump lost Georgia and then Herschel underperformed Kemp. I can see how Kari Lake and Blake Masters did in Arizona. His brand is toxic to many.

 

[BugI02]

Seems to ignore how toxic the Trump brand is to the center and several in the party who dislike Biden but won’t vote Trump. DeSantis does way better in head to heads with Biden. Someone like Burgum would win by ten.

If by 'way better head to head with Biden' you mean 'worse than Trump', then yeah, maybe so

Real Clear polling average: Trump - 0.7 v Biden Desantis - 1.8 v Biden

 

[BugI02]

The evidence is the hopelessly loyal Trumpers crying because Trump lost, blaming the deep state the whole way. If that's not evidence of a robust deep state even more powerful than the one Trump apparently defeated in 2016, then I don't know what is.

So yeah, you can't quantify it and you can't support it, it's just a bull**** opinion

I'm shocked, shocked I say

 

[Ingomike]

Seems to ignore how toxic the Trump brand is to the center and several in the party who dislike Biden but won’t vote Trump. DeSantis does way better in head to heads with Biden. Someone like Burgum would win by ten.

You need to look at updated polling…

 

[jamil]

So yeah, you can't quantify it and you can't support it, it's just a bull**** opinion

I'm shocked, shocked I say

Well, really, denial and deflection is your only play here.

I say Trump didn't drain any swamp because there isn't a shred of evidence to support that he did. There was plenty of evidence of the power of TheSwamp™ when Trump left office. It was was stocked enough to stop him in 2020 after failing in 2016. That is undeniable unless you guys want to take back all the deep state claims WRT Trump losing the election. And that several Republicans were even part of TheSwamp™. One doesn't have to quantify specific numbers of net gains to make the general claim that Trump did not drain the swamp or that the swamp got even more powerful.

This tack you're taking is just you imposing unnecessary qualifiers to 1) deflect away from your inability to defend your belief that Trump fulfilled his campaign promises, and 2) that you're asserting your contempt for me, personally, because I told you back in the day, it's nutty to believe in wild ass claims without any evidence, like the Kraken™.

This discussion about TheSwamp™ is in not the equivalent of you blindly accepting the words of Trump loyalists without any other evidence. I didn't ask you even to quantify Kraken™. I just asked you for non-circular evidence that it existed. I don't need to quantify the exact net gain of TheSwamp™ to say Trump didn't do **** to drain it. So this discussion is not equivalent. You'll need to find another argument to push but I suggest butt salve.

One last thing. You said absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. While true, it's what you say when you're trying to say something which could be true, even without evidence. Like extra-terrestrials. Or God. But we're not trying to prove God here. Or maybe you are. With Kraken™ yeah, it could have existed. But without evidence there is no reason to believe it. With TheSwamp™ sure, it's possible Trump did something Trumpers would like without gloating about it. But it's far from likely. And to the contrary, the evidence I have that the swamp was as strong or stronger is, not exclusively, Trumper's own claims. You guys say the deep state helped defeat Trump. You can't have it both ways.

 

[jamil]

You need to look at updated polling…

The polling doesn't live up to his claims. But the polls tend to call out that article's ******** that DeSantis can't beat Biden because Trumpers will be sore losers if DeSantis beats him. I have faith in Trumpers that they won't be so petty. That's not even purple.

 

[jamil]

Well, I don’t need polls to see how Trump lost Georgia and then Herschel underperformed Kemp. I can see how Kari Lake and Blake Masters did in Arizona. His brand is toxic to many.

Now, the Kari Lake thing isn't as straightforward as you think. She did prove in court that the machines were misaligned and several precincts where she was quite strong, were unable to be counted because the readers couldn't read the ballots. An expert in these voting machines testified that the miscalibration would have to be done intentionally. Lake only lost that case because she was unable to prove that it was done intentionally to impact the election, a stipulation that the law did not require, but the judge nevertheless imposed.

Also it came out in court that several precincts where Lake was quite strong, they ran out of ballot paper. Some poll workers discovered that they could buy the correct paper from Staples, but when they called election headquarters, they forbid them from using it. It seemed the majority Democrat election board led by Lakes opponent, only cares about disenfranchisement when it's Democrat voters being "disenfranchised".

Now I am no Kraken™ crackpot. But this is evidence that should make curious people ask some serious questions. Why is it that all the election anomalies happened in heavily Republican districts?

 

[KLB]

Now I am no Kraken™ crackpot. But this is evidence that should make curious people ask some serious questions. Why is it that all the election anomalies happened in heavily Republican districts?

I have no clue whether there was shenanigans elsewhere, but did they really look at the others?

 

[jamil]

I have no clue whether there was shenanigans elsewhere, but did they really look at the others?

It’s hard to say. I can’t find any reports of entire district having problems other than the ones that are heavily red. It may have happened but if it did on this scale people must have been satisfied witht he results.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It starts with the first Primary or Caucus. The rest is just pregame theatrics.

That is just silliness. The actual vote is the culmination of the individual primary in the primary season. Those “pregame theatrics” are the first innings of the game. More critical work is being done right now to secure the nomination than next year.

The first primary is Round one of the "fight".

Everything prior is just pre-fight **** talk.

 

[oze]

The polling doesn't live up to his claims. But the polls tend to call out that article's ******** that DeSantis can't beat Biden because Trumpers will be sore losers if DeSantis beats him. I have faith in Trumpers that they won't be so petty. That's not even purple.

I wish I had your faith, Jamil.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You're one of the ones claiming he did nothing, back up the claim

I've already told you I think it's bull****, so don't expect me to somehow feel obligated to answer that question

Just back up your bull**** for once with actual data/citations

Since you refuse to back up anyhthing you claim, I'll do the "easy" work for you.

Trump's hiring freeze DID atrophy many of the cabinet level departments. For that, he absolutely deserves kudos. "Actively" draining the swamp, not so much.

 

[BugI02]

Well, really, denial and deflection is your only play here.

I say Trump didn't drain any swamp because there isn't a shred of evidence to support that he did. There was plenty of evidence of the power of TheSwamp™ when Trump left office. It was was stocked enough to stop him in 2020 after failing in 2016. That is undeniable unless you guys want to take back all the deep state claims WRT Trump losing the election. And that several Republicans were even part of TheSwamp™. One doesn't have to quantify specific numbers of net gains to make the general claim that Trump did not drain the swamp or that the swamp got even more powerful.

This tack you're taking is just you imposing unnecessary qualifiers to 1) deflect away from your inability to defend your belief that Trump fulfilled his campaign promises, and 2) that you're asserting your contempt for me, personally, because I told you back in the day, it's nutty to believe in wild ass claims without any evidence, like the Kraken™.

This discussion about TheSwamp™ is in not the equivalent of you blindly accepting the words of Trump loyalists without any other evidence. I didn't ask you even to quantify Kraken™. I just asked you for non-circular evidence that it existed. I don't need to quantify the exact net gain of TheSwamp™ to say Trump didn't do **** to drain it. So this discussion is not equivalent. You'll need to find another argument to push but I suggest butt salve.

One last thing. You said absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. While true, it's what you say when you're trying to say something which could be true, even without evidence. Like extra-terrestrials. Or God. But we're not trying to prove God here. Or maybe you are. With Kraken™ yeah, it could have existed. But without evidence there is no reason to believe it. With TheSwamp™ sure, it's possible Trump did something Trumpers would like without gloating about it. But it's far from likely. And to the contrary, the evidence I have that the swamp was as strong or stronger is, not exclusively, Trumper's own claims. You guys say the deep state helped defeat Trump. You can't have it both ways.

No, actually I'm applying your own standards - you know, pedantic enough to argue that even though Anybody But Trump has a clearly understood meaning it isn't 'precisely' correct

You are arguing in favor of something stated precisely, to whit that there was no change in the swamp between the time Trump took office and when he left. You say there is a veritable plethora of evidence available and yet you still cite none. One begins to wonder if you believe what you assert should not need to be supported by evidence, I guess because you're the one asserting it

 

[Ingomike]

The first primary is Round one of the "fight".

Everything prior is just pre-fight **** talk.

The contest to win the primaries is on NOW! You guys can give it all the spin you want but the truth is the candidates are in Iowa now working their butts off to win when the votes are counted. Not sure where you guys come up with this binary thinking that the primaries start when vote counting starts. Primaries are won with exactly what is going on now and will continue until the votes are counted.

 

[bwframe]

 

[KG1]

Looks like Trump has some pretty big notables onboard to stump for him in Iowa.

 

[jamil]

No, actually I'm applying your own standards - you know, pedantic enough to argue that even though Anybody But Trump has a clearly understood meaning it isn't 'precisely' correct

You're applying straw standards instead of my own. I never asked you to quantify numbers for Kraken™ or it didn't happen. I asked for actual evidenced. You couldn't even do that, so you started building this facade of unreasonable standards to cover up for you believing nonsense uncritically. And you're doing the same thing now. You know Trump hasn't done ****, so you're hiding behind this to try to avoid a direct conversation about it that would require you to put up or shut up. In what way has Trump fulfilled that promise? Yeah, I wouldn't want to have to prove that he did either.

You are arguing in favor of something stated precisely, to whit that there was no change in the swamp between the time Trump took office and when he left.

What I've stated is that Trump hasn't drained any swamp, and if anything it's worse than it was when he took office. You're trying to make it more precise so that you can follow this tack instead of dealing with the fact that Trump hasn't drained jack ****. What's pedantic is you insisting I prove it in the precise way you want me to.

You say there is a veritable plethora of evidence available and yet you still cite none. One begins to wonder if you believe what you assert should not need to be supported by evidence, I guess because you're the one asserting it

I'll say it a 4th or 5th time or whatever it is. I don't have to use a numbers to prove it. I could cite the administration employment figures that show employment for every agency other than HR and labor, or maybe one or two other minor agencies, that stayed flat or increased. Spending didn't decrease. In all the areas Trumpers believes the deep state exists, those areas did not shrink.

But I don't have to cite numbers to say Trump didn't do **** to drain the swamp. He didn't brag about it. That should be proof enough of lack of accomplishment, especially since there isn't any evidence to support the idea that any swamp was eliminated, diminished or weakened.

And here's the funniest part. I don't think that Trump not fulfilling that campaign promise is even a big deal. The deal is that you guys go on about how he's kept all his promises. Well, I think so what if he hasn't? He's a politician. They promise things. Then don't often deliver. Trump did okay. But that's one he did not fulfill, and that seems to chap some Trumper's ass when they hear it said by someone who could vote for someone besides Trump.