Trump 2024 ???

[KG1]

I mean. I don't get why Trump should be considered loathsome. I think Trump is a grifter as most politicians are. He is not uniquely loathsome. If we're gonna loath grifter politicians we should loath all of them. Maybe some a little more than others, but still at least a little. It's truly TDS to say Trump is uniquely loathsome when there are so many more politicians that deserve our loathing. Biden chief among them.

Side Note: I don't give a **** what you say, Trump IS a politician at this point. You could get away with claiming he wasn't when he first threw his hat into the ring in 2016. I think even that is arguable. But he is objectively, absolutely, everything a politician is today.

Of course an avid Never Trumper would most likely see Trump as 'loathsome" but you are getting hung up on the part that is not germane to the subject of the article which is even though he is a self-described Never Trumper that finds him loathsome, and still does he no longer agrees that he should be disqualified under the 14th amendment sec 3 as he once did and goes on to explain why.

 

[jamil]

A 5 week ban is terrible but a 15 week ban makes everyone happy, according to Trump.

Maybe he pulled that number out of his ass, but the number is supported by polling. Most people think abortion is wrong after a certain point in the pregnancy, and they think it's okay before a certain point. The plurality is around 15 weeks.

He does not care about abortion. He does not care about federalism. He cares about getting his old job back. Apparently, he thinks he can “split the baby” and make enough people like him to get his old job back.

I do think he cares most about getting his old job back, and that he would pander to whichever group might help him do that.

Walsh is correct that there is no solution that everyone will like. It's a divisive issue with several positions people can take on it. My take on it, I personally think it's morally wrong to abort a pregnancy at any point, in most cases. Morality is up to the individual. It's a state issue, and thus should be decided by states how to legislate it. But people with more extreme views on either side will absolutely hate my take on it.

Republicans didn't get their wave for two reasons. Democrats were successful in pinning the overturning of RvW on Trump, and then making that election about Trump. Which is why the Republicans that lost were mostly Republicans Trump supported and the ones that won were those he didn't support. So I suspect Trump pays attention to polls a lot more than Trumpers do.

I think Trump knows that. Contrary to a widely held fable by many Trumpers that most people actually love Trump, I suspect he knows he needs many people to hold thier noses to vote for him. And many of them are pissed about RvW being overturned. So I think you're right that Trump is softening his rhetoric on Abortion to pander to those "pansy nose holders". He absolutely does need them.

But he also needs the more extrem anti-abortion voters to hold their pansy noses as well. It's a lose/lose for any Republican. If you appease the moderate Republicans who liked RvW, you **** off the hard-liners. If you appease the hard-liners, you **** off the moderates. Either way, he won't **** off the ardent Trumpers because they can excuse it away as 5D chess, or as many D's as it takes to excuse it.

If he's truly pragmatic, he'll try to appeal to the group that will give him the most votes, but knowing it's at the expense of the other.

 

[Mikey1911]

Okay, I'm just gonna abbreviate loves-killing-babies as LKB. And pretty much every Democrat running for office is a LKB democrat. And a few Republicans are LKB as well.

Potential Campaign Sign?

"FJB-LKB"

 

[jamil]

Of course an avid Never Trumper would most likely see Trump as 'loathsome" but you are getting hung up on the part that is not germane to the subject of the article which is even though he is a self-described Never Trumper that finds him loathsome, and still does he no longer agrees that he should be disqualified under the 14th amendment sec 3 as he once did and goes on to explain why.

I was just addressing the "loathsome" part. I was just explaining that they're all loathsome if any of them are loathsome. I was intentionally not addressing the article, which I think is a non-sequitur.

His explanation does not follow, that the POTUS was not intended as an "officer" for the purpose of the amendment. A POTUS who does such things should be chief among those disqualified.

But, it still needs to be proven individually that the POTUS did such things to be disqualified as a part of due process. There is no proof presented that Trump had any part of planning J6 as a coup. And if there is such proof, maybe the J6 committee, with all the political theater put on by Democrats/CoC Republicans for months as propaganda, decided not to present this grand proof for some inconceivable reason.

 

[oze]

First, full disclosure. I do not consider myself a very religious person. My vehement objection to abortion is from my moral objection to infanticide, and especially state-sanctioned infanticide.

However...Didn't Evangelicals help elect Trump the first time around? And, despite some bumps, didn't they in general still support him up until that interview? But, if this interview gets widely disseminated (and I'm doing my best to do my part), maybe large groups of them and other pro-lifers will abandon him. Perhaps the Republican nominee for POTUS is now back in play after all.

 

[Ingomike]

First, full disclosure. I do not consider myself a very religious person. My vehement objection to abortion is from my moral objection to infanticide, and especially state-sanctioned infanticide.

However...Didn't Evangelicals help elect Trump the first time around? And, despite some bumps, didn't they in general still support him up until that interview? But, if this interview gets widely disseminated (and I'm doing my best to do my part), maybe large groups of them and other pro-lifers will abandon him. Perhaps the Republican nominee for POTUS is now back in play after all.

Who is in the cult?

 

[oze]

Who is in the cult?

Huh?

 

[Ingomike]

5 Wrong Predictions Ruining Democrats' Plan For 2024

If Biden can’t win the D.C. uniparty or the far left, can’t hide his corruption, and can’t hide from Trump, how's he supposed to win in 2024?

thefederalist.com

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[DadSmith]

 

[DragonGunner]

Reagan said he would end abortion. Of the 4 judges he put in the Supreme Court only 1 was pro life. The Bushes was slightly better but not much over 50%. Trump put 3 on and all were pro life so he is 100%. So when I hear people say he doesn’t care about babies it makes no sense. And I don’t care. He is the most pro life President in our life times. Now what bill will he sign? Who knows, I actually don’t believe such a bill will even get past the house or the senate for him to sign. Won’t ever happen, NEVER. It will stay with the states. And Trump most likely knows that so he playing the game he won’t say but everyone will be happy. What do you want him to say. Life is at conception and only that will pass? Sure say that and no democrats will slide over to vote for him and at least 50% of pro choice Republicans won’t vote for him so how does he win? He knows not all parties are going to be happy because real pro life people know life starts at conception, and the other side wants death to babies even after they are born. Trump just playing with words. He knows no bill will ever make it to his desk. 4D chest people c’mon.

 

[BugI02]

That’s happened quite a bit, where votes cast have been below voters elegible to register and vote. It happens a lot in primaries. Low voter turnout enables more motivated voters to nominate more radical candidates. It’s how AOC got elected. I’m puzzled by the purple though. It’s a legitimate question and concern. I wouldn’t needed to have interpreted it as sarcasm.

I was intimating that 'none of the above' would be the endorsed candidate, not that the second also ran would get the nod. Ideally that situation would result in some kind of do over

 

[BugI02]

A "pansy nose holder" is a person who thinks that none of the candidates are ideal, but is willing to overlook the faults of the least worst candidate because of a belief that the consequences of allowing the worst candidate to win are dire. The "pansy" part comes from people who think everyone has to think like them or they're the enemy. So it's really just "nose-holders".

I kind of thought it was more about their tendency to endlessly inform us that they might condescend to hold their nose and vote for Trump and then rehash all of their stupid pet peeves

We'll be happy if they do vote for Trump, if they don't, may their chains lie lightly upon them. What makes them worthy of mocking is the need to over share their reasons for voting for Trump

They should be concerned about winning and derailing the communism train, cognizant of the fact no one politician will make them happy on every issue, not publicly having attacks of the vapors because they might have to vote for Trump. Nobody cares about their struggle, and one pansy nose holder was going to find a reason not to vote for Trump without a doubt so this just gives him the out he was looking for. Go and contribute to DeSantis' 4%, we're tired of having to listen to it

 

[Magyars]

Way to go Mike!

Indiana Senator Mike Braun Endorses Trump for President. » The National Pulse+

United States Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) has endorsed Donald Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. In an interview, Braun said, "Donald

thenationalpulse.com

 

[jamil]

I was intimating that 'none of the above' would be the endorsed candidate, not that the second also ran would get the nod. Ideally that situation would result in some kind of do over

Words mean what they mean.

 

[jamil]

I kind of thought it was more about their tendency to endlessly inform us that they might condescend to hold their nose and vote for Trump and then rehash all of their stupid pet peeves

We'll be happy if they do vote for Trump, if they don't, may their chains lie lightly upon them. What makes them worthy of mocking is the need to over share their reasons for voting for Trump

They should be concerned about winning and derailing the communism train, cognizant of the fact no one politician will make them happy on every issue, not publicly having attacks of the vapors because they might have to vote for Trump. Nobody cares about their struggle, and one pansy nose holder was going to find a reason not to vote for Trump without a doubt so this just gives him the out he was looking for. Go and contribute to DeSantis' 4%, we're tired of having to listen to it

Wut? Did someone poke at your teddy again? This post smells a lot like disgruntled old man. It's okay. Most of us are kinda old here. We've all been disgruntled before. The smell will disperse. It's probably just gas. The teal just gives it a little more kick.

 

[KG1]

 

[BugI02]

Wut? Did someone poke at your teddy again? This post smells a lot like disgruntled old man. It's okay. Most of us are kinda old here. We've all been disgruntled before. The smell will disperse. It's probably just gas. The teal just gives it a little more kick.

Or maybe 'I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump if I have to' or [hand dramatically held to forehead to indicate the vapors] 'I can no longer vote for that man, regardless of the circumstances' is just virtue signaling on a different frequency band

You go girl!

 

[jamil]

Or maybe 'I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump if I have to' or [hand dramatically held to forehead to indicate the vapors] 'I can no longer vote for that man, regardless of the circumstances' is just virtue signaling on a different frequency band

You go girl!

You mad bruh?

 

[oze]

I'm getting a vibe here that we should all vote for Trump, no matter what, because he's better than the donkey that he is running against. Just like Todd Young, right? Except that, unlike Trump, Young is not pro-abortion, and he knows the difference between a man and a woman.