Trump 2024 ???

[BugI02]

What you and IngoMike say are very accurate. A prime example of this is the recent days in the House. We are seeing our alleged party backstabbing each other in fear of losing their status quo in the swamp party. Turncoats everywhere and they are more bold than ever. The same backstabbers openly loved Trump but stabbed hm repeatedly behind their closed doors. “We the people” have been duped.

The only way they will allow the party to be remade in the image of its voters is if we make them allow it. That could not be more apparent

It would be best to make Trump so popular that no one would dare cross him this time around - and the unfortunate truth of achieving that would be that it would only be their own self-interest that was restraining them, their fear that they would have to get real jobs and make their money through talent and effort

 

[BugI02]

At this point Trump supporters are the political equivalent to the boy who cried wolf…they have amplified so much of his BS that no one listens to them even when they do have a valid point.

Whither Biden/Democrat/Marxist supporters?

Edit: Just a guess, but I don't think Trump's poll numbers and fundraising, against 'republican' also-rans as well as the sock-puppet-in-chief, are indicative of 'no one listening to Trump supporters'. But by all means, stay in your comfortable silo

 

[BugI02]

Regarding the "stolen election" claims, this fails the BS meter test. Trump had been President for 4 years at this point and had appointed or had the power to appoint ALL appointees.

Aren't you forgetting 'advise and consent'? He can make an appointment but he can only force confirmation via a recess appointment

 

[BugI02]

Idunno about that. It depends what point he’s making. If he’s saying we should just trust what this guy is saying because he’s an expert, yeah. But if he’s just saying, this guy says he used the same process to find statistical evidence of voter fraud that that’s used to find other fraud, and presented his findings in a falsifiable way, then that is logically sound. The truth of the claim would follow the findings, if the methods used are transferable.

But even then it's only an indicator, and not actual proof of fraud. Also, Maybe "zero facts" is a bit hyperbolic.

This is a good argument, as far as it goes

I would point out though, that the US would and has declared elections in other countries to be illegitimate or compromised based on just such statistical anomalies

Why do our own elections get a pass? Seems like yet another talismanic belief with no legs

To stare into the abyss but look away does nothing to solve the problem

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Idunno about that. It depends what point he’s making. If he’s saying we should just trust what this guy is saying because he’s an expert, yeah. But if he’s just saying, this guy says he used the same process to find statistical evidence of voter fraud that that’s used to find other fraud, and presented his findings in a falsifiable way, then that is logically sound. The truth of the claim would follow the findings, if the methods used are transferable.

Someone with some expertise (in something other than elections, btw) said something that he says indicates voter fraud... or possible voter fraud.

That's an appeal to some expert without any supporting, independent evidence... which is appeal to authority.

But even then it's only an indicator, and not actual proof of fraud. Also, Maybe "zero facts" is a bit hyperbolic.

Other than the appeal to authority, what fact was presented? Someone's opinion is not a fact. Perhaps there is a source of facts behind this statistical voter fraud claim, but not a single one was presented in the post I quoted.

I think stolen is a very high bar.

I agree... zero evidence that Trump won and the election was stolen. Doesn't stop him from lying out his *** about it.

I can go along with "rigged". A good example of rigging would be in AZ where polling places in GOP favored districts had their machines altered to print in a way that the readers couldn't tabulate the votes. That much was proven in court. They couldn't prove intent, which is why Lake lost the court case, but c'mon. That **** was rigged.

Ummm... it was general incompetence/screw-up that occurred not only in GOP favored districts in Maricopa county, but also in heavily Dem precincts within Maricopa county. Unless this is completely false:

Arizona voting issues not confined to conservative areas

As voting sites across Maricopa County reported issues with tabulating ballots due to a printing malfunction, former President Donald Trump, Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, and social media users suggested that the problems only affected sites in conservative parts of Maricopa County.

apnews.com

 

[SheepDog4Life]

That's fair. I'd much rather have a President that can actually accomplish things that can't get undone the first day the opposition is in office. But, I'm not sure such a president exists. DeSantis may indeed be the closest to that but that's not even close to being a fact at this point.

If it's still a race in May and DeSantis is still around, I'll vote for him in the primary. But honestly, I don't see how it would come to that. Something drastic would have to happen in the mean time.

DeSantis is probably one of the most accomplished administrators I've seen running for POTUS in a long time. The skills from governor to POTUS are generally transferable, so I have no problem with him being untested on the national stage as far as administrative ability to get political goals accomplished.

The doubt is about his ability to win a national election. He's boring AF to listen to, and he's got no story behind him like Trump does. I have almost zero confidence DeSantis could defeat Trump in the primaries, which also translates to doubt that he could beat Biden in the general election.

I'll disagree on this... Biden couldn't win the 2020 primary without a lot of machinations in the Dem machine... a lot of folks exited to make it Biden v Bernie... otherwise, Bernie was set to be the nominee a la Trump winning a plurality, but not a majority of the primary vote. And, IIRC, Biden wasn't even in 2nd place.

Ditto DeSantis vs Trump... or anyone versus Trump in a crowded GOP primary field. I think figuratively anyone other than Trump (DeSantis, Scott, Haley, etc. but NOT Pence, lol) can beat Biden because the middle voters are aware of his increasing senility and any number of other mis-steps.

If reality then confirms the circumstances now, Trump will be the nominee, and the vote for me won't necessarily be for permanent changes. It will be simply be for not-ClownWorld™.

The current reality is the GOP nominee will be Trump... just like the 2020 Dem primary reality, at a later point in the primaries, was Bernie. It can change...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I didn't say better than Biden.
My question was totally different.

Your post was "Things were better when he was president. " I took that to SPECIFICALLY mean the Presidency, aka now Biden, not the general period of time that coincided with 2016-2020.

 

[DadSmith]

Your post was "Things were better when he was president. " I took that to SPECIFICALLY mean the Presidency, aka now Biden, not the general period of time that coincided with 2016-2020.

What?
This was the question.

I'd like those who do not want to see Trump as president list just 10 things that will have a negative impact on them (feeling aside) if he becomes president.

 

[KLB]

What?
This was the question.

I'd like those who do not want to see Trump as president list just 10 things that will have a negative impact on them (feeling aside) if he becomes president.

Can you do the same for Rama or DeSantis?

 

[KLB]

Aren't you forgetting 'advise and consent'? He can make an appointment but he can only force confirmation via a recess appointment

Were some of his picks not confirmed?

 

[DadSmith]

Can you do the same for Rama or DeSantis?

I don't see why not. Just substitute candidate of your choice.

 

[BugI02]

Were some of his picks not confirmed?

This was the salient portion of SD4L's post I was responding to:

President for 4 years at this point and had appointed or had the power to appoint ALL appointees.

It's a variation of the tried and true 'Trump didn't fix everything, everywhere, all at once so he is bad and [insert candidate of choice] will do better' trope

Thank you for playing, though

 

[jamil]

Based on his numbers or is there something more concrete out there?

I mean. It’s a valid point.

I guess we'll see once the there are real votes to count...

wait. “Real votes”

You’re one of those, “the polls are inaccurate” guys? Desantis is an order of magnitude behind the error margin in every poll. Not what I was hoping for but we have to roll with reality. Only way DeSantis moves onto the general election is if something happens between now and then. As it stands now, he done.

 

[jamil]

This is a good argument, as far as it goes

I would point out though, that the US would and has declared elections in other countries to be illegitimate or compromised based on just such statistical anomalies

Why do our own elections get a pass? Seems like yet another talismanic belief with no legs

To stare into the abyss but look away does nothing to solve the problem

To say that the US powers that be could or would fix our elections, or even say with some confidence they do, isn’t proof that they did. Not having proof of such is not a reason to stare into the abyss. The circumstances are enough to distrust people claiming everything is normal, at the very least.

 

[KG1]

I mean. It’s a valid point.

wait. “Real votes”

You’re one of those, “the polls are inaccurate” guys? Desantis is an order of magnitude behind the error margin in every poll. Not what I was hoping for but we have to roll with reality. Only way DeSantis moves onto the general election is if something happens between now and then. As it stands now, he done.

For me it's all about enthusiasm. I'm just not getting a strong enough vibe for him to overcome Trump.

 

[jamil]

Can you do the same for Rama or DeSantis?

Here’s my

As President? We have some experience with Trump as President. We know the negatives. The biggest downside with Trump is that he can’t get anyone to work with him. Earned or not, he’s toxic. Well have another 4 years of EO’s and not much getting done permanently.

With DeSantis, I’ve already said what I think. That he’s a competent administrator who knows what things need done and how to go about getting them done. I think he’d be a much better president than he is a campaigner.

Ramaswamy? I have no ****ing idea other than my spidey senses alarming me about him. He obviously knows what to say to make conservatives cheer. Does he believe any of it?

 

[jamil]

I'll disagree on this... Biden couldn't win the 2020 primary without a lot of machinations in the Dem machine... a lot of folks exited to make it Biden v Bernie... otherwise, Bernie was set to be the nominee a la Trump winning a plurality, but not a majority of the primary vote. And, IIRC, Biden wasn't even in 2nd place.

I dunno man. I think you're reaching here. I don't see this at all. What you're disagreeing with is that DeSantis's inability to gain any traction against Trump in the Primaries, translating to DeSantis being unable to beat Biden in the general.

Now we have a lot of people in the race and Trump doesn't merely have a plurality. It's an outright majority, and not by a little. If somehow the GOP were able to scuttle Trump's campaign like the DNC took out Bernie, would DeSantis even be the nominee?

Where do you think those Trump fans would go? DeSantis? Trumpers hate themselves some DeSantis. I think what would happen, Trump would get buthurt and start a third party run, and whoever was the GOP nominee would be ****ed.

But. Let's say that somehow TPTB were able to make it impossible for Trump to continue in any capacity. And let's say that somehow DeSantis figured out how to campaign, and managed to scrape past Rammy. It's possible DeSantis could beat Biden.

The thing with Trump, people that support him don't give a flying **** what the media claims about him. Nazi, racist, porn star ****er, classified document stealer, real estate fraudster, doesn't matter. The media has pounded all that **** into the average American and it doesn't stick. DeSantis does not have that.

Ditto DeSantis vs Trump... or anyone versus Trump in a crowded GOP primary field. I think figuratively anyone other than Trump (DeSantis, Scott, Haley, etc. but NOT Pence, lol) can beat Biden because the middle voters are aware of his increasing senility and any number of other mis-steps.

It's already a crowded GOP field. Like I said, it's Trump vs everyone else and he's got a healthy majority. I'd rather smoke what you're smoking (figuratively of course) though, so I could have the confidence you have. My reality meter says DeSantis ain't going anywhere near the big boy chair this time around.

The current reality is the GOP nominee will be Trump... just like the 2020 Dem primary reality, at a later point in the primaries, was Bernie. It can change...

It can. Will it? We'll see. I am not confident in anything these days except another 4 years of ClownWorld™ will likely be unrecoverable.

 

[jamil]

What does this mean? The facts have all been posted here for years, that you choose to ignore them is on you.

I don't think you could call them facts, unless you're saying it was a fact that some people, including Trump claimed they had proof but never produced any actual proof.

 

[jamil]

Someone with some expertise (in something other than elections, btw) said something that he says indicates voter fraud... or possible voter fraud.

That's an appeal to some expert without any supporting, independent evidence... which is appeal to authority.

Ingomike has brought this up several times and posted links to what the guy was claiming. He did not use the authority of the person as the only point of argument so it is not an appeal to authority. He pointed people to an article discussing the findings and the specific claims the guy made. Mike was appealing to those claims, and not exclusively the expertise of the guy making the claims.

So it does not matter even if the guy was outside of his area of expertise. If statistics can be used as evidence that points to fraud, then it's likely it can be used to point to fraud in elections. Does being an expert in using statistics to find fraud helpful in making such claims? Yes. Is it an appeal to authority? No.

Other than the appeal to authority, what fact was presented? Someone's opinion is not a fact. Perhaps there is a source of facts behind this statistical voter fraud claim, but not a single one was presented in the post I quoted.

Well you'd have to read the same things Ingomike posted about it and tell us where he's wrong I guess. My only point against it is that even if his findings are legit, at most it's an indicator of potential fraud, not proof of fraud itself. Someone still has to prove that fraud actually happened and exactly who all did it.

I agree... zero evidence that Trump won and the election was stolen. Doesn't stop him from lying out his *** about it.

You sound confident. I think Trump believes he won. Do you have some specific evidence that he doesn't believe it? I mean something actually solid.

Ummm... it was general incompetence/screw-up that occurred not only in GOP favored districts in Maricopa county, but also in heavily Dem precincts within Maricopa county. Unless this is completely false:

Arizona voting issues not confined to conservative areas

As voting sites across Maricopa County reported issues with tabulating ballots due to a printing malfunction, former President Donald Trump, Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, and social media users suggested that the problems only affected sites in conservative parts of Maricopa County.

apnews.com

It doesn't have to be completely false to be false enough. There are a lot of specious claims in that fact check. If you want, we can go through them.

Also, you should know that posting any mainstream "fact-check" is problematic. Fact checks these days are deterministic if there is a political goal at stake. People aren't investigating all the facts and reporting objectively. They have the true/false already in mind and then go about making the case fo it.

In other words, you tell me who the source is, I'll tell you what the true/false is before they write it. And I'll be right almost always.

Gateway pundit fact check? Yeah, it's gonna follow their bias. If it's about Trump, it will only rarely go against him.

Mainstream media fact checks? It's gonna follow their bias. They cannot be honest if they have a political goal in mind.

 

[BugI02]

With DeSantis, I’ve already said what I think. That he’s a competent administrator who knows what things need done and how to go about getting them done. I think he’d be a much better president than he is a campaigner.

I would go further and say he would have a cadre of experienced, conservative people from his state government that he could tap for important positions in his administration - that is something Trump did not have

That said, I think he is doing himself enormous damage by trying to run to the right of Trump - and I'm not even sure his heart is in it. At times he seems like he's just reading his lines and other times he just seems to be thrashing around wildly trying to gain traction. It makes you think he'll be the LAST one to realize it's not his time after all