Trump attacks DeSantis on vax status

[jamil]

I think it was my first boss that told me, you are more likely to get in trouble for doing nothing than doing the wrong thing.

It's an old management style I think. I used to work for a large company and had a tyrant manager who thought that way. But now, at least in my line of work, if you **** something up, you own it. So when those urgent situations arise, you better figure out that the cure isn't worse than the problem. Of course there's forgiveness if you did the due diligence and still made a mistake.

 

[Jaybird1980]

It's an old management style I think. I used to work for a large company and had a tyrant manager who thought that way. But now, at least in my line of work, if you **** something up, you own it. So when those urgent situations arise, you better figure out that the cure isn't worse than the problem. Of course there's forgiveness if you did the due diligence and still made a mistake.

I think it comes down to the work setting also, like you said.

Doing the wrong thing in my line of work ends up with people injured or dead.
Never worked an office job or sales, so it may work out in a place like that.

 

[ancjr]

You mean this one?
View attachment 176452

I like that one, but the one I offered is superior.

 

[jsharmon7]

Allegedly, his office confirmed last year that Desantis received the J&J vaccine.

DeSantis

His spokesperson confirmed it in an interview, but no link to that interview or mention of where to find it was provided by the AP.

 

[BugI02]

I'm saying your use of the term in this thread seems discordant with the definition you gave. You guys seem to revert to "neverTrumper" anytime someone says something negative about Trump. The poster said he wouldn't vote for Trump *again* and gave some reasons why. Sounds like at least a little mindfulness to me.

I would prefer that they 'Let them fight!' instead of calling for Trump not to run. To me it is indicative of worry/fear that he could run and win again and that seems Democrat-adjacent to me. It also seems disingenuous to say that Trump would divide the party and then in the same breath talk about a Rand Paul candidacy.

If Trump runs and fails to win the party nomination in a relatively straight-forward primary (ie: no super-delegates or other 'fixes' are in) I will cheerfully vote for whoever wins the nomination unless it is Romney or a Bush (which I find very unlikely)

As I've said before, it is much harder to get things done as president then as governor, that a governor actually has more power than a president, just over a more limited geographical area. I personally think it is too early to run DeSantis nationally at all and certainly not at the head of the ticket - but you will note I'm not calling for him to be excluded from the primary. IMO DeSantis is kind of a proto-Trump anyway (See: Signing an anti-covid restriction law in Brandon, FL, next level trolling). It should always be remembered, though, that in addition to those more sweeping gubernatorial powers DeSantis has comfortable majorities in both legislatures of Florida and those legislators are closer to him on the ideological spectrum. That will not necessarily be so at the national level, where even if he has the numbers they will be far more spread out on that spectrum

 

[BugI02]

I don't have a problem with some of the positions you adopt. But you're gonna get pushback when I see inconsistency, just like I'd expect from you when you see it from me. And then we can talk about it. On friendly terms I hope.

Absolutely. Just check for the little mitre emblem after a post to make sure I'm not speaking ex cathedra before you presume to disagree

 

[BugI02]

I think you're thinking in binary terms here. Requiring "proof" isn't the same thing as requiring absolute proof. For a lot of what we're talking about, we can't have absolute proof. At some point it boils down to trust; our faith in a given source. I think bias fits so tightly into that decision-making that when it comes to belief, I don't always trust my instincts because I'm as biased as anyone.

How do you square that with Jcharmin's assertions that there is NO proof that the election was rigged, which was the original flashpoint relative to which you stepped into the ring. If videos of elections officials in Pennsylvania destroying subpoenaed evidence of voting irregularities, and doing so knowingly while bragging about it, doesn't count as some kind of evidence that there was something wrong about the vote then obviously Mr charmin and I have no common referents

 

[BugI02]

Well, as I said above, for some "facts" that's true. I don't think we can know the whole truth about the origins of Covid, all the policies surrounding it, or even the real efficacy of vaccines. For now. All I can say is that I don't trust the powers that be. I don't think a lot of people are being honest. And I think Pfizer is getting very rich and has a lot of reasons to lie. I'm not gonna latch onto this or that conspiracy theory unless or until some pretty trustworthy evidence comes out to support it. And that's not exactly demanding "absolute proof". I'm satisfied with "true enough". But it actually has to be reasonably "true enough".

I had hoped you would actually quantify this, as you have done some others (75/25 or some such). I smell waffles and I'm low on maple syrup

 

[Shadow01]

I respect that, a lot. It's my views too, don't tell me what to think or do and I won't do that to you.

But that’s all you have done with every post you’ve put in this thread.

 

[jamil]

Allegedly, his office confirmed last year that Desantis received the J&J vaccine.

DeSantis

His spokesperson confirmed it in an interview, but no link to that interview or mention of where to find it was provided by the AP.

Why do people care that a governor's office publicize that they got vaccinated? Are we this far advanced on virtue-signaling that it's required?

I really wasn't aware that there was such a controversy. But now that I know he kept it to himself, that paints him in an even more favorable light for not publicizing it. And maybe he didn't because of pandering. Who knows. But not doing the required public virtue-signaling is a plus in my book.

 

[jamil]

I would prefer that they 'Let them fight!' instead of calling for Trump not to run. To me it is indicative of worry/fear that he could run and win again and that seems Democrat-adjacent to me. It also seems disingenuous to say that Trump would divide the party and then in the same breath talk about a Rand Paul candidacy.

No, of course not. It's Trump's right to run if he wants to. And if he does, I hope he loses in the primary. I don't think he's the guy we need right now. I'm not convinced he was the guy we needed in 2016. But it wasn't the promised disaster. And if he does run and win the primary, well, like I said. Porn star ****er > kid ****er.

But indeed it would divide the party. It divided the party when he ran before.

If Trump runs and fails to win the party nomination in a relatively straight-forward primary (ie: no super-delegates or other 'fixes' are in) I will cheerfully vote for whoever wins the nomination unless it is Romney or a Bush (which I find very unlikely)

Romney = Bush = Democrat, and by transitivity, kid-****er.

As I've said before, it is much harder to get things done as president then as governor, that a governor actually has more power than a president, just over a more limited geographical area. I personally think it is too early to run DeSantis nationally at all and certainly not at the head of the ticket - but you will note I'm not calling for him to be excluded from the primary. IMO DeSantis is kind of a proto-Trump anyway (See: Signing an anti-covid restriction law in Brandon, FL, next level trolling). It should always be remembered, though, that in addition to those more sweeping gubernatorial powers DeSantis has comfortable majorities in both legislatures of Florida and those legislators are closer to him on the ideological spectrum. That will not necessarily be so at the national level, where even if he has the numbers they will be far more spread out on that spectrum

It looks to me like DeSantis is better at handling the press and fake news. I think it will be harder for corporate media to convince people that DeSantis is literally Hitler. Trump couldn't help himself sometimes. Too often he played the part.

 

[Flash-hider]

But indeed it would divide the party. It divided the party when he ran before.

The party was dividing long before Trump came on the scene. With him in the mix it showed where the demarcation lines were.

 

[ancjr]

"Divide the party"? He won 10 million more votes in the second round.

 

[KLB]

"Divide the party"? He won 10 million more votes in the second round.

Those two things really have nothing to do with each other.

 

[ancjr]

Those two things really have nothing to do with each other.

2 factions narrative: One faction that would have lost miserably in 2016 and 2020. Then the other faction that got 10 million more votes in 2020 than it did in 2016.

 

[BugI02]

Those two things really have nothing to do with each other.

Good, then when he 'divides the party' again, the next 10 million additional votes will see him back into the White House and you will still be able to claim increasing vote totals have nothing to do with it (but even more people will laugh at you)

 

[KLB]

Good, then when he 'divides the party' again, the next 10 million additional votes will see him back into the White House and you will still be able to claim increasing vote totals have nothing to do with it (but even more people will laugh at you)

Let's be honest here. He got 10 million more votes because of all the voting changes. They made it easier for everyone to vote, not just the Ds. Even if it did help them more.

 

[BugI02]

Let's be honest here. He got 10 million more votes because of all the voting changes. They made it easier for everyone to vote, not just the Ds. Even if it did help them more.

Let's be honest here, do you have any data to support that claim or is it just wishful thinking

 

[KLB]

Let's be honest here, do you have any data to support that claim or is it just wishful thinking

Do you have any data refuting it, or is it just wishful thinking?

 

[jamil]

Let's be honest here. He got 10 million more votes because of all the voting changes. They made it easier for everyone to vote, not just the Ds. Even if it did help them more.

I think a lot of the votes Trump got were disgruntled Bernie voters who felt like they got ****ed over by Democrats again. And I think a lot were apolitical people who don’t typically vote but were red-pilled enough to motivate them to vote.