2024

635,913 Views | 10554 Replies | Last: 17 min ago by The_barBEARian
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 10:26a, 3/23/23
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
Reply Quote
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:27a, 3/23/23
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 11:42a, 3/23/23
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Problem is the GOP has a non-GOP member that does not care about Party or the interests of the other member's States. Trump will never stop. Funny, personally Trump is more of Dem than he is a Conservative yet he has all the far right die hards on his side. They guy was a registered Dem most of his life and has lived his life as anything but a conservative.
Reply Quote
1
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:39p, 3/23/23
RMF5630 said:
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Problem is the GOP has a non-GOP member that does not care about Party or the interests of the other member's States. Trump will never stop. Funny, personally Trump is more of Dem than he is a Conservative yet he has all the far right die hards on his side. They guy was a registered Dem most of his life and has lived his life as anything but a conservative.
Trump is going to be the nominee and Desantis should just not announce at this point. He shot himself in the foot by taking a shot at Trump the other day when he should've taken the high road and taken the shot at the NY DA. He also had the right take on Ukraine when on with Tucker but then he apparently got the call from his establishment handlers and is now walking back those comments in his Piers Morgan interview. Whoever is managing his campaign (probably Karl Rove) is not doing him any favors and he will not be able to win over the Maga voters. At this point he looks like a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio 2.0.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 12:47p, 3/23/23
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Nah, that won't help them, IMO. They should take a page out of the Democrat playbook, and stop slinging the mud. Best to differentiate themselves on policy and record, instead of personal attacks.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 12:54p, 3/23/23
muddybrazos said:
RMF5630 said:
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Problem is the GOP has a non-GOP member that does not care about Party or the interests of the other member's States. Trump will never stop. Funny, personally Trump is more of Dem than he is a Conservative yet he has all the far right die hards on his side. They guy was a registered Dem most of his life and has lived his life as anything but a conservative.
Trump is going to be the nominee and Desantis should just not announce at this point. He shot himself in the foot by taking a shot at Trump the other day when he should've taken the high road and taken the shot at the NY DA. He also had the right take on Ukraine when on with Tucker but then he apparently got the call from his establishment handlers and is now walking back those comments in his Piers Morgan interview. Whoever is managing his campaign (probably Karl Rove) is not doing him any favors and he will not be able to win over the Maga voters. At this point he looks like a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio 2.0.
Don't disagree with you Trump is going to get the nom (and then lose the general). Too many sycophants who will pull the trigger for him to do anything about it.

The first-half of the first sentence was the only accurate thing about your post, however. DeSantis subtle jab at Trump was apropos, and helped remind the voters what a POS Trump is, personally. And it was made only after months of mud-slinging by Trump. I was glad to see him stand up, in a very subtle way, to the bully.

The idea that DeSantis is establishment is about the dumbest thing ever, and undoubtedly what Trump and company want you to believe. But a review of his track record will reveal he's anything but. The guy has been a thorn in the liberals side in Florida for the past several years, and continues to do the right thing in that regard. He has a very strong track record that proves he isn't going to kowtow to either liberals or the establishment. So don't buy the bull **** that the Trumpists are alleging. It's exactly that - bull *****

Remember, we need more than just MAGA to win a general election. I think DeSantis can bring in MAGA, establishment, and independents. Trump is not winning another national election. Count on it.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 12:56p, 3/23/23
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know

This is one of the biggest benefits of primaries
Reply Quote
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:38p, 3/23/23
Mothra said:
muddybrazos said:
RMF5630 said:
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Problem is the GOP has a non-GOP member that does not care about Party or the interests of the other member's States. Trump will never stop. Funny, personally Trump is more of Dem than he is a Conservative yet he has all the far right die hards on his side. They guy was a registered Dem most of his life and has lived his life as anything but a conservative.
Trump is going to be the nominee and Desantis should just not announce at this point. He shot himself in the foot by taking a shot at Trump the other day when he should've taken the high road and taken the shot at the NY DA. He also had the right take on Ukraine when on with Tucker but then he apparently got the call from his establishment handlers and is now walking back those comments in his Piers Morgan interview. Whoever is managing his campaign (probably Karl Rove) is not doing him any favors and he will not be able to win over the Maga voters. At this point he looks like a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio 2.0.
Don't disagree with you Trump is going to get the nom (and then lose the general). Too many sycophants who will pull the trigger for him to do anything about it.

The first-half of the first sentence was the only accurate thing about your post, however. DeSantis subtle jab at Trump was apropos, and helped remind the voters what a POS Trump is, personally. And it was made only after months of mud-slinging by Trump. I was glad to see him stand up, in a very subtle way, to the bully.

The idea that DeSantis is establishment is about the dumbest thing ever, and undoubtedly what Trump and company want you to believe. But a review of his track record will reveal he's anything but. The guy has been a thorn in the liberals side in Florida for the past several years, and continues to do the right thing in that regard. He has a very strong track record that proves he isn't going to kowtow to either liberals or the establishment. So don't buy the bull **** that the Trumpists are alleging. It's exactly that - bull *****

Remember, we need more than just MAGA to win a general election. I think DeSantis can bring in MAGA, establishment, and independents. Trump is not winning another national election. Count on it.
Is it though? I do like a lot of things he has done in Florida and I do think he has been one of the best governors but his flip flop on Ukraine shows me that he is run by the establishment.

"In declaring his belief that protecting Ukraine from Russian aggression is a "territorial dispute" and not a vital interest to the United States, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is widely expected to run for president in 2024, raised alarms among traditional GOP hawks and conservative pro-Israel foreign policy experts. "

So he was right and then Lindsey, Romney, Cornyn etc all called him out and now he flip flops. That tells me all I need to know. He's done now so may as well wait until 2028 and figure out what he really thinks.
Reply Quote
chriscbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:43p, 3/23/23
Latest Trump/Desantas poll has Trump by 24-28% . Its about turnout . Stop listing to Karl Rove.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 1:46p, 3/23/23
muddybrazos said:
Mothra said:
muddybrazos said:
RMF5630 said:
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Problem is the GOP has a non-GOP member that does not care about Party or the interests of the other member's States. Trump will never stop. Funny, personally Trump is more of Dem than he is a Conservative yet he has all the far right die hards on his side. They guy was a registered Dem most of his life and has lived his life as anything but a conservative.
Trump is going to be the nominee and Desantis should just not announce at this point. He shot himself in the foot by taking a shot at Trump the other day when he should've taken the high road and taken the shot at the NY DA. He also had the right take on Ukraine when on with Tucker but then he apparently got the call from his establishment handlers and is now walking back those comments in his Piers Morgan interview. Whoever is managing his campaign (probably Karl Rove) is not doing him any favors and he will not be able to win over the Maga voters. At this point he looks like a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio 2.0.
Don't disagree with you Trump is going to get the nom (and then lose the general). Too many sycophants who will pull the trigger for him to do anything about it.

The first-half of the first sentence was the only accurate thing about your post, however. DeSantis subtle jab at Trump was apropos, and helped remind the voters what a POS Trump is, personally. And it was made only after months of mud-slinging by Trump. I was glad to see him stand up, in a very subtle way, to the bully.

The idea that DeSantis is establishment is about the dumbest thing ever, and undoubtedly what Trump and company want you to believe. But a review of his track record will reveal he's anything but. The guy has been a thorn in the liberals side in Florida for the past several years, and continues to do the right thing in that regard. He has a very strong track record that proves he isn't going to kowtow to either liberals or the establishment. So don't buy the bull **** that the Trumpists are alleging. It's exactly that - bull *****

Remember, we need more than just MAGA to win a general election. I think DeSantis can bring in MAGA, establishment, and independents. Trump is not winning another national election. Count on it.
Is it though? I do like a lot of things he has done in Florida and I do think he has been one of the best governors but his flip flop on Ukraine shows me that he is run by the establishment.

"In declaring his belief that protecting Ukraine from Russian aggression is a "territorial dispute" and not a vital interest to the United States, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is widely expected to run for president in 2024, raised alarms among traditional GOP hawks and conservative pro-Israel foreign policy experts. "

So he was right and then Lindsey, Romney, Cornyn etc all called him out and now he flip flops. That tells me all I need to know. He's done now so may as well wait until 2028 and figure out what he really thinks.
Criticism from the hawks was totally predictable. You really think DeSantis was surprised by it? What I see isn't flip-flopping, it's just soft pedaling and taking a bit of ammo away from his opponents.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 2:26p, 3/23/23
This is one of the few occasions where Sam is correct. See his post.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:29p, 3/23/23
The GOP is such a goofy political movement.

Spending time and money advocating for their enemies policy priorities.


Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 4:00a, 3/24/23
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's a non-answer.

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 6:29a, 3/24/23
RMF5630 said:
Quote:
Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.

National Polls mean nothing.

It is the State Polls that count, that is where the delegates will come from.

Trump is not winning a the high rate in the State Polls that the Fox would have you believe. For example, DeSantis is crushing Trump in CA, Trump may not get a single CA delegate. He is also losing head-up in Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and New York.

The problem with all these frequent polling is that they are the same voters. Bottomline, infrequent polls are more accurate and need to be at least 1000 respondents.

So, if the National Polls make you feel good, enjoy. Watch the States. Keep in mind, CA, MI, MD, NY and FL represent 500 delegates. Or about half way to the Nomination.

So, let's see how this plays out. Once DeSantis enters, he will get a bump. It will all depend on the combination of wins, not a National Poll.
yes & no. National polls are not how delegates are elected, so a race might be a lot more competitive than the national polls suggest. A leader will lose some states. A trailer will win some states. Both the wins & losses affect the expectations game, which in turn can accelerate or reverse momentum for one candidate or the other. But large margins and clear trends are instructive to dynamics that matter. Trump has established a trend that has opened up a wide margin lead which in some cases exceeds his pre-midterm support. He's in as commanding a position as could reasonably be expected at this time.

As I have noted, part of the reason for that is he's the only serious candidate in the race and he's out campaigning, while RDS is not. RDS will get a bump from jumping in. Candidates typically do. The race will tighten. But we are not likely to see Trump's numbers crater, either. So RDS still has a steep hill to climb.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 6:32a, 3/24/23
Mothra said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Problem is the GOP has a non-GOP member that does not care about Party or the interests of the other member's States. Trump will never stop. Funny, personally Trump is more of Dem than he is a Conservative yet he has all the far right die hards on his side. They guy was a registered Dem most of his life and has lived his life as anything but a conservative.
Trump is going to be the nominee and Desantis should just not announce at this point. He shot himself in the foot by taking a shot at Trump the other day when he should've taken the high road and taken the shot at the NY DA. He also had the right take on Ukraine when on with Tucker but then he apparently got the call from his establishment handlers and is now walking back those comments in his Piers Morgan interview. Whoever is managing his campaign (probably Karl Rove) is not doing him any favors and he will not be able to win over the Maga voters. At this point he looks like a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio 2.0.
Don't disagree with you Trump is going to get the nom (and then lose the general). Too many sycophants who will pull the trigger for him to do anything about it.

The first-half of the first sentence was the only accurate thing about your post, however. DeSantis subtle jab at Trump was apropos, and helped remind the voters what a POS Trump is, personally. And it was made only after months of mud-slinging by Trump. I was glad to see him stand up, in a very subtle way, to the bully.

The idea that DeSantis is establishment is about the dumbest thing ever, and undoubtedly what Trump and company want you to believe. But a review of his track record will reveal he's anything but. The guy has been a thorn in the liberals side in Florida for the past several years, and continues to do the right thing in that regard. He has a very strong track record that proves he isn't going to kowtow to either liberals or the establishment. So don't buy the bull **** that the Trumpists are alleging. It's exactly that - bull *****

Remember, we need more than just MAGA to win a general election. I think DeSantis can bring in MAGA, establishment, and independents. Trump is not winning another national election. Count on it.
I have mentioned many times here the race will likely fall into an establishment vs base dynamic. a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that the establishment are (predictably) lining up behind the strongest non-Trump candidate. That support is visible and will ratify in the minds of many that RDS is indeed and establishment horse.

I agree that he is not exactly that at all. But he will be beholden to the people who support him, so it's not an entirely helpful dynamic. Many Bushies will ride RDS coattails back into power, should he win.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:26a, 3/24/23
whiterock said:
RMF5630 said:
Quote:
Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.

National Polls mean nothing.

It is the State Polls that count, that is where the delegates will come from.

Trump is not winning a the high rate in the State Polls that the Fox would have you believe. For example, DeSantis is crushing Trump in CA, Trump may not get a single CA delegate. He is also losing head-up in Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and New York.

The problem with all these frequent polling is that they are the same voters. Bottomline, infrequent polls are more accurate and need to be at least 1000 respondents.

So, if the National Polls make you feel good, enjoy. Watch the States. Keep in mind, CA, MI, MD, NY and FL represent 500 delegates. Or about half way to the Nomination.

So, let's see how this plays out. Once DeSantis enters, he will get a bump. It will all depend on the combination of wins, not a National Poll.
yes & no. National polls are not how delegates are elected, so a race might be a lot more competitive than the national polls suggest. A leader will lose some states. A trailer will win some states. Both the wins & losses affect the expectations game, which in turn can accelerate or reverse momentum for one candidate or the other. But large margins and clear trends are instructive to dynamics that matter. Trump has established a trend that has opened up a wide margin lead which in some cases exceeds his pre-midterm support. He's in as commanding a position as could reasonably be expected at this time.

As I have noted, part of the reason for that is he's the only serious candidate in the race and he's out campaigning, while RDS is not. RDS will get a bump from jumping in. Candidates typically do. The race will tighten. But we are not likely to see Trump's numbers crater, either. So RDS still has a steep hill to climb.
I agree, the math in the States is more important than the National Media let on. Trump is not in as strong a position as his followers indicate. If RDS takes his home State of Florida, Trump has problems. If RDS take Florida AND gets the Lion share of Texas, to go with CA and NY, it is pretty much game over. Will be funny watching the MAGA crowd start calling for a popular vote and doing away with the delegate system.

Don't get me wrong, if Trump pulls FL and TX RDS is in a world of hurt. Right now, CA is RDS's buffer. He is killing Trump.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:28a, 3/24/23
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's a non-answer.

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.
Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives?

Once again, I would think it be pretty easy given your assertion that this is the norm. Perhaps you can come up with at least one example this time, if that's not too hard for you.

I will hang up and listen.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:34a, 3/24/23
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.
i think the GOP should sling as much dirt as possible during primary season so its all old news by the gen pop vote.. what do I know
Problem is the GOP has a non-GOP member that does not care about Party or the interests of the other member's States. Trump will never stop. Funny, personally Trump is more of Dem than he is a Conservative yet he has all the far right die hards on his side. They guy was a registered Dem most of his life and has lived his life as anything but a conservative.
Trump is going to be the nominee and Desantis should just not announce at this point. He shot himself in the foot by taking a shot at Trump the other day when he should've taken the high road and taken the shot at the NY DA. He also had the right take on Ukraine when on with Tucker but then he apparently got the call from his establishment handlers and is now walking back those comments in his Piers Morgan interview. Whoever is managing his campaign (probably Karl Rove) is not doing him any favors and he will not be able to win over the Maga voters. At this point he looks like a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio 2.0.
Don't disagree with you Trump is going to get the nom (and then lose the general). Too many sycophants who will pull the trigger for him to do anything about it.

The first-half of the first sentence was the only accurate thing about your post, however. DeSantis subtle jab at Trump was apropos, and helped remind the voters what a POS Trump is, personally. And it was made only after months of mud-slinging by Trump. I was glad to see him stand up, in a very subtle way, to the bully.

The idea that DeSantis is establishment is about the dumbest thing ever, and undoubtedly what Trump and company want you to believe. But a review of his track record will reveal he's anything but. The guy has been a thorn in the liberals side in Florida for the past several years, and continues to do the right thing in that regard. He has a very strong track record that proves he isn't going to kowtow to either liberals or the establishment. So don't buy the bull **** that the Trumpists are alleging. It's exactly that - bull *****

Remember, we need more than just MAGA to win a general election. I think DeSantis can bring in MAGA, establishment, and independents. Trump is not winning another national election. Count on it.
I have mentioned many times here the race will likely fall into an establishment vs base dynamic. a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that the establishment are (predictably) lining up behind the strongest non-Trump candidate. That support is visible and will ratify in the minds of many that RDS is indeed and establishment horse.

I agree that he is not exactly that at all. But he will be beholden to the people who support him, so it's not an entirely helpful dynamic. Many Bushies will ride RDS coattails back into power, should he win.
The interesting thing is, neither side can win if they only pull in their base. Trump has proven he can't win with just MAGA, and establishment has proven it can't win with just establishment. Both sides will need cross over to even be competitive in a national election. I suspect RDS will be able to bring in both, and I am fine with that.

Let's not pretend your boy Trump was the be-all, end-all. As much as you worship him, he left MUCH to be desired, and in many respects, was just as bad or worse than some "establishment" candidates in certain areas (see spending).
Reply Quote
1
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 9:34a, 3/24/23
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Reply Quote
1
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 9:47a, 3/24/23
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 10:23a, 3/24/23
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
Reply Quote
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 10:57a, 3/24/23
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 11:05a, 3/24/23
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.
Reply Quote
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:09a, 3/24/23
We will be lucky to make it to 2024. Joe Biden is weak and the whole world knows it. We are all in serious trouble. But at least no more mean tweets or hurt feelings from that Donald Trump guy!!!!
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 11:19a, 3/24/23
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
This is why, as much as I dislike what Biden is doing, I'm not sure Trump is any better. There really is no telling what he would do.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 11:24a, 3/24/23
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
This is why, as much as I dislike what Biden is doing, I'm not sure Trump is any better. There really is no telling what he would do.
Unusual occurrence in Waco in advance of the Trump rally.

And the Trump campaign has paid its tab for all the attention. City spokesperson Monica Sedelmeier said Thursday the campaign was billed $60,714 for city services, a debt now retired.
Reply Quote
90sBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 11:31a, 3/24/23
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.
I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 90sBear • 12:40p, 3/24/23
90sBear said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.
I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.
Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

Now if you want to argue that Trump does not know how to hurt his enemies by doing anything other than mean tweeting...you might have a very good point.

But millions of moderate to conservative Americans looked at Trump and said...."we like this better than GOP Inc."

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 1:21p, 3/24/23
RMF5630 said:
whiterock said:
RMF5630 said:
Quote:
Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.

National Polls mean nothing.

It is the State Polls that count, that is where the delegates will come from.

Trump is not winning a the high rate in the State Polls that the Fox would have you believe. For example, DeSantis is crushing Trump in CA, Trump may not get a single CA delegate. He is also losing head-up in Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and New York.

The problem with all these frequent polling is that they are the same voters. Bottomline, infrequent polls are more accurate and need to be at least 1000 respondents.

So, if the National Polls make you feel good, enjoy. Watch the States. Keep in mind, CA, MI, MD, NY and FL represent 500 delegates. Or about half way to the Nomination.

So, let's see how this plays out. Once DeSantis enters, he will get a bump. It will all depend on the combination of wins, not a National Poll.
yes & no. National polls are not how delegates are elected, so a race might be a lot more competitive than the national polls suggest. A leader will lose some states. A trailer will win some states. Both the wins & losses affect the expectations game, which in turn can accelerate or reverse momentum for one candidate or the other. But large margins and clear trends are instructive to dynamics that matter. Trump has established a trend that has opened up a wide margin lead which in some cases exceeds his pre-midterm support. He's in as commanding a position as could reasonably be expected at this time.

As I have noted, part of the reason for that is he's the only serious candidate in the race and he's out campaigning, while RDS is not. RDS will get a bump from jumping in. Candidates typically do. The race will tighten. But we are not likely to see Trump's numbers crater, either. So RDS still has a steep hill to climb.
I agree, the math in the States is more important than the National Media let on. Trump is not in as strong a position as his followers indicate. If RDS takes his home State of Florida, Trump has problems. If RDS take Florida AND gets the Lion share of Texas, to go with CA and NY, it is pretty much game over. Will be funny watching the MAGA crowd start calling for a popular vote and doing away with the delegate system.

Don't get me wrong, if Trump pulls FL and TX RDS is in a world of hurt. Right now, CA is RDS's buffer. He is killing Trump.


Several recent polls show FL close now…..

Here's why the electability argument is among the weakest

Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:23p, 3/24/23
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's a non-answer.

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.
Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives?

Once again, I would think it be pretty easy given your assertion that this is the norm. Perhaps you can come up with at least one example this time, if that's not too hard for you.

I will hang up and listen.

I'm not going to spend the time researching the internet for 30 year old examples of things I personally heard at the time to find links to refute the patently silly assertion that Trump is the only Republican who's ever said an unkind word in a GOP primary.

Surely you have more than this.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 1:35p, 3/24/23
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
RMF5630 said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:

Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.

the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....


It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?

Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.

Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....


Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.

As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.

There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....

You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.



You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)

The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.

And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.

Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.

I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.

Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).


Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.

I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.

Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.



Oh, I of course realize that the sycophants would vote for Trump if he murdered a family of four. But that's not my question. Do I need to repeat it or are you going to avoid it a second time? Do you have any evidence to support your position that other republicans were engaged in the same kinds of attacks as Trump? Or are you willing to admit that was a bunch of bull *****
Bush & Reagan were class acts. Trump, not so much. But, some people like *******s. They think being willing to trash the whole system is a good thing. Go figure...
Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

I called bull**** on that, and of course, you saw whiterock's non-answer response.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's a non-answer.

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.
Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives?

Once again, I would think it be pretty easy given your assertion that this is the norm. Perhaps you can come up with at least one example this time, if that's not too hard for you.

I will hang up and listen.

I'm not going to spend the time researching the internet for 30 year old examples of things I personally heard at the time to find links to refute the patently silly assertion that Trump is the only Republican who's ever said an unkind word in a GOP primary.

Surely you have more than this.
The Bush clan (Yankee Connecticut crime family) has done plenty against other Republicans.

George H.W. Bush of course was more ideologically aligned with the Rockefeller Republicans and was hostile to anything and everything right wing populist.

[With the passing of George Herbert Walker Bush, the Country Club Republican...also known as Rockefeller Republicans, they were center-right on economic issues and tended to hold liberal views on social issues, if they held views on social issues at all. It was not surprising when Mr. Bush revealed that he had crossed party lines to vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.]

And George W. Bush ran plenty of dirty tricks with Carl Rove against other Republican challengers.

[According to reporting in The Nation magazine, a push poll (a ploy to disseminate information rather than collect it) called voters to ask, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
The push poll implied that John and Cindy McCain's 9-year-old daughter Bridget, whom they adopted from an orphanage in Bangladesh, was actually the Arizona senator's love child.
And that wasn't all: Rumors also circulated that McCain was a traitor when he served in Vietnam and that his wife was a drug addict, according to The New Yorker magazine.
McCain lost the South Carolina Republican primary to George W. Bush, whose campaign denied being responsible for the rumors...]

So please drop it with the "principled Republicans like the Bush family don't speak ill of other Republicans".

They do speak ill of other Republicans (especially populist right wingers) and they kill children in the 3rd world all the time.

They are moral monsters.
Reply Quote
1
90sBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 1:36p, 3/24/23
Redbrickbear said:
90sBear said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.
I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.
Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

Now if you want to argue that Trump does not know how to hurt his enemies by doing anything other than mean tweeting...you might have a very good point.

But millions of moderate to conservative Americans looked at Trump and said...."we like this better than GOP Inc."

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.
My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.
Reply Quote
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 90sBear • 1:47p, 3/24/23
90sBear said:
Redbrickbear said:
90sBear said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.
I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.
Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

Now if you want to argue that Trump does not know how to hurt his enemies by doing anything other than mean tweeting...you might have a very good point.

But millions of moderate to conservative Americans looked at Trump and said...."we like this better than GOP Inc."

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.
My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.
I dont think we really know what any politicians really stand for other than they do what their Zionist donors tell them to do.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 90sBear • 1:50p, 3/24/23
90sBear said:
Redbrickbear said:
90sBear said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.
I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.
Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

Now if you want to argue that Trump does not know how to hurt his enemies by doing anything other than mean tweeting...you might have a very good point.

But millions of moderate to conservative Americans looked at Trump and said...."we like this better than GOP Inc."

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.
My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.
Tribal identification...very powerful thing to tap into...common in nations like the USA is now (culturally 2nd world and rapidly slipping/shifting into more 3rd world cultural-social-mores)

They see that Trump has all the right enemies...the people who hate them on a deep cultural, racial, religious, and ethnic level also hate the good time playboy rich guy from NYC....so they have a natural affinity for him.

Zuma in South Africa with the Zulu and Berlusconi in Italy with middle/lower class males outside of the Rome urban set had a similar thing going. Good examples because Zuma (ANC) was of the political left...and Berlusconi (HOF) was of the right. So you can tap into this kind of thing on all ends of the political spectrum if you are clever.

Berlusconi and his House of Freedoms political alliance did well in both North Italy (rich and industrial heart land) and in Sicily (poor and agricultural)...bad around Rome.

Trump might not even realize what he has tapped into....he certainly does not know how to wield that power for policy victories at the Federal level. But D.C. is such a regime controlled city it might be that he just never could find any allies or get anything done anyway.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
90sBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 2:02p, 3/24/23
muddybrazos said:
90sBear said:
Redbrickbear said:
90sBear said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

There was no flip-flop. He never suggested stopping funding but is concerned with increased funding and other steps. That is a strong majority GOP position.

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.
Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.
That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

He predicted Putin would never invade. Then after the invasion, he praised Putin and called the invasion "smart" and "savvy."

Trump has since called it a "holocaust" and even suggested attacking Russia while making it appear as if someone else did. At a NOLA fundraiser, he even said NATO botched the early invasion by not sending troops.

He also has said he would "demand a negotiated settlement" but without providing any details.

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.
I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.
But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.
I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.
Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

Now if you want to argue that Trump does not know how to hurt his enemies by doing anything other than mean tweeting...you might have a very good point.

But millions of moderate to conservative Americans looked at Trump and said...."we like this better than GOP Inc."

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.
My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.
I dont think we really know what any politicians really stand for other than they do what their Zionist donors tell them to do.
Remove the anti-Semitic part and I agree with the rest.
Reply Quote
First Page Last Page
Page 19 of 302 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.