2024
637,204 Views |
10562 Replies |
Last: 9 min ago by Jack Bauer
"he just never could find any allies or get anything done anyway."Redbrickbear said: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)90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
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.
That is the part his followers do not get. Almost all of Trump's wins were in the first 2 years when he was still thinking in terms of making deals, not becoming Mussolini the 2nd..
Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.whiterock said:Mothra said: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:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.RMF5630 said: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...Mothra said:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.whiterock said: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.Mothra said: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?whiterock said:you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.Mothra said: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.whiterock said:You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.Mothra said:whiterock said: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.....Mothra said:whiterock said:He was asked not to help, remember?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.
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.
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.
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......)
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.
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).REPUBLICANS - Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
Civiqs:
DeSantis: 85/7 (net +78)
Trump: 74/15 (+69)
Morning Consult
Trump: 77/20 (+57)
DeSantis: 67/13 (+54)
Monmouth
DeSantis: 76/8 (+68)
Trump: 71/21 (+50)
YouGov
DeSantis: 73/14 (+59)
Trump: 75/22 (+53)… pic.twitter.com/0rwYv2KWVH
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.2024 Head-to-Head GOP Primary Polling Trends by McLaughlin and Associates
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
January:
• Trump — 52% (+11)
• DeSantis — 41%
February:
• Trump — 56% (+18)
• DeSantis — 38%
MARCH:
• Trump — 61% (+30)
• DeSantis — 31%https://t.co/nfTQBk0ajR pic.twitter.com/2Ae4WJP4qq
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 *****
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
He could get corporate tax cuts through...because that is what GOP leadership wanted. And judges of courseRMF5630 said:"he just never could find any allies or get anything done anyway."Redbrickbear said: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)90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
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.
That is the part his followers do not get. Almost all of Trump's wins were in the first 2 years when he was still thinking in terms of making deals, not becoming Mussolini the 2nd..
That is about it.
He could not get any funding for the wall or even get them to remove the cultural leftist naming commission stuff from the Defense authorization bill (vetoed it first time around).
Only things he could get done where executive orders...that Biden quickly rescinded.
Many of these were of course great. But easily over turned by the next politically liberal President.
Running as an insurgency candidate against your party's own sclerotic and corrupt corporate aligned leadership means you are going to have real trouble finding any political allies. They will align with the other party to stop you at every turn.
Another Trump presidency would be no different.
caNt trust anything you see and hear on the internet now daysRedbrickbear said:
lolololIs this real? pic.twitter.com/ugydcAsspX
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@Woj_Pawelczyk) March 24, 2023
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
#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
You guys wanna see a real political operator at work?
Macron while asking for sacrifices from the French people realizes he is wearing a € 80,000 watch and like a magician makes it disappear under the table. Unworthy. pic.twitter.com/zRiQWFAR1M
— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) March 24, 2023
We agree on this subject! It is ok to run as an insurgency candidate, but in order to get anything done you have to come to the middle and find allies. I really thought in 2016 Trump was the perfect guy to straddle the aisle. He is basically a lifelong NY Democrat that went GOP late in life. He appreciated the America of the past. Finally, he is a self proclaimed dealmaker. He should have been able to cut deals all day everyday and get some of his stuff done (nobody gets it all in DC). He flamed out. Turned mean, vindictive and became more interested in proving others were wrong than doing anything. Missed on that one...Redbrickbear said:He could get corporate tax cuts through...because that is what GOP leadership wanted. And judges of courseRMF5630 said:"he just never could find any allies or get anything done anyway."Redbrickbear said: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)90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
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.
That is the part his followers do not get. Almost all of Trump's wins were in the first 2 years when he was still thinking in terms of making deals, not becoming Mussolini the 2nd..
That is about it.
He could not get any funding for the wall or even get them to remove the cultural leftist naming commission stuff from the Defense authorization bill (vetoed it first time around).
Only things he could get done where executive orders...that Biden quickly rescinded.
Many of these were of course great. But easily over turned by the next politically liberal President.
Running as an insurgency candidate against your party's own sclerotic and corrupt corporate aligned leadership means you are going to have real trouble finding any political allies. They will align with the other party to stop you at every turn.
Another Trump presidency would be no different.
he doesn't profit from "fundraising" but it keeps many other brands and items in play with his loyal supporters that his kids and their business interests take advantage of. I guarantee, if there wasn't money in this, Trump would have quit politics long ago.whiterock said:Hard to delineate all the fallacies woven in that. Reality is, he can't legally profit from political fundraising, and it's not at all clear how he personally benefits more from 3rd party spite that would make his brand smaller rather than larger.Sam Lowry said:Very unfair to assume he would only do it out of arrogance and spite. You're completely overlooking greed (the chance to bleed more money from his followers) and desperation (the hope it will keep him out of prison a while longer).RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Ross Perot 2.0BornAgain said:
would trump go Independent without Republican nomination?
Would have the same result and give Dems the White House. Trump just may do it out of arrogance and spite.
The 3rd party play only makes sense if he's actually trying to win the WH and/or build a true 3rd party.
I don't think that is even contrary to the thought he might want to build a true 3rd party
So, DeSantis's politically-nuanced answer regarding Ukraine is a red-line for you, but you don't give a **** what Trump's positions are on Ukraine or anything else because he owns the libs.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
Wow. Well, at least you've admitted you're full-blown brain-dead MAGA, and Trump could say or do anything any you would STILL support him.
This kind of reasoning is why Republicans are going to lose in 2024.
I do think Trump would get us out of Ukraine. Desantis might but not if his owners tell him to keep the grift going. Either way it doesnt matter in the end. This whole house of cards is mid collapse at this point.Mothra said:So, DeSantis's politically-nuanced answer regarding Ukraine is a red-line for you, but you don't give a **** what Trump's positions are on Ukraine or anything else because he owns the libs.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
Wow. Well, at least you've admitted you're full-blown brain-dead MAGA, and Trump could say or do anything any you would STILL support him.
This kind of reasoning is why Republicans are going to lose in 2024.
Don't know if the Senate or bureaucracy would let him.muddybrazos said:I do think Trump would get us out of Ukraine. Desantis might but not if his owners tell him to keep the grift going. Either way it doesnt matter in the end. This whole house of cards is mid collapse at this point.Mothra said:So, DeSantis's politically-nuanced answer regarding Ukraine is a red-line for you, but you don't give a **** what Trump's positions are on Ukraine or anything else because he owns the libs.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
Wow. Well, at least you've admitted you're full-blown brain-dead MAGA, and Trump could say or do anything any you would STILL support him.
This kind of reasoning is why Republicans are going to lose in 2024.
They did not let him pull out of Afghanistan after all.
And it's always dangerous.Redbrickbear said: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.90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.whiterock said:Mothra said: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:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.RMF5630 said: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...Mothra said:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.whiterock said: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.Mothra said: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?whiterock said:you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.Mothra said: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.whiterock said:You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.Mothra said:whiterock said: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.....Mothra said:whiterock said:He was asked not to help, remember?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.
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.
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.
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......)
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.
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).REPUBLICANS - Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
Civiqs:
DeSantis: 85/7 (net +78)
Trump: 74/15 (+69)
Morning Consult
Trump: 77/20 (+57)
DeSantis: 67/13 (+54)
Monmouth
DeSantis: 76/8 (+68)
Trump: 71/21 (+50)
YouGov
DeSantis: 73/14 (+59)
Trump: 75/22 (+53)… pic.twitter.com/0rwYv2KWVH
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.2024 Head-to-Head GOP Primary Polling Trends by McLaughlin and Associates
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
January:
• Trump — 52% (+11)
• DeSantis — 41%
February:
• Trump — 56% (+18)
• DeSantis — 38%
MARCH:
• Trump — 61% (+30)
• DeSantis — 31%https://t.co/nfTQBk0ajR pic.twitter.com/2Ae4WJP4qq
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 *****
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Thank you Hillary Clinton 2.0
No sane person really believes Biden is not doing a much worse job than Trump did as President.
TDS really is terminal for some folk.
No sane person really believes Biden is not doing a much worse job than Trump did as President.
TDS really is terminal for some folk.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.whiterock said:Mothra said: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:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.RMF5630 said: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...Mothra said:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.whiterock said: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.Mothra said: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?whiterock said:you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.Mothra said: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.whiterock said:You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.Mothra said:whiterock said: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.....Mothra said:whiterock said:He was asked not to help, remember?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.
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.
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.
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......)
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.
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).REPUBLICANS - Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
Civiqs:
DeSantis: 85/7 (net +78)
Trump: 74/15 (+69)
Morning Consult
Trump: 77/20 (+57)
DeSantis: 67/13 (+54)
Monmouth
DeSantis: 76/8 (+68)
Trump: 71/21 (+50)
YouGov
DeSantis: 73/14 (+59)
Trump: 75/22 (+53)… pic.twitter.com/0rwYv2KWVH
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.2024 Head-to-Head GOP Primary Polling Trends by McLaughlin and Associates
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
January:
• Trump — 52% (+11)
• DeSantis — 41%
February:
• Trump — 56% (+18)
• DeSantis — 38%
MARCH:
• Trump — 61% (+30)
• DeSantis — 31%https://t.co/nfTQBk0ajR pic.twitter.com/2Ae4WJP4qq
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 *****
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Perhaps as you lack the ability to see the forest through the trees and always have. But until then, I will continue to make the case that the nominee shouldn't be trump.
But don't worry - you will most likely get another 4 years of Biden.
Thanks to our 116th Congress and its Republican Senate.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.whiterock said:Mothra said: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:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.RMF5630 said: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...Mothra said:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.whiterock said: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.Mothra said: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?whiterock said:you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.Mothra said: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.whiterock said:You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.Mothra said:whiterock said: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.....Mothra said:whiterock said:He was asked not to help, remember?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.
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.
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.
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......)
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.
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).REPUBLICANS - Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
Civiqs:
DeSantis: 85/7 (net +78)
Trump: 74/15 (+69)
Morning Consult
Trump: 77/20 (+57)
DeSantis: 67/13 (+54)
Monmouth
DeSantis: 76/8 (+68)
Trump: 71/21 (+50)
YouGov
DeSantis: 73/14 (+59)
Trump: 75/22 (+53)… pic.twitter.com/0rwYv2KWVH
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.2024 Head-to-Head GOP Primary Polling Trends by McLaughlin and Associates
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
January:
• Trump — 52% (+11)
• DeSantis — 41%
February:
• Trump — 56% (+18)
• DeSantis — 38%
MARCH:
• Trump — 61% (+30)
• DeSantis — 31%https://t.co/nfTQBk0ajR pic.twitter.com/2Ae4WJP4qq
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 *****
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Perhaps as you lack the ability to see the forest through the trees and always have. But until then, I will continue to make the case that the nominee shouldn't be trump.
But don't worry - you will most likely get another 4 years of Biden.
We broke it, we bought it.
Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.whiterock said:Mothra said: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:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.RMF5630 said: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...Mothra said:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.whiterock said: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.Mothra said: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?whiterock said:you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.Mothra said: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.whiterock said:You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.Mothra said:whiterock said: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.....Mothra said:whiterock said:He was asked not to help, remember?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.
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.
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.
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......)
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.
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).REPUBLICANS - Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
Civiqs:
DeSantis: 85/7 (net +78)
Trump: 74/15 (+69)
Morning Consult
Trump: 77/20 (+57)
DeSantis: 67/13 (+54)
Monmouth
DeSantis: 76/8 (+68)
Trump: 71/21 (+50)
YouGov
DeSantis: 73/14 (+59)
Trump: 75/22 (+53)… pic.twitter.com/0rwYv2KWVH
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.2024 Head-to-Head GOP Primary Polling Trends by McLaughlin and Associates
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
January:
• Trump — 52% (+11)
• DeSantis — 41%
February:
• Trump — 56% (+18)
• DeSantis — 38%
MARCH:
• Trump — 61% (+30)
• DeSantis — 31%https://t.co/nfTQBk0ajR pic.twitter.com/2Ae4WJP4qq
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 *****
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Never Trump
You're supporting the biggest grifter that's ever held the office. And worse he was doing it before he got there.muddybrazos said:I do think Trump would get us out of Ukraine. Desantis might but not if his owners tell him to keep the grift going. Either way it doesnt matter in the end. This whole house of cards is mid collapse at this point.Mothra said:So, DeSantis's politically-nuanced answer regarding Ukraine is a red-line for you, but you don't give a **** what Trump's positions are on Ukraine or anything else because he owns the libs.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
Wow. Well, at least you've admitted you're full-blown brain-dead MAGA, and Trump could say or do anything any you would STILL support him.
This kind of reasoning is why Republicans are going to lose in 2024.
Osodecentx said:Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.whiterock said:Mothra said: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:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.RMF5630 said: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...Mothra said:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.whiterock said: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.Mothra said: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?whiterock said:you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.Mothra said: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.whiterock said:You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.Mothra said:whiterock said: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.....Mothra said:whiterock said:He was asked not to help, remember?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.
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.
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.
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......)
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.
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).REPUBLICANS - Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
Civiqs:
DeSantis: 85/7 (net +78)
Trump: 74/15 (+69)
Morning Consult
Trump: 77/20 (+57)
DeSantis: 67/13 (+54)
Monmouth
DeSantis: 76/8 (+68)
Trump: 71/21 (+50)
YouGov
DeSantis: 73/14 (+59)
Trump: 75/22 (+53)… pic.twitter.com/0rwYv2KWVH
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.2024 Head-to-Head GOP Primary Polling Trends by McLaughlin and Associates
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
January:
• Trump — 52% (+11)
• DeSantis — 41%
February:
• Trump — 56% (+18)
• DeSantis — 38%
MARCH:
• Trump — 61% (+30)
• DeSantis — 31%https://t.co/nfTQBk0ajR pic.twitter.com/2Ae4WJP4qq
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 *****
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Never Trump
Then 4 more years of Biden. Enjoy.
Sam Lowry said:Thanks to our 116th Congress and its Republican Senate.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.whiterock said:Mothra said: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:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.RMF5630 said: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...Mothra said:whiterock said:Mothra said: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.whiterock said: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.Mothra said: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?whiterock said:you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.Mothra said: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.whiterock said:You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.Mothra said:whiterock said: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.....Mothra said:whiterock said:He was asked not to help, remember?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.
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.
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.
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......)
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.
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).REPUBLICANS - Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
Civiqs:
DeSantis: 85/7 (net +78)
Trump: 74/15 (+69)
Morning Consult
Trump: 77/20 (+57)
DeSantis: 67/13 (+54)
Monmouth
DeSantis: 76/8 (+68)
Trump: 71/21 (+50)
YouGov
DeSantis: 73/14 (+59)
Trump: 75/22 (+53)… pic.twitter.com/0rwYv2KWVH
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.2024 Head-to-Head GOP Primary Polling Trends by McLaughlin and Associates
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 22, 2023
January:
• Trump — 52% (+11)
• DeSantis — 41%
February:
• Trump — 56% (+18)
• DeSantis — 38%
MARCH:
• Trump — 61% (+30)
• DeSantis — 31%https://t.co/nfTQBk0ajR pic.twitter.com/2Ae4WJP4qq
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 *****
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Perhaps as you lack the ability to see the forest through the trees and always have. But until then, I will continue to make the case that the nominee shouldn't be trump.
But don't worry - you will most likely get another 4 years of Biden.
We broke it, we bought it.
You can't absolve yourself of blame so easily. Your inability to compromise is also one of the reasons we are here.
You NTs and ATs little civil war will end up wrecking the country. The pragmatists and reasonable conservatives are unfortunately stuck in the middle.
perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform. And no GOP leader in my lifetime has fought longer/harder to achieve planks of the platform than Donald Trump. The list of things accomplished is long.90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
That is one reason why so many people who cringe at the things he says & does continue to support him. Whatever else can be said about him, he defends his base and he never stops trying to get platform items implemented.
Sigh. Facts are facts. Personal attacks are quite common in politics. So much so it's completely unserious to demand proof that such occurs. It IS somewhat unusual for the candidate to engage in them directly, particularly at the presidential level, as I have allowed. But nastiness in a primary or general election is hardly unusual, and it tends to get worse as one moves down the hierarchy, as your posts here illustrate.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.M said:
Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....
There will be no shooting. You really want to become a 3rd World Nation, start that crap...whiterock said:I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.M said:
Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....
I was speaking figurativelyRMF5630 said:There will be no shooting. You really want to become a 3rd World Nation, start that crap...whiterock said:I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.M said:
Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....
: ) I know you were, I have read enough of your stuff. It is some of the others that scare me...whiterock said:I was speaking figurativelyRMF5630 said:There will be no shooting. You really want to become a 3rd World Nation, start that crap...whiterock said:I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.M said:
Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....
whiterock said:Sigh. Facts are facts. Personal attacks are quite common in politics. So much so it's completely unserious to demand proof that such occurs. It IS somewhat unusual for the candidate to engage in them directly, particularly at the presidential level, as I have allowed. But nastiness in a primary or general election is hardly unusual, and it tends to get worse as one moves down the hierarchy, as your posts here illustrate.Mothra said:Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Sigh. You keep responding to arguments I've never made. Try to stick to the questions posed and we can save time with all of the non-responsive answers you tend to give. Do you remember the questions? I'm asking for just one example of the Bush admins and Reagan admins engaging in a similar attack on a fellow republicans.
Again, we all know the truth. Trump's attacks aren't unique merely because he makes them himself, but also because of the nature of the attacks. They are personal and vicious - e.g. focusing on another candidates appearance or suggesting he's guilty of crimes. You can't cite me an example of a similar attack by Bush or Reagan because they simply don't exist. Thus we know your position that Trump's attacks are somehow in line with what Reagan and Bush did is just a bunch of b.s.
whiterock said:I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.M said:
Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....
Bingo. You're right on this point. Unfortunately Sam isn't on the same team and never has been.
What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.whiterock said:perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
Sam Lowry said:What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.whiterock said:perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
I'll put you down as maybe on secession & altering the Constitution
You never know. Got to be "reasonable and pragmatic," after all.Osodecentx said:Sam Lowry said:What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.whiterock said:perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
I'll put you down as maybe on secession & altering the Constitution
The world is laughing at us. https://t.co/QRjBAa1cl9
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) March 24, 2023
Sam Lowry said:You never know. Got to be "reasonable and pragmatic," after all.Osodecentx said:Sam Lowry said:What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.whiterock said:perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.90sBear said: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.Redbrickbear said:Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.90sBear said: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.sombear said: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.muddybrazos said: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.sombear said:That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?muddybrazos said:Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.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.
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.
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.
I'll put you down as maybe on secession & altering the Constitution
"Secession and altering the constitution." LOL. I'll give you guys one thing - you sure are easily influenced by sensationalism. Your hysterics are amusing.
The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideouswhiterock said:I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.Sam Lowry said:You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.M said:
Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.Quote:Quote: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:Quote:Quote:
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.
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.
I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.
Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/