2024

634,137 Views | 10524 Replies | Last: 40 min ago by Realitybites
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

BornAgain said:

would trump go Independent without Republican nomination?
Ross Perot 2.0

Would have the same result and give Dems the White House. Trump just may do it out of arrogance and spite.
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).
Actually Sam, I mostly agree with you here. Except for the prison part. If the DOJ sends Trump to prison, Joe Biden should be euthanized for treason. This double standard crap has to stop.
There will be no prison. Fine, loss of voting/election rights, or suspended sentence. He may not go to prison, but the point is to not allow him anywhere near a seat of power.
Really, really bad idea.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
You have no point. You only have spite and malice.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
You have no point. You only have spite and malice.


You're projecting again.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
You have no point. You only have spite and malice.


You're I'm projecting again.
Indeed.

The funny thing is, when Democrats acted the way against Republicans the way you are against Trump, you correctly understood they were losing their collective minds.

And once again, I don't want Trump to win the nomination, but to get someone else nominated you need Trump's base to switch.

Defamation is a losing plan for that mission.

I don't give a mouse's rear end what you think of me, but on genera;; principle I do try to warn someone when they are about to do something really stupid.

But some folks decide to go with their gut to the point that all brain cells are abandoned.

Don't be that guy.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
You have no point. You only have spite and malice.


You're I'm projecting again.
Indeed.

The funny thing is, when Democrats acted the way against Republicans the way you are against Trump, you correctly understood they were losing their collective minds.

And once again, I don't want Trump to win the nomination, but to get someone else nominated you need Trump's base to switch.

Defamation is a losing plan for that mission.

I don't give a mouse's rear end what you think of me, but on genera;; principle I do try to warn someone when they are about to do something really stupid.

But some folks decide to go with their gut to the point that all brain cells are abandoned.

Don't be that guy.
So, it's not that you like Trump or want him to get elected (you keep telling us that), you just think any and all criticism of him is completely off limits. He should be able to do or say anything he wants, even do damage to the party by making baseless claims about other candidates, and as good little Republicans, we should just sit back and enjoy it, as Clayton Williams use to say.

Did I succinctly state your position?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BTW, you do realize your little habit of changing others' posts to say the opposite of what they said is lame and not an effective retort, right?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BTW, you do realize your little habit of changing others' posts to say the opposite of what they said is lame and not an effective retort, right?
Sorry, trying logic was not working so I resorted to your level in a desperate effort to get through to you.

The spite has eaten away most of your cognitive functions, it seems.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
You have no point. You only have spite and malice.


You're I'm projecting again.
Indeed.

The funny thing is, when Democrats acted the way against Republicans the way you are against Trump, you correctly understood they were losing their collective minds.

And once again, I don't want Trump to win the nomination, but to get someone else nominated you need Trump's base to switch.

Defamation is a losing plan for that mission.

I don't give a mouse's rear end what you think of me, but on genera;; principle I do try to warn someone when they are about to do something really stupid.

But some folks decide to go with their gut to the point that all brain cells are abandoned.

Don't be that guy.
So, it's not that you like Trump or want him to get elected (you keep telling us that), you just think any and all criticism of him is completely off limits. He should be able to do or say anything he wants, even do damage to the party by making baseless claims about other candidates, and as good little Republicans, we should just sit back and enjoy it, as Clayton Williams use to say.

Did I succinctly state your position?
Not even close.

It's OK not to like Trump's tactics. But going after anyone who supports him will only make you look unreasonable and spiteful.

Trump, like it or not, has more support than any other Republican right now., You need those votes on your side.


Also, Trump is not a POS. Yes he can be vulgar, but that's not what matters.

Trumps' energy, trade and military policies were actually very good and should be included in any winning GOP platform. What's more, praising Trump for those polices would both advance what we know is good for America, while making a statement impossible for Trump top attack w/o looking like a fool and hurting himself politically.

To win against Trump, you need to take the high ground and put away the long knives. DeSantis is very good at that, by the way.

.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
You have no point. You only have spite and malice.


You're I'm projecting again.
Indeed.

The funny thing is, when Democrats acted the way against Republicans the way you are against Trump, you correctly understood they were losing their collective minds.

And once again, I don't want Trump to win the nomination, but to get someone else nominated you need Trump's base to switch.

Defamation is a losing plan for that mission.

I don't give a mouse's rear end what you think of me, but on genera;; principle I do try to warn someone when they are about to do something really stupid.

But some folks decide to go with their gut to the point that all brain cells are abandoned.

Don't be that guy.
So, it's not that you like Trump or want him to get elected (you keep telling us that), you just think any and all criticism of him is completely off limits. He should be able to do or say anything he wants, even do damage to the party by making baseless claims about other candidates, and as good little Republicans, we should just sit back and enjoy it, as Clayton Williams use to say.

Did I succinctly state your position?
Not even close.

It's OK not to like Trump's tactics. But going after anyone who supports him will only make you look unreasonable and spiteful.

Trump, like it or not, has more support than any other Republican right now., You need those votes on your side.


Also, Trump is not a POS. Yes he can be vulgar, but that's not what matters.

Trumps' energy, trade and military policies were actually very good and should be included in any winning GOP platform. What's more, praising Trump for those polices would both advance what we know is good for America, while making a statement impossible for Trump top attack w/o looking like a fool and hurting himself politically.

To win against Trump, you need to take the high ground and put away the long knives. DeSantis is very good at that, by the way.

.
So I am clear, then, it's not that I called out Trump for making baseless and vile accusations about DeSantis you have a problem with, it's that I called out one of his supporters for defending his baseless and vile accusations against DeSantis?

We can agree to disagree on Trump being a POS. I think the guy has demonstrated time and time again that he is a rather immoral character, unbecoming of the office. Does it mean I wouldn't vote for him over Biden? No. But we can do a whole hell of a lot better, IMO.

As for his policies, it was a very mixed bag. Lots of good, lots of bad.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

BTW, you do realize your little habit of changing others' posts to say the opposite of what they said is lame and not an effective retort, right?
Sorry, trying logic was not working so I resorted to your level in a desperate effort to get through to you.

The spite has eaten away most of your cognitive functions, it seems.
I must say, I kind of enjoy being on the receiving end of your lame insults and projections. I've seen them time and time again over the years, but now that I am the recipient of them, it's rather amusing to be accused of that which you are guilty.

You're a hoot! Thanks for the laugh.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

BTW, you do realize your little habit of changing others' posts to say the opposite of what they said is lame and not an effective retort, right?
Sorry, trying logic was not working so I resorted to your level in a desperate effort to get through to you.

The spite has eaten away most of your cognitive functions, it seems.
I must say, I kind of enjoy being on the receiving end of your lame insults and projections. I've seen them time and time again over the years, but now that I am the recipient of them, it's rather amusing to be accused of that which you are guilty.

You're a hoot! Thanks for the laugh.
You are acting like a member of the Biden White House Staff, Motha.

That really should worry you.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

BTW, you do realize your little habit of changing others' posts to say the opposite of what they said is lame and not an effective retort, right?
Sorry, trying logic was not working so I resorted to your level in a desperate effort to get through to you.

The spite has eaten away most of your cognitive functions, it seems.
I must say, I kind of enjoy being on the receiving end of your lame insults and projections. I've seen them time and time again over the years, but now that I am the recipient of them, it's rather amusing to be accused of that which you are guilty.

You're a hoot! Thanks for the laugh.
You are acting like a member of the Biden White House Staff, Motha.

That really should worry you.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

whiterock said:

J.R. said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Thousands of U.S.-Based Twitter Bots Boost Trump, Criticize Haley, DeSantis
Thousands of automated bot accounts on Twitter have worked over the last eleven months to boost former president Donald Trump and attack his critics and 2024 competition, according to a new report.
Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm, told the Associated Press it discovered a network of fake accounts that appear to have been created within the U.S. by an unknown entity.
The bots have targeted former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, as well as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely seen as Trump's most formidable 2024 opponent despite having not yet joined the race.
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter accounts could be involved. The accounts were created in April, October and November 2022, according to the report. Researchers used patterns in an account's profile along with its follower list and posts to identify bots, which usually post "repetitive content about the same topics," according to the report.
"One account will say, 'Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,' and another will say, 'Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,'" Cyabra engineer Jules Gross told the AP. "Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening."
Researchers said one measure of bot impact is the number of posts about a topic by fake accounts. For an average topic, that number is in the low single digits, but nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley were made by fake accounts, according to the report.
The bots have also focused on seeding the idea that DeSantis would be more fit to serve as Trump's 2024 running mate than as president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/thousands-of-u-s-based-twitter-bots-boost-trump-criticize-haley-desantis/

I have pointed that part in bold many times: the self-fulfilling consolation prize. Once one plants the seed for such an idea, it can take on a life of its own, particularly when it is a fairly obvious likely outcome as current polling suggests. Ted Cruz fought it like crazy in his Presidential run....."wouldn't Ted make a great SCOTUS Justice!" Once one sees him that way, it undercuts seeing him as a viable alternative to the front runner.

now, I think DeSantis has a better chance of winning the nomination than his current polling suggests, but he's still an underdog, and Trump is very wise to saddle RDS with the image as likely VP before the race even gets started.

It is reassuring Trump mounting such a robust effort on Twitter this far out. It will take all that & then some to win the general. Shows he's serious about building a lot of real campaign capability.
The NR article is talking about fake accounts, bots for Trump. They are AstroTurf, not grassroots for Trump.

Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter
I understand entirely. Don't miss the importance of what was said. Fake accounts, bots....they are a necessary campaign tool to push messaging. They will be there by the millions for Democrats to push ideas and candidates which are wildly outside of the mainstream. We must respond or we will remain at a serious disadvantage.

The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win. DeSantis will need to do it. Haley will need to do it. Anyone who wants to have a prayer to win will have to do it. Trump's is just waaay ahead on the GOP side. (and that is at least a small reason why he's expanding his lead over the GOP field at the moment.)

We can criticize the use of them all we want, but the wise plans is to make better use of them than Democrats. We have at least one candidate doing that.....
you just cannot be serious about "The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win". You and a couple other of your simpleton , true believers want Trump any where close to another election . You do realize he lost the Presidency, House, and Senate and was impeached twice. Serious question. I'd really like to hear why you think Trump's would be good for the country? Additionally, I'd like to understand your religious affiliation that allows you to support a moral bankrupt, crook. I'm very curious as to why you think Trumps would even be an option to consider.
There you go again with yet another regurgitated illogical rant.

Trump's policies would be great for the country. I'm sure RDS and other contenders would have similar policies. I'll support those too, if they become the nominee. I'm not he one laying down strident demands about who the nominee has to be. One of the safest bets one can make is that the winner of the primary is the best general election candidate, unless one seriously intends to propose a candidate which finishes 2nd or 3rd with only a quarter-to-a-third support from the GOP is somehow stronger than one who received a majority of the vote within the party.

My statement about Trump building bot capacity on social media is exactly the kind of sober, grounded, objective analysis that so offends your sensibilities. It's a one of the reasons why he's doing EXACTLY what you've been ranting and raving he could never do = opening up a large lead over the primary field and pulling even with BIden. Democrats kicked our teeth in during the last election with bot-operations on social media. We can complain about it, or we can go out do them. Trump is raising money to go compete. Bigly.

You are playing with that stuff that walks.

par for the course. you didn't answer the question as to why you think Trumps would be good for the country? Waiting. How do you square his behavior with your religious beliefs ? Really hard to get my head around. You are surely not the only evangelical types that loves them some Trump. Just don't get you people.
For some reason, you keep asking the same question as if doing so is an effective refutation of prior answers. So I'll say it again for you in very simple, subject-verb-object sentences: Trump had a very successful first term. Prior results are a very good indicator of future results. BY ANY MEASURE he would be an improvement over the current imbecile. It is mystifying why you cannot see this.

Nothing about his policies were/are at odds with my religious beliefs.

I don't expect him to live his personal life to my standards (I don't hold you to the same standard, either.) I expect him to promise the right things (he did) and execute on his promises (he did) or leave it all on the battlefield trying (he did).

I don't get you people who on one had say evangelicals are too religious then on the other hand expect your own politicians to live up to evangelical standards. We're not hiring a preacher, fer crissakes.

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Thousands of U.S.-Based Twitter Bots Boost Trump, Criticize Haley, DeSantis
Thousands of automated bot accounts on Twitter have worked over the last eleven months to boost former president Donald Trump and attack his critics and 2024 competition, according to a new report.
Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm, told the Associated Press it discovered a network of fake accounts that appear to have been created within the U.S. by an unknown entity.
The bots have targeted former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, as well as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely seen as Trump's most formidable 2024 opponent despite having not yet joined the race.
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter accounts could be involved. The accounts were created in April, October and November 2022, according to the report. Researchers used patterns in an account's profile along with its follower list and posts to identify bots, which usually post "repetitive content about the same topics," according to the report.
"One account will say, 'Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,' and another will say, 'Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,'" Cyabra engineer Jules Gross told the AP. "Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening."
Researchers said one measure of bot impact is the number of posts about a topic by fake accounts. For an average topic, that number is in the low single digits, but nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley were made by fake accounts, according to the report.
The bots have also focused on seeding the idea that DeSantis would be more fit to serve as Trump's 2024 running mate than as president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/thousands-of-u-s-based-twitter-bots-boost-trump-criticize-haley-desantis/

I have pointed that part in bold many times: the self-fulfilling consolation prize. Once one plants the seed for such an idea, it can take on a life of its own, particularly when it is a fairly obvious likely outcome as current polling suggests. Ted Cruz fought it like crazy in his Presidential run....."wouldn't Ted make a great SCOTUS Justice!" Once one sees him that way, it undercuts seeing him as a viable alternative to the front runner.

now, I think DeSantis has a better chance of winning the nomination than his current polling suggests, but he's still an underdog, and Trump is very wise to saddle RDS with the image as likely VP before the race even gets started.

It is reassuring Trump mounting such a robust effort on Twitter this far out. It will take all that & then some to win the general. Shows he's serious about building a lot of real campaign capability.
The NR article is talking about fake accounts, bots for Trump. They are AstroTurf, not grassroots for Trump.

Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter
I understand entirely. Don't miss the importance of what was said. Fake accounts, bots....they are a necessary campaign tool to push messaging. They will be there by the millions for Democrats to push ideas and candidates which are wildly outside of the mainstream. We must respond or we will remain at a serious disadvantage.

The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win. DeSantis will need to do it. Haley will need to do it. Anyone who wants to have a prayer to win will have to do it. Trump's is just waaay ahead on the GOP side. (and that is at least a small reason why he's expanding his lead over the GOP field at the moment.)

We can criticize the use of them all we want, but the wise plans is to make better use of them than Democrats. We have at least one candidate doing that.....


You praise Trump for using hundreds of thousands of fake bots to attack fellow Republicans
You misconvey what the bots are doing.

We're in the 21st Century. Long past the days when candidates just flooded the radio and TV time with ads, now there are social media campaigns and yes, bots are used, or do you really believe those random phone calls you used to get telling you how important it was to vote for Obama were all from concerned human voters?

Bots are a tool. Do the world a favor and don't be a tool yourself.




Exactly When RDS and others start using bots, I'll praise them for doing so too.

Must. Be. Done.

There's a reason the polling numbers are moving in Trumps favor like they are. Money well spent moves needles. Anybody who doesn't like the way the numbers are moving needs to write RDS a bigger check. He's falling behind.


Remember, it's not just the existence of the bots you condone, but it's also the false statements and mean personal attacks you condone.

And no, that is not necessary, nor should it be condoned, especially when used to attack fellow Republicans.

Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.
You say the bots are lying.
I don't see it.
Where is it?

Politics is a tough business.
Democrats are going to lie their asses off about us.
Get tougher.
Ah so it's your position that the mean-spirited personal attacks by Trump, such as suggesting that DeSantis canoodled with underage girls, is the truth? And all mean-spirited personal attacks are fair game?

Figures.

Politics is tough, made all the tougher when you condone Republicans eating their own. That wasn't really a thing before Trump.

Remember the 11th Commandment.

"Suggesting canoodling" is the best example you have?
Are you perhaps overreacting?
It's certainly not hurting Trump.



So suggesting someone is a statutory rapist and child molester doesn't move the needle for you? Huh. How big a whopper does Trump need to tell before it moves your needle, if at all? Or are mean-spirited attacks on fellow Republicans, lies and half-truths totally cool with you?

If you want another example, how about his attacks on your beloved Ted Cruz during the 2016 campaign. All fair game?

You might need to check your soul. I think you might have sold it.
Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You are attacking a Republican, phrase it however you like. By your own rule, you are out of bounds.




Just so I am clear, you believe that if a Republican calls out another Republican for attacking other Republicans, they're just as guilty of "attacking"?

Wow. I would respectfully submit you're either being obtuse, or you've completely missed Reagan's point.

How about an answer to my other questions?
How about you lay off the cheap shots, stop calling the 45th POTUS a 'POS'?

In short, prove you can discuss this like an adult.

And in advance of the all-too-predictable false claim that I am a Trump supporter, no I am not.

I want to win the White House in 2024, and to do that we need to stop letting the Democrats play us like puppets.


Why are you changing the subject, instead of addressing the substance of my post? Is there a reason you can't answer my questions?

And just so I am clear once more, you have a problem when I refer to Trump as a POS on an internet message board, but are ok with Trump's boorish and mean-spirited insults on another Republican in the media?

And you call me a hypocrite. LOL.

I called you on your own standard. That's on-topic.

And as for Trump, even though I don't plan on voting for him, I reserve 'POS" for people who have done real harm to innocents, like the son of the current Resident of the White House.

But you keep on showing your level of class. It's quite telling.
So "class" is calling out posters who call out Republicans who attack other Republicans? Class is defending candidates who engage in mean-spirited, juvenile, and petty insults of their fellow Republicans on social media?

Respectfully, I am not sure you are a very good arbitrer of what constitutes "class" or even basic human decency.

The truth is, you don't want to address my point or answer my questions because you realize that will reveal your blatant double standard. I would respect you more if you simply admitted your cowardice.
You have no point. You only have spite and malice.


You're I'm projecting again.
Indeed.

The funny thing is, when Democrats acted the way against Republicans the way you are against Trump, you correctly understood they were losing their collective minds.

And once again, I don't want Trump to win the nomination, but to get someone else nominated you need Trump's base to switch.

Defamation is a losing plan for that mission.

I don't give a mouse's rear end what you think of me, but on genera;; principle I do try to warn someone when they are about to do something really stupid.

But some folks decide to go with their gut to the point that all brain cells are abandoned.

Don't be that guy.
So, it's not that you like Trump or want him to get elected (you keep telling us that), you just think any and all criticism of him is completely off limits. He should be able to do or say anything he wants, even do damage to the party by making baseless claims about other candidates, and as good little Republicans, we should just sit back and enjoy it, as Clayton Williams use to say.

Did I succinctly state your position?
Not even close.

It's OK not to like Trump's tactics. But going after anyone who supports him will only make you look unreasonable and spiteful.

Trump, like it or not, has more support than any other Republican right now., You need those votes on your side.


Also, Trump is not a POS. Yes he can be vulgar, but that's not what matters.

Trumps' energy, trade and military policies were actually very good and should be included in any winning GOP platform. What's more, praising Trump for those polices would both advance what we know is good for America, while making a statement impossible for Trump top attack w/o looking like a fool and hurting himself politically.

To win against Trump, you need to take the high ground and put away the long knives. DeSantis is very good at that, by the way.

.
that part in bold is worth repeating.

Mothra. You repeatedly, reflexively attack me as though I am actually supporting Trump. When the plain reading of what I'm doing is analysis. I'm just pointing out that my predictions about where his support would go have proven out seamlessly. I"m also pointing out WHY that is happening. And along the way, I'm pointing out dissonant polling, praising RDS, assessing his odds as better than the polling shows, etc..... As balanced as balanced can be.

It's just the neverTrumpers are so alarmingly fragile....they cannot stand ANYTHING less than scathing rebuke of the man. join the roasting party or get roasted.

Plain obvious fact: Trump has restored his leadership of the party. And he did it with a fairly deft touch, in the overall context of national political campaigns.

The neverTrumper never pauses to realize that their angst is little more than cognitive dissonance...a lack of understanding about the dynamics that are creating the situation.

think harder.
GET TOUGHER.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Thousands of U.S.-Based Twitter Bots Boost Trump, Criticize Haley, DeSantis
Thousands of automated bot accounts on Twitter have worked over the last eleven months to boost former president Donald Trump and attack his critics and 2024 competition, according to a new report.
Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm, told the Associated Press it discovered a network of fake accounts that appear to have been created within the U.S. by an unknown entity.
The bots have targeted former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, as well as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely seen as Trump's most formidable 2024 opponent despite having not yet joined the race.
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter accounts could be involved. The accounts were created in April, October and November 2022, according to the report. Researchers used patterns in an account's profile along with its follower list and posts to identify bots, which usually post "repetitive content about the same topics," according to the report.
"One account will say, 'Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,' and another will say, 'Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,'" Cyabra engineer Jules Gross told the AP. "Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening."
Researchers said one measure of bot impact is the number of posts about a topic by fake accounts. For an average topic, that number is in the low single digits, but nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley were made by fake accounts, according to the report.
The bots have also focused on seeding the idea that DeSantis would be more fit to serve as Trump's 2024 running mate than as president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/thousands-of-u-s-based-twitter-bots-boost-trump-criticize-haley-desantis/

I have pointed that part in bold many times: the self-fulfilling consolation prize. Once one plants the seed for such an idea, it can take on a life of its own, particularly when it is a fairly obvious likely outcome as current polling suggests. Ted Cruz fought it like crazy in his Presidential run....."wouldn't Ted make a great SCOTUS Justice!" Once one sees him that way, it undercuts seeing him as a viable alternative to the front runner.

now, I think DeSantis has a better chance of winning the nomination than his current polling suggests, but he's still an underdog, and Trump is very wise to saddle RDS with the image as likely VP before the race even gets started.

It is reassuring Trump mounting such a robust effort on Twitter this far out. It will take all that & then some to win the general. Shows he's serious about building a lot of real campaign capability.
The NR article is talking about fake accounts, bots for Trump. They are AstroTurf, not grassroots for Trump.

Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter
I understand entirely. Don't miss the importance of what was said. Fake accounts, bots....they are a necessary campaign tool to push messaging. They will be there by the millions for Democrats to push ideas and candidates which are wildly outside of the mainstream. We must respond or we will remain at a serious disadvantage.

The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win. DeSantis will need to do it. Haley will need to do it. Anyone who wants to have a prayer to win will have to do it. Trump's is just waaay ahead on the GOP side. (and that is at least a small reason why he's expanding his lead over the GOP field at the moment.)

We can criticize the use of them all we want, but the wise plans is to make better use of them than Democrats. We have at least one candidate doing that.....


You praise Trump for using hundreds of thousands of fake bots to attack fellow Republicans
You misconvey what the bots are doing.

We're in the 21st Century. Long past the days when candidates just flooded the radio and TV time with ads, now there are social media campaigns and yes, bots are used, or do you really believe those random phone calls you used to get telling you how important it was to vote for Obama were all from concerned human voters?

Bots are a tool. Do the world a favor and don't be a tool yourself.




Exactly When RDS and others start using bots, I'll praise them for doing so too.

Must. Be. Done.

There's a reason the polling numbers are moving in Trumps favor like they are. Money well spent moves needles. Anybody who doesn't like the way the numbers are moving needs to write RDS a bigger check. He's falling behind.


Remember, it's not just the existence of the bots you condone, but it's also the false statements and mean personal attacks you condone.

And no, that is not necessary, nor should it be condoned, especially when used to attack fellow Republicans.

Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.
You say the bots are lying.
I don't see it.
Where is it?

Politics is a tough business.
Democrats are going to lie their asses off about us.
Get tougher.
Ah so it's your position that the mean-spirited personal attacks by Trump, such as suggesting that DeSantis canoodled with underage girls, is the truth? And all mean-spirited personal attacks are fair game?

Figures.

Politics is tough, made all the tougher when you condone Republicans eating their own. That wasn't really a thing before Trump.

Remember the 11th Commandment.

"Suggesting canoodling" is the best example you have?
Are you perhaps overreacting?
It's certainly not hurting Trump.



So suggesting someone is a statutory rapist and child molester doesn't move the needle for you? Huh. How big a whopper does Trump need to tell before it moves your needle, if at all? Or are mean-spirited attacks on fellow Republicans, lies and half-truths totally cool with you?

If you want another example, how about his attacks on your beloved Ted Cruz during the 2016 campaign. All fair game?

You might need to check your soul. I think you might have sold it.
Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

BornAgain said:

would trump go Independent without Republican nomination?
Ross Perot 2.0

Would have the same result and give Dems the White House. Trump just may do it out of arrogance and spite.
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).
Actually Sam, I mostly agree with you here. Except for the prison part. If the DOJ sends Trump to prison, Joe Biden should be euthanized for treason. This double standard crap has to stop.
There will be no prison. Fine, loss of voting/election rights, or suspended sentence. He may not go to prison, but the point is to not allow him anywhere near a seat of power.
Really, really bad idea.


Not saying it is right. They are not locking up a former President and making him a martyr. THey will discredit him and make him ineligible.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Thousands of U.S.-Based Twitter Bots Boost Trump, Criticize Haley, DeSantis
Thousands of automated bot accounts on Twitter have worked over the last eleven months to boost former president Donald Trump and attack his critics and 2024 competition, according to a new report.
Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm, told the Associated Press it discovered a network of fake accounts that appear to have been created within the U.S. by an unknown entity.
The bots have targeted former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, as well as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely seen as Trump's most formidable 2024 opponent despite having not yet joined the race.
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter accounts could be involved. The accounts were created in April, October and November 2022, according to the report. Researchers used patterns in an account's profile along with its follower list and posts to identify bots, which usually post "repetitive content about the same topics," according to the report.
"One account will say, 'Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,' and another will say, 'Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,'" Cyabra engineer Jules Gross told the AP. "Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening."
Researchers said one measure of bot impact is the number of posts about a topic by fake accounts. For an average topic, that number is in the low single digits, but nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley were made by fake accounts, according to the report.
The bots have also focused on seeding the idea that DeSantis would be more fit to serve as Trump's 2024 running mate than as president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/thousands-of-u-s-based-twitter-bots-boost-trump-criticize-haley-desantis/

I have pointed that part in bold many times: the self-fulfilling consolation prize. Once one plants the seed for such an idea, it can take on a life of its own, particularly when it is a fairly obvious likely outcome as current polling suggests. Ted Cruz fought it like crazy in his Presidential run....."wouldn't Ted make a great SCOTUS Justice!" Once one sees him that way, it undercuts seeing him as a viable alternative to the front runner.

now, I think DeSantis has a better chance of winning the nomination than his current polling suggests, but he's still an underdog, and Trump is very wise to saddle RDS with the image as likely VP before the race even gets started.

It is reassuring Trump mounting such a robust effort on Twitter this far out. It will take all that & then some to win the general. Shows he's serious about building a lot of real campaign capability.
The NR article is talking about fake accounts, bots for Trump. They are AstroTurf, not grassroots for Trump.

Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter
I understand entirely. Don't miss the importance of what was said. Fake accounts, bots....they are a necessary campaign tool to push messaging. They will be there by the millions for Democrats to push ideas and candidates which are wildly outside of the mainstream. We must respond or we will remain at a serious disadvantage.

The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win. DeSantis will need to do it. Haley will need to do it. Anyone who wants to have a prayer to win will have to do it. Trump's is just waaay ahead on the GOP side. (and that is at least a small reason why he's expanding his lead over the GOP field at the moment.)

We can criticize the use of them all we want, but the wise plans is to make better use of them than Democrats. We have at least one candidate doing that.....


You praise Trump for using hundreds of thousands of fake bots to attack fellow Republicans
You misconvey what the bots are doing.

We're in the 21st Century. Long past the days when candidates just flooded the radio and TV time with ads, now there are social media campaigns and yes, bots are used, or do you really believe those random phone calls you used to get telling you how important it was to vote for Obama were all from concerned human voters?

Bots are a tool. Do the world a favor and don't be a tool yourself.




Exactly When RDS and others start using bots, I'll praise them for doing so too.

Must. Be. Done.

There's a reason the polling numbers are moving in Trumps favor like they are. Money well spent moves needles. Anybody who doesn't like the way the numbers are moving needs to write RDS a bigger check. He's falling behind.


Remember, it's not just the existence of the bots you condone, but it's also the false statements and mean personal attacks you condone.

And no, that is not necessary, nor should it be condoned, especially when used to attack fellow Republicans.

Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.
You say the bots are lying.
I don't see it.
Where is it?

Politics is a tough business.
Democrats are going to lie their asses off about us.
Get tougher.
Ah so it's your position that the mean-spirited personal attacks by Trump, such as suggesting that DeSantis canoodled with underage girls, is the truth? And all mean-spirited personal attacks are fair game?

Figures.

Politics is tough, made all the tougher when you condone Republicans eating their own. That wasn't really a thing before Trump.

Remember the 11th Commandment.

"Suggesting canoodling" is the best example you have?
Are you perhaps overreacting?
It's certainly not hurting Trump.



So suggesting someone is a statutory rapist and child molester doesn't move the needle for you? Huh. How big a whopper does Trump need to tell before it moves your needle, if at all? Or are mean-spirited attacks on fellow Republicans, lies and half-truths totally cool with you?

If you want another example, how about his attacks on your beloved Ted Cruz during the 2016 campaign. All fair game?

You might need to check your soul. I think you might have sold it.
Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.


His authority is Oldbear
Nuff said
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

BornAgain said:

would trump go Independent without Republican nomination?
Ross Perot 2.0

Would have the same result and give Dems the White House. Trump just may do it out of arrogance and spite.
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).
Actually Sam, I mostly agree with you here. Except for the prison part. If the DOJ sends Trump to prison, Joe Biden should be euthanized for treason. This double standard crap has to stop.
There will be no prison. Fine, loss of voting/election rights, or suspended sentence. He may not go to prison, but the point is to not allow him anywhere near a seat of power.
Really, really bad idea.


Not saying it is right. They are not locking up a former President and making him a martyr. THey will discredit him and make him ineligible.
And just what do you mean by 'discredit'?

There is no legal mechanism to prevent Trump from running.

And there are few dirtier tricks than denying voters the right to decide an election.

In my opinion, Trump has begun to reveal stress from his position, and if left alone he will make unforced errors which cost him support.

I can see Trump doing well in early primaries, but fading as the campaign progresses, falling from 60% support down to the mid-thirties then finally down to around 25% support.

DeSantis or whoever leads the race will be able to win over Trump supporters if they have good policies and run a positive campaign.

Trashing Trump in public or insulting his followers, well that would be monumentally stupid.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Thousands of U.S.-Based Twitter Bots Boost Trump, Criticize Haley, DeSantis
Thousands of automated bot accounts on Twitter have worked over the last eleven months to boost former president Donald Trump and attack his critics and 2024 competition, according to a new report.
Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm, told the Associated Press it discovered a network of fake accounts that appear to have been created within the U.S. by an unknown entity.
The bots have targeted former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, as well as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely seen as Trump's most formidable 2024 opponent despite having not yet joined the race.
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter accounts could be involved. The accounts were created in April, October and November 2022, according to the report. Researchers used patterns in an account's profile along with its follower list and posts to identify bots, which usually post "repetitive content about the same topics," according to the report.
"One account will say, 'Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,' and another will say, 'Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,'" Cyabra engineer Jules Gross told the AP. "Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening."
Researchers said one measure of bot impact is the number of posts about a topic by fake accounts. For an average topic, that number is in the low single digits, but nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley were made by fake accounts, according to the report.
The bots have also focused on seeding the idea that DeSantis would be more fit to serve as Trump's 2024 running mate than as president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/thousands-of-u-s-based-twitter-bots-boost-trump-criticize-haley-desantis/

I have pointed that part in bold many times: the self-fulfilling consolation prize. Once one plants the seed for such an idea, it can take on a life of its own, particularly when it is a fairly obvious likely outcome as current polling suggests. Ted Cruz fought it like crazy in his Presidential run....."wouldn't Ted make a great SCOTUS Justice!" Once one sees him that way, it undercuts seeing him as a viable alternative to the front runner.

now, I think DeSantis has a better chance of winning the nomination than his current polling suggests, but he's still an underdog, and Trump is very wise to saddle RDS with the image as likely VP before the race even gets started.

It is reassuring Trump mounting such a robust effort on Twitter this far out. It will take all that & then some to win the general. Shows he's serious about building a lot of real campaign capability.
The NR article is talking about fake accounts, bots for Trump. They are AstroTurf, not grassroots for Trump.

Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter
I understand entirely. Don't miss the importance of what was said. Fake accounts, bots....they are a necessary campaign tool to push messaging. They will be there by the millions for Democrats to push ideas and candidates which are wildly outside of the mainstream. We must respond or we will remain at a serious disadvantage.

The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win. DeSantis will need to do it. Haley will need to do it. Anyone who wants to have a prayer to win will have to do it. Trump's is just waaay ahead on the GOP side. (and that is at least a small reason why he's expanding his lead over the GOP field at the moment.)

We can criticize the use of them all we want, but the wise plans is to make better use of them than Democrats. We have at least one candidate doing that.....


You praise Trump for using hundreds of thousands of fake bots to attack fellow Republicans
You misconvey what the bots are doing.

We're in the 21st Century. Long past the days when candidates just flooded the radio and TV time with ads, now there are social media campaigns and yes, bots are used, or do you really believe those random phone calls you used to get telling you how important it was to vote for Obama were all from concerned human voters?

Bots are a tool. Do the world a favor and don't be a tool yourself.




Exactly When RDS and others start using bots, I'll praise them for doing so too.

Must. Be. Done.

There's a reason the polling numbers are moving in Trumps favor like they are. Money well spent moves needles. Anybody who doesn't like the way the numbers are moving needs to write RDS a bigger check. He's falling behind.


Remember, it's not just the existence of the bots you condone, but it's also the false statements and mean personal attacks you condone.

And no, that is not necessary, nor should it be condoned, especially when used to attack fellow Republicans.

Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.
You say the bots are lying.
I don't see it.
Where is it?

Politics is a tough business.
Democrats are going to lie their asses off about us.
Get tougher.
Ah so it's your position that the mean-spirited personal attacks by Trump, such as suggesting that DeSantis canoodled with underage girls, is the truth? And all mean-spirited personal attacks are fair game?

Figures.

Politics is tough, made all the tougher when you condone Republicans eating their own. That wasn't really a thing before Trump.

Remember the 11th Commandment.

"Suggesting canoodling" is the best example you have?
Are you perhaps overreacting?
It's certainly not hurting Trump.



So suggesting someone is a statutory rapist and child molester doesn't move the needle for you? Huh. How big a whopper does Trump need to tell before it moves your needle, if at all? Or are mean-spirited attacks on fellow Republicans, lies and half-truths totally cool with you?

If you want another example, how about his attacks on your beloved Ted Cruz during the 2016 campaign. All fair game?

You might need to check your soul. I think you might have sold it.
Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.


His authority is Oldbear
Nuff said
Ah. More of that 'high road' you pretend to work from.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

BornAgain said:

would trump go Independent without Republican nomination?
Ross Perot 2.0

Would have the same result and give Dems the White House. Trump just may do it out of arrogance and spite.
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).
Actually Sam, I mostly agree with you here. Except for the prison part. If the DOJ sends Trump to prison, Joe Biden should be euthanized for treason. This double standard crap has to stop.
There will be no prison. Fine, loss of voting/election rights, or suspended sentence. He may not go to prison, but the point is to not allow him anywhere near a seat of power.
Really, really bad idea.


Not saying it is right. They are not locking up a former President and making him a martyr. THey will discredit him and make him ineligible.
And just what do you mean by 'discredit'?

There is no legal mechanism to prevent Trump from running.

And there are few dirtier tricks than denying voters the right to decide an election.

In my opinion, Trump has begun to reveal stress from his position, and if left alone he will make unforced errors which cost him support.

I can see Trump doing well in early primaries, but fading as the campaign progresses, falling from 60% support down to the mid-thirties then finally down to around 25% support.

DeSantis or whoever leads the race will be able to win over Trump supporters if they have good policies and run a positive campaign.

Trashing Trump in public or insulting his followers, well that would be monumentally stupid.


Sure there is, Senate can if they choose. Also, they can ban based on the Disqualification Clause. That would be litigated and Trump may win, but it would not help his chances in a General Election. This would allow Dems to rehash Jan 6th and even get Trump on stand or make him decline. Discrediting Trump is not hard, he will do the heavy lifting with his mouth.

You overestimate his following in a General Election. Getting the nomination is easy. Look at the outcome of the 22 election,. GOP barely pulled the House and couldn't pull the Senate after Bidens disastrous start. With Biden righting the ship somewhat, it will be tougher. Trump will not pull Independents. Appealing to rght wing uneducated males aged 30 - 65 will not win in 24...
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Quote:

Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.
You are alleging all kinds of things that aren't true. I'm not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that politics is a tough business. If you enter politics, you are going to get called all kinds of things that aren't true. You can whine about it, or you can get tougher.

I'll never forget the first time I got called a RINO. Stung. Never been called that before. The mind races: totally out of right field unexpected, unfair, how could they say that, what do you say to prove them wrong? The answer is....they didn't know me. They actually believed it. I had to smile, then show them what I was. A few years down the road, they were on the team.

I once made a stone cold sober point in a debate about experience for office of a competitor. It was effective because it was textbook accurate. We had different experience and mine was better suited to what was of more interest in that particular election. I maintained a good relationship with the other candidate. We liked and respected each other. His wife, on the other hand, never spoke to me again. She couldn't get past it. Politics is a tough business. Nothing will be given to you. You will have to take it. You will have to DEFEAT your opponent. And if you are challenging the king on the hill, you are going to take a LOT of shots, from all sides. Part of the job.

DeSantis isn't whining about anything.
He's tough.

YOU, friend....need to get a LOT tougher.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Quote:

Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.
You are alleging all kinds of things that aren't true. I'm not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that politics is a tough business. If you enter politics, you are going to get called all kinds of things that aren't true. You can whine about it, or you can get tougher.

I'll never forget the first time I got called a RINO. Stung. Never been called that before. The mind races: totally out of right field unexpected, unfair, how could they say that, what do you say to prove them wrong? The answer is....they didn't know me. They actually believed it. I had to smile, then show them what I was. A few years down the road, they were on the team.

I once made a stone cold sober point in a debate about experience for office of a competitor. It was effective because it was textbook accurate. We had different experience and mine was better suited to what was of more interest in that particular election. I maintained a good relationship with the other candidate. We liked and respected each other. His wife, on the other hand, never spoke to me again. She couldn't get past it. Politics is a tough business. Nothing will be given to you. You will have to take it. You will have to DEFEAT your opponent. And if you are challenging the king on the hill, you are going to take a LOT of shots, from all sides. Part of the job.

DeSantis isn't whining about anything.
He's tough.

YOU, friend....need to get a LOT tougher.
Mothra just doesn't want to see a Democrat president inaugurated in 2025. You're working hard for that to happen
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

J.R. said:

whiterock said:

J.R. said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Thousands of U.S.-Based Twitter Bots Boost Trump, Criticize Haley, DeSantis
Thousands of automated bot accounts on Twitter have worked over the last eleven months to boost former president Donald Trump and attack his critics and 2024 competition, according to a new report.
Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm, told the Associated Press it discovered a network of fake accounts that appear to have been created within the U.S. by an unknown entity.
The bots have targeted former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, as well as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely seen as Trump's most formidable 2024 opponent despite having not yet joined the race.
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter accounts could be involved. The accounts were created in April, October and November 2022, according to the report. Researchers used patterns in an account's profile along with its follower list and posts to identify bots, which usually post "repetitive content about the same topics," according to the report.
"One account will say, 'Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,' and another will say, 'Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,'" Cyabra engineer Jules Gross told the AP. "Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening."
Researchers said one measure of bot impact is the number of posts about a topic by fake accounts. For an average topic, that number is in the low single digits, but nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley were made by fake accounts, according to the report.
The bots have also focused on seeding the idea that DeSantis would be more fit to serve as Trump's 2024 running mate than as president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/thousands-of-u-s-based-twitter-bots-boost-trump-criticize-haley-desantis/

I have pointed that part in bold many times: the self-fulfilling consolation prize. Once one plants the seed for such an idea, it can take on a life of its own, particularly when it is a fairly obvious likely outcome as current polling suggests. Ted Cruz fought it like crazy in his Presidential run....."wouldn't Ted make a great SCOTUS Justice!" Once one sees him that way, it undercuts seeing him as a viable alternative to the front runner.

now, I think DeSantis has a better chance of winning the nomination than his current polling suggests, but he's still an underdog, and Trump is very wise to saddle RDS with the image as likely VP before the race even gets started.

It is reassuring Trump mounting such a robust effort on Twitter this far out. It will take all that & then some to win the general. Shows he's serious about building a lot of real campaign capability.
The NR article is talking about fake accounts, bots for Trump. They are AstroTurf, not grassroots for Trump.

Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter
I understand entirely. Don't miss the importance of what was said. Fake accounts, bots....they are a necessary campaign tool to push messaging. They will be there by the millions for Democrats to push ideas and candidates which are wildly outside of the mainstream. We must respond or we will remain at a serious disadvantage.

The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win. DeSantis will need to do it. Haley will need to do it. Anyone who wants to have a prayer to win will have to do it. Trump's is just waaay ahead on the GOP side. (and that is at least a small reason why he's expanding his lead over the GOP field at the moment.)

We can criticize the use of them all we want, but the wise plans is to make better use of them than Democrats. We have at least one candidate doing that.....
you just cannot be serious about "The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win". You and a couple other of your simpleton , true believers want Trump any where close to another election . You do realize he lost the Presidency, House, and Senate and was impeached twice. Serious question. I'd really like to hear why you think Trump's would be good for the country? Additionally, I'd like to understand your religious affiliation that allows you to support a moral bankrupt, crook. I'm very curious as to why you think Trumps would even be an option to consider.
There you go again with yet another regurgitated illogical rant.

Trump's policies would be great for the country. I'm sure RDS and other contenders would have similar policies. I'll support those too, if they become the nominee. I'm not he one laying down strident demands about who the nominee has to be. One of the safest bets one can make is that the winner of the primary is the best general election candidate, unless one seriously intends to propose a candidate which finishes 2nd or 3rd with only a quarter-to-a-third support from the GOP is somehow stronger than one who received a majority of the vote within the party.

My statement about Trump building bot capacity on social media is exactly the kind of sober, grounded, objective analysis that so offends your sensibilities. It's a one of the reasons why he's doing EXACTLY what you've been ranting and raving he could never do = opening up a large lead over the primary field and pulling even with BIden. Democrats kicked our teeth in during the last election with bot-operations on social media. We can complain about it, or we can go out do them. Trump is raising money to go compete. Bigly.

You are playing with that stuff that walks.

par for the course. you didn't answer the question as to why you think Trumps would be good for the country? Waiting. How do you square his behavior with your religious beliefs ? Really hard to get my head around. You are surely not the only evangelical types that loves them some Trump. Just don't get you people.
For some reason, you keep asking the same question as if doing so is an effective refutation of prior answers. So I'll say it again for you in very simple, subject-verb-object sentences: Trump had a very successful first term. Prior results are a very good indicator of future results. BY ANY MEASURE he would be an improvement over the current imbecile. It is mystifying why you cannot see this.

Nothing about his policies were/are at odds with my religious beliefs.

I don't expect him to live his personal life to my standards (I don't hold you to the same standard, either.) I expect him to promise the right things (he did) and execute on his promises (he did) or leave it all on the battlefield trying (he did).

I don't get you people who on one had say evangelicals are too religious then on the other hand expect your own politicians to live up to evangelical standards. We're not hiring a preacher, fer crissakes.


appreciate the answer. So, you as a man of faith, have no problem with Trumps behavior, but you like his policies ? I just cannot separate the two. He is morally bankrupt and I just can't have my President who is a bully, serial adulterer, ***** chaser, cheat, crook, grifter, pathological liar and a politically expedient "Christian". We all know he ain't that.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

whiterock said:

J.R. said:

whiterock said:

J.R. said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Thousands of U.S.-Based Twitter Bots Boost Trump, Criticize Haley, DeSantis
Thousands of automated bot accounts on Twitter have worked over the last eleven months to boost former president Donald Trump and attack his critics and 2024 competition, according to a new report.
Cyabra, an Israeli tech firm, told the Associated Press it discovered a network of fake accounts that appear to have been created within the U.S. by an unknown entity.
The bots have targeted former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, who is running against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, as well as Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely seen as Trump's most formidable 2024 opponent despite having not yet joined the race.
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter accounts could be involved. The accounts were created in April, October and November 2022, according to the report. Researchers used patterns in an account's profile along with its follower list and posts to identify bots, which usually post "repetitive content about the same topics," according to the report.
"One account will say, 'Biden is trying to take our guns; Trump was the best,' and another will say, 'Jan. 6 was a lie and Trump was innocent,'" Cyabra engineer Jules Gross told the AP. "Those voices are not people. For the sake of democracy I want people to know this is happening."
Researchers said one measure of bot impact is the number of posts about a topic by fake accounts. For an average topic, that number is in the low single digits, but nearly three-fourths of the negative posts about Haley were made by fake accounts, according to the report.
The bots have also focused on seeding the idea that DeSantis would be more fit to serve as Trump's 2024 running mate than as president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/thousands-of-u-s-based-twitter-bots-boost-trump-criticize-haley-desantis/

I have pointed that part in bold many times: the self-fulfilling consolation prize. Once one plants the seed for such an idea, it can take on a life of its own, particularly when it is a fairly obvious likely outcome as current polling suggests. Ted Cruz fought it like crazy in his Presidential run....."wouldn't Ted make a great SCOTUS Justice!" Once one sees him that way, it undercuts seeing him as a viable alternative to the front runner.

now, I think DeSantis has a better chance of winning the nomination than his current polling suggests, but he's still an underdog, and Trump is very wise to saddle RDS with the image as likely VP before the race even gets started.

It is reassuring Trump mounting such a robust effort on Twitter this far out. It will take all that & then some to win the general. Shows he's serious about building a lot of real campaign capability.
The NR article is talking about fake accounts, bots for Trump. They are AstroTurf, not grassroots for Trump.

Researchers say hundreds of thousands of bots across three different networks of Twitter
I understand entirely. Don't miss the importance of what was said. Fake accounts, bots....they are a necessary campaign tool to push messaging. They will be there by the millions for Democrats to push ideas and candidates which are wildly outside of the mainstream. We must respond or we will remain at a serious disadvantage.

The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win. DeSantis will need to do it. Haley will need to do it. Anyone who wants to have a prayer to win will have to do it. Trump's is just waaay ahead on the GOP side. (and that is at least a small reason why he's expanding his lead over the GOP field at the moment.)

We can criticize the use of them all we want, but the wise plans is to make better use of them than Democrats. We have at least one candidate doing that.....
you just cannot be serious about "The fact that Trump has recognized this and has built the capacity so far ahead of the election should encourage us all that he is serious about doing what is necessary to win". You and a couple other of your simpleton , true believers want Trump any where close to another election . You do realize he lost the Presidency, House, and Senate and was impeached twice. Serious question. I'd really like to hear why you think Trump's would be good for the country? Additionally, I'd like to understand your religious affiliation that allows you to support a moral bankrupt, crook. I'm very curious as to why you think Trumps would even be an option to consider.
There you go again with yet another regurgitated illogical rant.

Trump's policies would be great for the country. I'm sure RDS and other contenders would have similar policies. I'll support those too, if they become the nominee. I'm not he one laying down strident demands about who the nominee has to be. One of the safest bets one can make is that the winner of the primary is the best general election candidate, unless one seriously intends to propose a candidate which finishes 2nd or 3rd with only a quarter-to-a-third support from the GOP is somehow stronger than one who received a majority of the vote within the party.

My statement about Trump building bot capacity on social media is exactly the kind of sober, grounded, objective analysis that so offends your sensibilities. It's a one of the reasons why he's doing EXACTLY what you've been ranting and raving he could never do = opening up a large lead over the primary field and pulling even with BIden. Democrats kicked our teeth in during the last election with bot-operations on social media. We can complain about it, or we can go out do them. Trump is raising money to go compete. Bigly.

You are playing with that stuff that walks.

par for the course. you didn't answer the question as to why you think Trumps would be good for the country? Waiting. How do you square his behavior with your religious beliefs ? Really hard to get my head around. You are surely not the only evangelical types that loves them some Trump. Just don't get you people.
For some reason, you keep asking the same question as if doing so is an effective refutation of prior answers. So I'll say it again for you in very simple, subject-verb-object sentences: Trump had a very successful first term. Prior results are a very good indicator of future results. BY ANY MEASURE he would be an improvement over the current imbecile. It is mystifying why you cannot see this.

Nothing about his policies were/are at odds with my religious beliefs.

I don't expect him to live his personal life to my standards (I don't hold you to the same standard, either.) I expect him to promise the right things (he did) and execute on his promises (he did) or leave it all on the battlefield trying (he did).

I don't get you people who on one had say evangelicals are too religious then on the other hand expect your own politicians to live up to evangelical standards. We're not hiring a preacher, fer crissakes.


appreciate the answer. So, you as a man of faith, have no problem with Trumps behavior, but you like his policies ? I just cannot separate the two. He is morally bankrupt and I just can't have my President who is a bully, serial adulterer, ***** chaser, cheat, crook, grifter, pathological liar and a politically expedient "Christian". We all know he ain't that.
yet you have one now that is pretty much all of that..
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
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1. No, the Senate cannot unilaterally change law, and barring someone from running for a public position would be shot down in court. And it's really bad optics to suggest you can only beat someone by barring them from running.

2. Using midterms results to project Presidential elections reflects poor comprehension of how those work.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Quote:

Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.
You are alleging all kinds of things that aren't true. I'm not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that politics is a tough business. If you enter politics, you are going to get called all kinds of things that aren't true. You can whine about it, or you can get tougher.

I'll never forget the first time I got called a RINO. Stung. Never been called that before. The mind races: totally out of right field unexpected, unfair, how could they say that, what do you say to prove them wrong? The answer is....they didn't know me. They actually believed it. I had to smile, then show them what I was. A few years down the road, they were on the team.

I once made a stone cold sober point in a debate about experience for office of a competitor. It was effective because it was textbook accurate. We had different experience and mine was better suited to what was of more interest in that particular election. I maintained a good relationship with the other candidate. We liked and respected each other. His wife, on the other hand, never spoke to me again. She couldn't get past it. Politics is a tough business. Nothing will be given to you. You will have to take it. You will have to DEFEAT your opponent. And if you are challenging the king on the hill, you are going to take a LOT of shots, from all sides. Part of the job.

DeSantis isn't whining about anything.
He's tough.

YOU, friend....need to get a LOT tougher.
Respectfully, you're ignoring my points to make the point you want to make. I've never argued that DeSantis shouldn't be tough. So you just wasted a lot of bandwidth on several posts arguing a point I've never disagreed with.

What I've asked you - personally - is whether you condone or think lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican are a good idea. I've asked whether you think it's good that Trump regularly violates Reagan's 11th Commandment. Instead of having the courage to answer that question, you've instead said candidates are going to get attacked and must be tough. Well, no ****, Sherlock, but that's not what I asked you.

The closest you've come to answering it is you claim to "respect" Trump for all of the personal attacks he made on fellow Republicans. I suppose that's the closest thing we'll get from you to an answer. You are fine with lies and mean-spirited attacks by one Republican on another - well, to be clear, as long as it's the frontrunner, Trump, doing the attacking. And that says a lot about you, personally.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra: "What I've asked you - personally - is whether you condone or think lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican are a good idea. I've asked whether you think it's good that Trump regularly violates Reagan's 11th Commandment."

First, the reason Reagan made that statement in the first place, was because all Republicans were doing what you hate Trump for doing.

And that is still happening. It's ironic that all the attacks on Trump between 2021 and now are ignored by you, but every little thing he says is of greatest affront to you.

Damned hypocritical, and I won't stop saying so.

And no, Trump does not 'regularly' violate that maxim, although I wish he would not do it at all. McConnell, Cheney, Kinzinger, and other Establishment Republicans are much worse, but again you have no interest in that fact.

And of course, after your high and mighty virtue signaling you tossed off a few insults towards Whiterock, just to prove you are incapable of meeting the standard you demand from everyone else.

Just wow.


That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra: "What I've asked you - personally - is whether you condone or think lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican are a good idea. I've asked whether you think it's good that Trump regularly violates Reagan's 11th Commandment."

First, the reason Reagan made that statement in the first place, was because all Republicans were doing what you hate Trump for doing.

And that is still happening. It's ironic that all the attacks on Trump between 2021 and now are ignored by you, but every little thing he says is of greatest affront to you.

Damned hypocritical, and I won't stop saying so.

And no, Trump does not 'regularly' violate that maxim, although I wish he would not do it at all. McConnell, Cheney, Kinzinger, and other Establishment Republicans are much worse, but again you have no interest in that fact.

And of course, after your high and mighty virtue signaling you tossed off a few insults towards Whiterock, just to prove you are incapable of meeting the standard you demand from everyone else.

Just wow.



That is indeed why Reagan said that, and as with most things, he was prescient - it's bad for the Republican candidates to be eating their own. You don't see Democrat candidates doing that, by and large. Now, they may disagree about policy issues, and try to "out woke" each other, but for the most part, they stay clear of the personal attacks. Sure, there are exceptions, but this is the rule for the most part - party over person.

Trump on the other hand? It became his modus operandi during the 2016 campaign. It was a total **** show. And he took it to new lows, not merely criticizing a candidate, but going after the candidate's looks and then his family. I mean, when you resort to criticizing the looks of your fellow Republicans' wives, you've taken it way too far. When you go after a candidate's father? Too far. When you resort to name calling, and mean-spirited personal attacks? Way too far. Behave like a decent human being and an adult, for God's sake. And of course, now it's happening all over again. Suggesting Youngkin is a Chinese operative because of the way his name sounds? Racist much? Suggesting DeSantis is a child molester and sexual assaulter based on a photo with high schoolers when he was a young man? Too far.

Where you I appear to disagree for the most part is whether we should sit silent and allow him to do and say such things, or whether we should stand up for what's right and call out boorish behavior. I've always been someone who spoke up for what's right or wrong, regardless of party affiliation. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Moreover, Trump doing and saying those things will only hurt his chances of getting elected. He alienated such a large swath of people in 2020, he lost to a geriatric patient. If he's the candidate, I don't want that to happen again.

In no way do I disregard the attacks on Trump. I agree he has been treated unfairly for years. But most of those attacks came from the Democrats and the media, not fellow Republicans. As far as I can tell, the Republicans he is now attacking have never attacked him. DeSantis has never said a bad word about Trump. That's because he follows the Reagan maxim. Youngkin has never said a bad word about Trump. Yet, Trump is now attacking them. Sure, it may be for political purposes, but that doesn't make it right.

For the record, I have repeatedly been critical of turncoats Cheney and Kinzinger. Your position that I don't say anything about them is a lie, based on ignorance it appears. I regularly condemned their conduct during the January 6th hearings. But that is simply not pertinent to this discussion. This is talking about unprovoked attacks by Trump on his fellow Republicans. That is inexcusable, no matter how many excuses you try to make for him.

You can continue to call me "hypocritical" for calling out Republicans who condone such conduct. That accusation - although as stupid and ill-thought out as the first time you leveled it - doesn't bother me in the least, especially given the source. I will continue to call it like I see it, and stand up for what I believe to be right.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You'll gain credibility if you can post about not attacking others, while not insulting other members.

I count your latest as a good first step.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

You'll gain credibility if you can post about not attacking others, while not insulting other members.

I count your latest as a good first step.
My latest is what I've said from the beginning. I will continue to call out posters who defend Trump's personal and vile attacks on other Republican candidates.

Iron sharpens iron.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

You'll gain credibility if you can post about not attacking others, while not insulting other members.

I count your latest as a good first step.
My latest is what I've said from the beginning. I will continue to call out posters who defend Trump's personal and vile attacks on other Republican candidates.

Iron sharpens iron.
But insults sharpen bitterness.

Just something to consider.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Quote:

Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.
You are alleging all kinds of things that aren't true. I'm not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that politics is a tough business. If you enter politics, you are going to get called all kinds of things that aren't true. You can whine about it, or you can get tougher.

I'll never forget the first time I got called a RINO. Stung. Never been called that before. The mind races: totally out of right field unexpected, unfair, how could they say that, what do you say to prove them wrong? The answer is....they didn't know me. They actually believed it. I had to smile, then show them what I was. A few years down the road, they were on the team.

I once made a stone cold sober point in a debate about experience for office of a competitor. It was effective because it was textbook accurate. We had different experience and mine was better suited to what was of more interest in that particular election. I maintained a good relationship with the other candidate. We liked and respected each other. His wife, on the other hand, never spoke to me again. She couldn't get past it. Politics is a tough business. Nothing will be given to you. You will have to take it. You will have to DEFEAT your opponent. And if you are challenging the king on the hill, you are going to take a LOT of shots, from all sides. Part of the job.

DeSantis isn't whining about anything.
He's tough.

YOU, friend....need to get a LOT tougher.
Respectfully, you're ignoring my points to make the point you want to make. I've never argued that DeSantis shouldn't be tough. So you just wasted a lot of bandwidth on several posts arguing a point I've never disagreed with.

What I've asked you - personally - is whether you condone or think lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican are a good idea. I've asked whether you think it's good that Trump regularly violates Reagan's 11th Commandment. Instead of having the courage to answer that question, you've instead said candidates are going to get attacked and must be tough. Well, no ****, Sherlock, but that's not what I asked you.

The closest you've come to answering it is you claim to "respect" Trump for all of the personal attacks he made on fellow Republicans. I suppose that's the closest thing we'll get from you to an answer. You are fine with lies and mean-spirited attacks by one Republican on another - well, to be clear, as long as it's the frontrunner, Trump, doing the attacking. And that says a lot about you, personally.
You're edging off into disingenuous arguments. Lies and personal attacks, partial truths, half-truths, spin-truths, etc....have always happened in politics. Always will. Everybody does it. There is no high ground for you there. The only question is whether or not the attacks, jabs, feints, etc... are effective, or not. I'm noting the movement in the polls and showing what's working or not. You are getting increasingly petulant that I won't virtue posture with you about what things should be rather than what they are.

you were particularly offended at that picture of a younger RDS as some kind of outlandish smear. If you were more objective about such things, you would see that it was a fairly subtle jab...."ok buddy, be careful, you have exposure here, too...." to keep RDS from grandstanding excessively as the quintessential family man. Those kinds of jabs are often very effective. One of my greater disappointments in recent years was being unable to persuade a nearly perfect candidate to run for Congress, because he did not want his 10-12 year old kids to hear things said about their father than we both knew would definitely come out....given the MO of the candidate already in the race (as well as the consultant that candidate used). The things themselves? No big deal. Below the "youthful indiscretion" threshold. The attack might have boomeranged against the other candidate as much as the intended target. But the prospect was more worried about being a good father than a good congressman. (ergo proving he had the right stuff for elected office....) He wasn't warned on social media, but he did have some donors asking some questions suggested by the opposing campaign......so the word was out. RDS probably does have a few things in his closet he'd rather his kids not hear. So do you. And I. Normal people do. And for that reason, RDS will pick & choose his battles (and the timing of them) carefully. To the extent that keeps the two campaigns away from questions of who is the bigger playboy, that is a good thing, is it not?

As a rule.....and I mean as a really foundational rule....never accede to a demand to condemn. Never. Once you start, you've given your opponent a handy-dandy tool to back you around anywhere he wants to take you. Condemnation is a virtue posture. And at it's highest form becomes regime political correctness....entire crowds of people formed up to denounce some kind of something just to intimidate free thinkers from allowing what they know to be true to form image in their mind. My sentiments on this were formed from years living in 3rd world dictatorships. There are few things that steel my jaw more than the condemnation culture. Actually, I cannot think of anything I detest more.

If you are running around demanding others condemn something in order to avoid your opprobrium.....well....that's what the woke do.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Democrats are going to suggest a lot more than that, all across the spectrum of nonsense.
Quote:

Get tougher.

I did not complain a single time about Trump's attacks on Cruz. They were tough. Harsh. I knew how the race was going to end. There is no such thing as a gentle coup d''grace. It is hard business, best done quickly. As disappointed as I was at how it ended, I had grudging admiration for a guy who knew how to finish a race. I knew I had a guy who was a fighter. A guy who would not leave me on the battlefield.

GET TOUGHER.
It's interesting to justify lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican because Democrats are going to do it. And it's kind of sick to respect someone for engaging in such lies and personal attacks. It's a shame we have devolved into this.

I long for the pre-Trump days of human decency.

It's your line of reasoning that for the first time has me reconsidering whether I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I can't believe I've gotten to that point, but I think I might be there.
You are alleging all kinds of things that aren't true. I'm not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that politics is a tough business. If you enter politics, you are going to get called all kinds of things that aren't true. You can whine about it, or you can get tougher.

I'll never forget the first time I got called a RINO. Stung. Never been called that before. The mind races: totally out of right field unexpected, unfair, how could they say that, what do you say to prove them wrong? The answer is....they didn't know me. They actually believed it. I had to smile, then show them what I was. A few years down the road, they were on the team.

I once made a stone cold sober point in a debate about experience for office of a competitor. It was effective because it was textbook accurate. We had different experience and mine was better suited to what was of more interest in that particular election. I maintained a good relationship with the other candidate. We liked and respected each other. His wife, on the other hand, never spoke to me again. She couldn't get past it. Politics is a tough business. Nothing will be given to you. You will have to take it. You will have to DEFEAT your opponent. And if you are challenging the king on the hill, you are going to take a LOT of shots, from all sides. Part of the job.

DeSantis isn't whining about anything.
He's tough.

YOU, friend....need to get a LOT tougher.
Respectfully, you're ignoring my points to make the point you want to make. I've never argued that DeSantis shouldn't be tough. So you just wasted a lot of bandwidth on several posts arguing a point I've never disagreed with.

What I've asked you - personally - is whether you condone or think lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican are a good idea. I've asked whether you think it's good that Trump regularly violates Reagan's 11th Commandment. Instead of having the courage to answer that question, you've instead said candidates are going to get attacked and must be tough. Well, no ****, Sherlock, but that's not what I asked you.

The closest you've come to answering it is you claim to "respect" Trump for all of the personal attacks he made on fellow Republicans. I suppose that's the closest thing we'll get from you to an answer. You are fine with lies and mean-spirited attacks by one Republican on another - well, to be clear, as long as it's the frontrunner, Trump, doing the attacking. And that says a lot about you, personally.
You're edging off into disingenuous arguments. Lies and personal attacks, partial truths, half-truths, spin-truths, etc....have always happened in politics. Always will. Everybody does it. There is no high ground for you there. The only question is whether or not the attacks, jabs, feints, etc... are effective, or not. I'm noting the movement in the polls and showing what's working or not. You are getting increasingly petulant that I won't virtue posture with you about what things should be rather than what they are.

you were particularly offended at that picture of a younger RDS as some kind of outlandish smear. If you were more objective about such things, you would see that it was a fairly subtle jab...."ok buddy, be careful, you have exposure here, too...." to keep RDS from grandstanding excessively as the quintessential family man. Those kinds of jabs are often very effective. One of my greater disappointments in recent years was being unable to persuade a nearly perfect candidate to run for Congress, because he did not want his 10-12 year old kids to hear things said about their father than we both knew would definitely come out....given the MO of the candidate already in the race (as well as the consultant that candidate used). The things themselves? No big deal. Below the "youthful indiscretion" threshold. The attack might have boomeranged against the other candidate as much as the intended target. But the prospect was more worried about being a good father than a good congressman. (ergo proving he had the right stuff for elected office....) He wasn't warned on social media, but he did have some donors asking some questions suggested by the opposing campaign......so the word was out. RDS probably does have a few things in his closet he'd rather his kids not hear. So do you. And I. Normal people do. And for that reason, RDS will pick & choose his battles (and the timing of them) carefully. To the extent that keeps the two campaigns away from questions of who is the bigger playboy, that is a good thing, is it not?

As a rule.....and I mean as a really foundational rule....never accede to a demand to condemn. Never. Once you start, you've given your opponent a handy-dandy tool to back you around anywhere he wants to take you. Condemnation is a virtue posture. And at it's highest form becomes regime political correctness....entire crowds of people formed up to denounce some kind of something just to intimidate free thinkers from allowing what they know to be true to form image in their mind. My sentiments on this were formed from years living in 3rd world dictatorships. There are few things that steel my jaw more than the condemnation culture. Actually, I cannot think of anything I detest more.

If you are running around demanding others condemn something in order to avoid your opprobrium.....well....that's what the woke do.

This is word salad designed to obfuscate the fact you will not answer my very simple questions. While I appreciate your perspective on how to run a political campaign, respectfully, I am not at all interested in your analysis of how a politician should dish out - and handle- political attacks. So I am going to try to steer this one more time back to the subject of my posts to see if I can get an honest answer before I give up on you.

My questions are quite simple. It's not asking you to "condemn" anyone. It's either a yes or a no. Do you condone or think lies and personal attacks against a fellow Republican are a good idea? Do you think it's good that a certain candidate regularly violates Reagan's 11th Commandment? Let's say, for example, a Republican candidate decides to attack the looks of another Republican candidate's wife. Think that's a good idea and fair game? Think that's ok as long as it's politically effective? Or is there any bridge too far for you?

Now, if its just way too difficult for you to take a stand on a Republican politician's behavior (God forbid!), let me know and I will stop asking. For you, I understand moral judgments are only reserved for Democrat politicians.
First Page Last Page
Page 13 of 301
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.