Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Again, you are working too hard to avoid dealing with the world as it is. A political attack is a good idea if it moves the needle positively, and a bad idea if it doesn't. And in the real world of campaigns, attacks almost axiomatically move the needle both positively and negatively. Campaigns know that and have to decide if the gain on one side of the equation outweighs the offset on the other. Unpopular incumbents in particular live in a world of such choices....they willingly turn races into mudfests to the point of actually depressing turnout in key demographics (because their models show they can only win a low-turnout race.) They actually WANT to make independents get disgusted and stay home. Obama did it brilliantly. He won, despite popularity rates below Trump's current level. (which should be a warning to those who are convinced who can/cannot win the 2024 election....anything is possible.....) This last cycle, Democrats spent millions calling you and me a threat to democracy. What point is served talking about whether it was right or fair for them to have done so? It worked...it improved their outcome beyond what any reasonable analysis indicated it should have been. (and it gave you a platform to blame Trump, so indirectly, you benefited from it as well....)

I'm not going to worry a nanosecond about your concerns. You shouldn't either. The voters speak on these things. They hold elected officials accountable for the campaigns they run. When I see a campaign attack that raises my eyebrow, I don't get all huffy and threaten to sit out an election. I watch. Assess. Ask why they did that...what am I missing.....what angle are they working...how will voters respond.....? I try to learn what was the calculation behind it. Normally, it's not terribly hard to figure out what the campaigns are attempting to accomplish. That picture of RDS that offended you so.....by any measure a pretty gentle tap in the realm of campaign attacks. The purpose, obvious. And explained to you. Didn't bother me a bit. Shouldn't bother any mature adult. It's politics. Get over it. If you don't, you'll just get all huffy and miss the underlying dynamics really at play in the race.

Let me say this again, more pointedly. The person trying to force you to condemn something is preening their own vanity, at your expense. Stay away from people like that. They are bad news.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Again, you are working too hard to avoid dealing with the world as it is. A political attack is a good idea if it moves the needle positively, and a bad idea if it doesn't. And in the real world of campaigns, attacks almost axiomatically move the needle both positively and negatively. Campaigns know that and have to decide if the gain on one side of the equation outweighs the offset on the other. Unpopular incumbents in particular live in a world of such choices....they willingly turn races into mudfests to the point of actually depressing turnout in key demographics (because their models show they can only win a low-turnout race.) They actually WANT to make independents get disgusted and stay home. Obama did it brilliantly. He won, despite popularity rates below Trump's current level. (which should be a warning to those who are convinced who can/cannot win the 2024 election....anything is possible.....) This last cycle, Democrats spent millions calling you and me a threat to democracy. What point is served talking about whether it was right or fair for them to have done so? It worked...it improved their outcome beyond what any reasonable analysis indicated it should have been. (and it gave you a platform to blame Trump, so indirectly, you benefited from it as well....)

I'm not going to worry a nanosecond about your concerns. You shouldn't either. The voters speak on these things. They hold elected officials accountable for the campaigns they run. When I see a campaign attack that raises my eyebrow, I don't get all huffy and threaten to sit out an election. I watch. Assess. Ask why they did that...what am I missing.....what angle are they working...how will voters respond.....? I try to learn what was the calculation behind it. Normally, it's not terribly hard to figure out what the campaigns are attempting to accomplish. That picture of RDS that offended you so.....by any measure a pretty gentle tap in the realm of campaign attacks. The purpose, obvious. And explained to you. Didn't bother me a bit. Shouldn't bother any mature adult. It's politics. Get over it. If you don't, you'll just get all huffy and miss the underlying dynamics really at play in the race.

Let me say this again, more pointedly. The person trying to force you to condemn something is preening their own vanity, at your expense. Stay away from people like that. They are bad news.

---

I didn't need another redundant word salad explaining the dynamics of political attacks. For the fourth or fifth time, I understand they occur in today's political climate. Understood? Now, just a word of advice: What would shorten our exchanges and save a lot of wasted bandwidth is just saying, "No, I will not answer your questions." Yes, it comes across as moral cowardice, but isn't that a much simpler and direct answer that will save you and I a lot of time?

A few points of clarification: As you know, the focus of my question was whether or not you thought it was good that Republican candidates (not Democrats) should be personally attacking each other with name-calling, personal attacks on the looks of their wives, personal attacks on other family members, suggestions they were pedophiles, etc. I was not seeking a "condemnation" as you call it. If you didn't want to make a moral judgment on whether it's right for an adult to be attacking the looks of another man's wife in public, then I told you just look at it from a "good of the party" standpoint - is it good for the Republican Party that its candidates are attacking each other in that way? As I pointed out, Dems don't do it. That being the case, do you think it helps the party and Republican causes when our candidates look like middle school bullies with one another instead of adhering to the 11th Commandment? Or perhaps does it look dysfunctional, petulant and off-putting to the American people?

These are simple yes or no questions. Either you think it's good for the party and for getting the person elected, or you don't. It doesn't require you to take a stand on what's right or wrong (I know, God forbid that someone would ask you that - the temerity!). If you're not going to answer that, then I'd suggest ignoring my email. I don't need another long-winded diatribe on a subject I have not broached.

Thanks in advance, whichever route you choose.

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.

.

---

Again, you are buying what Trump's lies tell you. Firstly, yes, Trump is a POS. That cannot be denied. His energy policies were flawed. He drained the SPR with no plan to replace. He did that to get gasoline prices down before the election. I do not like his isolationist policies. Trump is a POS. Would you like your father to be like Trump? Would you like your kids to emulate Trump. I rest my case. POS

J.R. "Again, you are buying what Trump's lies tell you."

No, Unlike you, I weigh claims and statements by the facts, and work to weed out the claims which prove dishonest or hysteric. So, moving on:


J.R. "Firstly, yes, Trump is a POS. That cannot be denied."

It can certainly be denied, as it is not true. The POS label is a particularly nasty one, and the subject must be so far fouled that no good can be seen in him or her. Bottom line that while you can find elements of Trump's personality or style which you find offense, as President he undeniably did a god job in terms of policy and effect.


J.R. " His energy policies were flawed. He drained the SPR with no plan to replace. He did that to get gasoline prices down before the election."

Are you sure you are not confusing Biden with Trump?

Anyway, the actual fact in this matter is that Trump authorized release of SPR oil in response to attacks damaging Saudi production, in order to protect supplies of heating oil for the coming winter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/15/trump-says-he-has-authorized-release-of-oil-from-strategic-petroleum-reserve-if-needed-after-saudi-attacks.html


Note also that this release happened more than a year before the election, even before any of the primaries.

Also, it's plainly documented that Trump did indeed try to refill the reserves in March of 2020.

https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-executes-direction-president-trump-announces-solicitation-purchase-crude


It was Congress which refused to let that happen.

You can blame Pelosi for that lack of follow-through, not Trump.



J.R. : " I do not like his isolationist policies"

Too bad. I rather did. Trump was the first President in memory to actively resist starting new wars, something we desperately need as a country.




J.R.: " Trump is a POS. Would you like your father to be like Trump? Would you like your kids to emulate Trump. I rest my case. POS"

All you are doing is showing a swell of bitterness and dishonest spite.

News flash boyo, we don't elect Presidents because they are boy scouts or choir boys. There's a reason there was no movement to make Fred Rogers or Keanu Reeves President of the United States.

And you are blinding yourself to the fact that many effective Presidents have been lacking in personal ethics at times. FDR and LBJ and JFK all had mistresses while in office, while Trump at least behaved himself while he held office.

You are ignoring the now confirmed problem that there was an is a broad establishment dedicated to denying elected Presidents their authority, in order to keep personal power to their unelected selves.


But after all of that, you continue to miss the essential problem for Trump's political rivals in the GOP.

Trump has a great base of support, and like it or not those people are deeply invested in Trump and when trump is attacked, they see it as an attack on themselves and their own values.

No Republican contender can hope to win in 2024 without winning most of that bloc. The only way to win, then, is to show policies and a vision which wins over those voters.

Calling a successful President of the United States a 'POS' is exactly the way to get another Democrat in the White House.

J.R. said:

---

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.

.

---

Again, you are buying what Trump's lies tell you. Firstly, yes, Trump is a POS. That cannot be denied. His energy policies were flawed. He drained the SPR with no plan to replace. He did that to get gasoline prices down before the election. I do not like his isolationist policies. Trump is a POS. Would you like your father to be like Trump? Would you like your kids to emulate Trump. I rest my case. POS

---

your case is weak and more flawed than Trump..

His energy policies cost big oil money(you). He tried to replace the SPR but your buddies in Congress said no, of course Biden proceeded to do the same thing prior to the 2022 election and you cool with that.. big money coming when they have to replace it at 10 times or more what Trump was trying to buy it at

His "isolationist" policies created lowest US unemployment in decades. Households across the board were better off except those that were high wage earners. You know, what democrats always claim they want but really dont..

Look to the bias of the man making the argument and find the truth.

An individually flawed man made millions of American lives better. The current president cannot claim that..

Mothra: "These are simple yes or no questions."

Actually, no. Certainly politicians want to frame issues in simple terms, often spinning the presentation in a way to make their opponent look malicious just for questioning them.

But in Reality, things can get more complex.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra: "These are simple yes or no questions."

Actually, no. Certainly politicians want to frame issues in simple terms, often spinning the presentation in a way to make their opponent look malicious just for questioning them.

But in Reality, things can get more complex.

---

We disagree. The question of whether its right or wrong to criticize a fellow Republican candidate's wife's looks is pretty easy to answer. The question of whether its right or wrong to act like a 7th grade bully is pretty easy to answer. Reasonable adults cannot disagree with that position.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra: "These are simple yes or no questions."

Actually, no. Certainly politicians want to frame issues in simple terms, often spinning the presentation in a way to make their opponent look malicious just for questioning them.

But in Reality, things can get more complex.

---

We disagree. The question of whether its right or wrong to criticize a fellow Republican candidate's wife's looks is pretty easy to answer. The question of whether its right or wrong to act like a 7th grade bully is pretty easy to answer. Reasonable adults cannot disagree with that position.

---

What strikes me here, is how you ignore every statement or attack, unless it's from Trump.

Him you hate to such degree that you are willing to exaggerate an offense in order to go after him.

And as much as I respect Ronald Reagan, Commandments come from God, not politicians.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Again, you are working too hard to avoid dealing with the world as it is. A political attack is a good idea if it moves the needle positively, and a bad idea if it doesn't. And in the real world of campaigns, attacks almost axiomatically move the needle both positively and negatively. Campaigns know that and have to decide if the gain on one side of the equation outweighs the offset on the other. Unpopular incumbents in particular live in a world of such choices....they willingly turn races into mudfests to the point of actually depressing turnout in key demographics (because their models show they can only win a low-turnout race.) They actually WANT to make independents get disgusted and stay home. Obama did it brilliantly. He won, despite popularity rates below Trump's current level. (which should be a warning to those who are convinced who can/cannot win the 2024 election....anything is possible.....) This last cycle, Democrats spent millions calling you and me a threat to democracy. What point is served talking about whether it was right or fair for them to have done so? It worked...it improved their outcome beyond what any reasonable analysis indicated it should have been. (and it gave you a platform to blame Trump, so indirectly, you benefited from it as well....)

I'm not going to worry a nanosecond about your concerns. You shouldn't either. The voters speak on these things. They hold elected officials accountable for the campaigns they run. When I see a campaign attack that raises my eyebrow, I don't get all huffy and threaten to sit out an election. I watch. Assess. Ask why they did that...what am I missing.....what angle are they working...how will voters respond.....? I try to learn what was the calculation behind it. Normally, it's not terribly hard to figure out what the campaigns are attempting to accomplish. That picture of RDS that offended you so.....by any measure a pretty gentle tap in the realm of campaign attacks. The purpose, obvious. And explained to you. Didn't bother me a bit. Shouldn't bother any mature adult. It's politics. Get over it. If you don't, you'll just get all huffy and miss the underlying dynamics really at play in the race.

Let me say this again, more pointedly. The person trying to force you to condemn something is preening their own vanity, at your expense. Stay away from people like that. They are bad news.

---

I didn't need another redundant word salad explaining the dynamics of political attacks. For the fourth or fifth time, I understand they occur in today's political climate. Understood? Now, just a word of advice: What would shorten our exchanges and save a lot of wasted bandwidth is just saying, "No, I will not answer your questions." Yes, it comes across as moral cowardice, but isn't that a much simpler and direct answer that will save you and I a lot of time?

A few points of clarification: As you know, the focus of my question was whether or not you thought it was good that Republican candidates (not Democrats) should be personally attacking each other with name-calling, personal attacks on the looks of their wives, personal attacks on other family members, suggestions they were pedophiles, etc. I was not seeking a "condemnation" as you call it. If you didn't want to make a moral judgment on whether it's right for an adult to be attacking the looks of another man's wife in public, then I told you just look at it from a "good of the party" standpoint - is it good for the Republican Party that its candidates are attacking each other in that way? As I pointed out, Dems don't do it. That being the case, do you think it helps the party and Republican causes when our candidates look like middle school bullies with one another instead of adhering to the 11th Commandment? Or perhaps does it look dysfunctional, petulant and off-putting to the American people?

These are simple yes or no questions. Either you think it's good for the party and for getting the person elected, or you don't. It doesn't require you to take a stand on what's right or wrong (I know, God forbid that someone would ask you that - the temerity!). If you're not going to answer that, then I'd suggest ignoring my email. I don't need another long-winded diatribe on a subject I have not broached.

Thanks in advance, whichever route you choose.

---

Sigh. In politics, political attacks will happen. It's better for the party that they happen in a primary than in a general. It shows voters who can give a good punch and who can take a bad one. If a candidate gets too shrill, that will be punished. If a candidate shows brittleness, that will be punished. We need to know these things, and the primary process is instructive and to your point....self-correcting. If those things which have inflamed you really are that bad, the voters will enforce accountability. It's part of the process.

I am somewhat amused at the latent irony of your position on this. I have not criticized any Republicans here, candidates or supporters. And you will not hear me do so. I'm going to support the nominee, which is likely to be one of the two men framing the context of our discussion. It is very, very possible that BOTH of them will be on the ticket. You can attack one or both of them if you wish. But then, that just illustrates who's really worried about the 11th.

Our bench is pretty deep. I can't think anyone of more classically presidential timber than Mike Pompeo (whom I've met). I don't see a pathway for him to win the primary and I think he'd have issues in the general, but guys like that elevate the process and we can..."dream." Haley I have some policy concerns with, but we could do worse and I'd sleep like a baby with her in control of the nuclear football. I think we'll have a few more jump in. But mostly this is going to be a great big barroom brawl between Trump and DeSantis. It'll be good theater. Clash of the titans. Supporters of the two men *****ing and clawing at each other like you're doing here at me. I'll watch, assess. Make up my mind late. And then offer bandaids and muzzles among the team according to needs. Somebody has to be an adult.....

Most likely outcome remains a Trump/DeSantis ticket, though. So easy on the mead.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra: "These are simple yes or no questions."

Actually, no. Certainly politicians want to frame issues in simple terms, often spinning the presentation in a way to make their opponent look malicious just for questioning them.

But in Reality, things can get more complex.

---

We disagree. The question of whether its right or wrong to criticize a fellow Republican candidate's wife's looks is pretty easy to answer. The question of whether its right or wrong to act like a 7th grade bully is pretty easy to answer. Reasonable adults cannot disagree with that position.

---

What strikes me here, is how you ignore every statement or attack, unless it's from Trump.

Him you hate to such degree that you are willing to exaggerate an offense in order to go after him.

And as much as I respect Ronald Reagan, Commandments come from God, not politicians.

---

Respectfully, you're speaking from a place of complete and total ignorance. You have no clue what you're talking about. I have regularly defended Trump from unfair attacks from Democrats, the media and Never Trumpers for the last 4+ years. Your post is just idiotic, ignoring years of my posting history. Who knows maybe you see my name on the post and just ignore it. Whatever it is, you're glib.

You seem to have a reflexive reaction to any critique of Trump. It's rather odd.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Again, you are working too hard to avoid dealing with the world as it is. A political attack is a good idea if it moves the needle positively, and a bad idea if it doesn't. And in the real world of campaigns, attacks almost axiomatically move the needle both positively and negatively. Campaigns know that and have to decide if the gain on one side of the equation outweighs the offset on the other. Unpopular incumbents in particular live in a world of such choices....they willingly turn races into mudfests to the point of actually depressing turnout in key demographics (because their models show they can only win a low-turnout race.) They actually WANT to make independents get disgusted and stay home. Obama did it brilliantly. He won, despite popularity rates below Trump's current level. (which should be a warning to those who are convinced who can/cannot win the 2024 election....anything is possible.....) This last cycle, Democrats spent millions calling you and me a threat to democracy. What point is served talking about whether it was right or fair for them to have done so? It worked...it improved their outcome beyond what any reasonable analysis indicated it should have been. (and it gave you a platform to blame Trump, so indirectly, you benefited from it as well....)

I'm not going to worry a nanosecond about your concerns. You shouldn't either. The voters speak on these things. They hold elected officials accountable for the campaigns they run. When I see a campaign attack that raises my eyebrow, I don't get all huffy and threaten to sit out an election. I watch. Assess. Ask why they did that...what am I missing.....what angle are they working...how will voters respond.....? I try to learn what was the calculation behind it. Normally, it's not terribly hard to figure out what the campaigns are attempting to accomplish. That picture of RDS that offended you so.....by any measure a pretty gentle tap in the realm of campaign attacks. The purpose, obvious. And explained to you. Didn't bother me a bit. Shouldn't bother any mature adult. It's politics. Get over it. If you don't, you'll just get all huffy and miss the underlying dynamics really at play in the race.

Let me say this again, more pointedly. The person trying to force you to condemn something is preening their own vanity, at your expense. Stay away from people like that. They are bad news.

---

I didn't need another redundant word salad explaining the dynamics of political attacks. For the fourth or fifth time, I understand they occur in today's political climate. Understood? Now, just a word of advice: What would shorten our exchanges and save a lot of wasted bandwidth is just saying, "No, I will not answer your questions." Yes, it comes across as moral cowardice, but isn't that a much simpler and direct answer that will save you and I a lot of time?

A few points of clarification: As you know, the focus of my question was whether or not you thought it was good that Republican candidates (not Democrats) should be personally attacking each other with name-calling, personal attacks on the looks of their wives, personal attacks on other family members, suggestions they were pedophiles, etc. I was not seeking a "condemnation" as you call it. If you didn't want to make a moral judgment on whether it's right for an adult to be attacking the looks of another man's wife in public, then I told you just look at it from a "good of the party" standpoint - is it good for the Republican Party that its candidates are attacking each other in that way? As I pointed out, Dems don't do it. That being the case, do you think it helps the party and Republican causes when our candidates look like middle school bullies with one another instead of adhering to the 11th Commandment? Or perhaps does it look dysfunctional, petulant and off-putting to the American people?

These are simple yes or no questions. Either you think it's good for the party and for getting the person elected, or you don't. It doesn't require you to take a stand on what's right or wrong (I know, God forbid that someone would ask you that - the temerity!). If you're not going to answer that, then I'd suggest ignoring my email. I don't need another long-winded diatribe on a subject I have not broached.

Thanks in advance, whichever route you choose.

---

Sigh. In politics, political attacks will happen. It's better for the party that they happen in a primary than in a general. It shows voters who can give a good punch and who can take a bad one. If a candidate gets too shrill, that will be punished. If a candidate shows brittleness, that will be punished. We need to know these things, and the primary process is instructive and to your point....self-correcting. If those things which have inflamed you really are that bad, the voters will enforce accountability. It's part of the process.

I am somewhat amused at the latent irony of your position on this. I have not criticized any Republicans here, candidates or supporters. And you will not hear me do so. I'm going to support the nominee, which is likely to be one of the two men framing the context of our discussion. It is very, very possible that BOTH of them will be on the ticket. You can attack one or both of them if you wish. But then, that just illustrates who's really worried about the 11th.

Our bench is pretty deep. I can't think anyone of more classically presidential timber than Mike Pompeo (whom I've met). I don't see a pathway for him to win the primary and I think he'd have issues in the general, but guys like that elevate the process and we can..."dream." Haley I have some policy concerns with, but we could do worse and I'd sleep like a baby with her in control of the nuclear football. I think we'll have a few more jump in. But mostly this is going to be a great big barroom brawl between Trump and DeSantis. It'll be good theater. Clash of the titans. Supporters of the two men *****ing and clawing at each other like you're doing here at me. I'll watch, assess. Make up my mind late. And then offer bandaids and muzzles among the team according to needs. Somebody has to be an adult.....

Most likely outcome remains a Trump/DeSantis ticket, though. So easy on the mead.

---

More word salad and diversion. Again, just take my advice and instead of wasting any more bandwidth with inane and irrelevant commentary, tell me you wont answer.

Like the last 2 years of elections, you'll be wrong about 2024 as well. It wont be Trump and DeSantis. And if it's Trump, we will lose. Wait and see.

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

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.

.

---

Again, you are buying what Trump's lies tell you. Firstly, yes, Trump is a POS. That cannot be denied. His energy policies were flawed. He drained the SPR with no plan to replace. He did that to get gasoline prices down before the election. I do not like his isolationist policies. Trump is a POS. Would you like your father to be like Trump? Would you like your kids to emulate Trump. I rest my case. POS

---

your case is weak and more flawed than Trump..

His energy policies cost big oil money(you). He tried to replace the SPR but your buddies in Congress said no, of course Biden proceeded to do the same thing prior to the 2022 election and you cool with that.. big money coming when they have to replace it at 10 times or more what Trump was trying to buy it at

His "isolationist" policies created lowest US unemployment in decades. Households across the board were better off except those that were high wage earners. You know, what democrats always claim they want but really dont..

Look to the bias of the man making the argument and find the truth.

An individually flawed man made millions of American lives better. The current president cannot claim that.

---

please get your facts straight. He drained the SPR to get gasoline prices down to win his failed election with NO plan to replenish. The reason Congress said NO was that Trump, just like his business dealings wanted us to replenish at 70 cents on the dollar. Eff that Trump. You will pay market. We ain't HVAC contractors in one of your branded buildings which you dont own. We don't play that crap. Yeah he did make lives better while telling JOE Q P that Covid could be cured by shooting up bleach and the rest of the witch dr. ***** Ask the dead people if he made life better. get a clue bro. totally failed.

J.R. said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

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.

.

---

Again, you are buying what Trump's lies tell you. Firstly, yes, Trump is a POS. That cannot be denied. His energy policies were flawed. He drained the SPR with no plan to replace. He did that to get gasoline prices down before the election. I do not like his isolationist policies. Trump is a POS. Would you like your father to be like Trump? Would you like your kids to emulate Trump. I rest my case. POS

---

your case is weak and more flawed than Trump..

His energy policies cost big oil money(you). He tried to replace the SPR but your buddies in Congress said no, of course Biden proceeded to do the same thing prior to the 2022 election and you cool with that.. big money coming when they have to replace it at 10 times or more what Trump was trying to buy it at

His "isolationist" policies created lowest US unemployment in decades. Households across the board were better off except those that were high wage earners. You know, what democrats always claim they want but really dont..

Look to the bias of the man making the argument and find the truth.

An individually flawed man made millions of American lives better. The current president cannot claim that.

---

please get your facts straight. He drained the SPR to get gasoline prices down to win his failed election with NO plan to replenish. The reason Congress said NO was that Trump, just like his business dealings wanted us to replenish at 70 cents on the dollar. Eff that Trump. You will pay market. We ain't HVAC contractors in one of your branded buildings which you dont own. We don't play that crap. Yeah he did make lives better while telling JOE Q P that Covid could be cured by shooting up bleach and the rest of the witch dr. ***** Ask the dead people if he made life better. get a clue bro. totally failed.

---

He drained the SPR with no plan to replenish- He = Biden. Trump had a plan.

us = big oil(you) he didnt have a plan replenish and the plan be didnt have "we" didnt like!(we = big oil and democrats cant give Trump a win) Seems legit.

Shooting up bleach = made up media outrage. HCQ and Ivermectin work, ask a real doctor who treated 1000+ covid patients with only 1 death(this patient was already a week into infection before seeking treatment). They are a member of this site.

My facts are fine, you ok?

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Again, you are working too hard to avoid dealing with the world as it is. A political attack is a good idea if it moves the needle positively, and a bad idea if it doesn't. And in the real world of campaigns, attacks almost axiomatically move the needle both positively and negatively. Campaigns know that and have to decide if the gain on one side of the equation outweighs the offset on the other. Unpopular incumbents in particular live in a world of such choices....they willingly turn races into mudfests to the point of actually depressing turnout in key demographics (because their models show they can only win a low-turnout race.) They actually WANT to make independents get disgusted and stay home. Obama did it brilliantly. He won, despite popularity rates below Trump's current level. (which should be a warning to those who are convinced who can/cannot win the 2024 election....anything is possible.....) This last cycle, Democrats spent millions calling you and me a threat to democracy. What point is served talking about whether it was right or fair for them to have done so? It worked...it improved their outcome beyond what any reasonable analysis indicated it should have been. (and it gave you a platform to blame Trump, so indirectly, you benefited from it as well....)

I'm not going to worry a nanosecond about your concerns. You shouldn't either. The voters speak on these things. They hold elected officials accountable for the campaigns they run. When I see a campaign attack that raises my eyebrow, I don't get all huffy and threaten to sit out an election. I watch. Assess. Ask why they did that...what am I missing.....what angle are they working...how will voters respond.....? I try to learn what was the calculation behind it. Normally, it's not terribly hard to figure out what the campaigns are attempting to accomplish. That picture of RDS that offended you so.....by any measure a pretty gentle tap in the realm of campaign attacks. The purpose, obvious. And explained to you. Didn't bother me a bit. Shouldn't bother any mature adult. It's politics. Get over it. If you don't, you'll just get all huffy and miss the underlying dynamics really at play in the race.

Let me say this again, more pointedly. The person trying to force you to condemn something is preening their own vanity, at your expense. Stay away from people like that. They are bad news.

---

I didn't need another redundant word salad explaining the dynamics of political attacks. For the fourth or fifth time, I understand they occur in today's political climate. Understood? Now, just a word of advice: What would shorten our exchanges and save a lot of wasted bandwidth is just saying, "No, I will not answer your questions." Yes, it comes across as moral cowardice, but isn't that a much simpler and direct answer that will save you and I a lot of time?

A few points of clarification: As you know, the focus of my question was whether or not you thought it was good that Republican candidates (not Democrats) should be personally attacking each other with name-calling, personal attacks on the looks of their wives, personal attacks on other family members, suggestions they were pedophiles, etc. I was not seeking a "condemnation" as you call it. If you didn't want to make a moral judgment on whether it's right for an adult to be attacking the looks of another man's wife in public, then I told you just look at it from a "good of the party" standpoint - is it good for the Republican Party that its candidates are attacking each other in that way? As I pointed out, Dems don't do it. That being the case, do you think it helps the party and Republican causes when our candidates look like middle school bullies with one another instead of adhering to the 11th Commandment? Or perhaps does it look dysfunctional, petulant and off-putting to the American people?

These are simple yes or no questions. Either you think it's good for the party and for getting the person elected, or you don't. It doesn't require you to take a stand on what's right or wrong (I know, God forbid that someone would ask you that - the temerity!). If you're not going to answer that, then I'd suggest ignoring my email. I don't need another long-winded diatribe on a subject I have not broached.

Thanks in advance, whichever route you choose.

---

Sigh. In politics, political attacks will happen. It's better for the party that they happen in a primary than in a general. It shows voters who can give a good punch and who can take a bad one. If a candidate gets too shrill, that will be punished. If a candidate shows brittleness, that will be punished. We need to know these things, and the primary process is instructive and to your point....self-correcting. If those things which have inflamed you really are that bad, the voters will enforce accountability. It's part of the process.

I am somewhat amused at the latent irony of your position on this. I have not criticized any Republicans here, candidates or supporters. And you will not hear me do so. I'm going to support the nominee, which is likely to be one of the two men framing the context of our discussion. It is very, very possible that BOTH of them will be on the ticket. You can attack one or both of them if you wish. But then, that just illustrates who's really worried about the 11th.

Our bench is pretty deep. I can't think anyone of more classically presidential timber than Mike Pompeo (whom I've met). I don't see a pathway for him to win the primary and I think he'd have issues in the general, but guys like that elevate the process and we can..."dream." Haley I have some policy concerns with, but we could do worse and I'd sleep like a baby with her in control of the nuclear football. I think we'll have a few more jump in. But mostly this is going to be a great big barroom brawl between Trump and DeSantis. It'll be good theater. Clash of the titans. Supporters of the two men *****ing and clawing at each other like you're doing here at me. I'll watch, assess. Make up my mind late. And then offer bandaids and muzzles among the team according to needs. Somebody has to be an adult.....

Most likely outcome remains a Trump/DeSantis ticket, though. So easy on the mead.

---

More word salad and diversion. Again, just take my advice and instead of wasting any more bandwidth with inane and irrelevant commentary, tell me you wont answer.

Like the last 2 years of elections, you'll be wrong about 2024 as well. It wont be Trump and DeSantis. And if it's Trump, we will lose. Wait and see.

---

Well I'm not going to to virtue posture with you, if that's what you're hoping to achieve. Politics is a very bad place to go looking for virtue. As a general rule, don't trust people who do that. They inevitably get frustrated, lash out, and do very destructive things. The neverTrumpers are a great example. It's all about THEM.

Your analysis is seriously premature. With it increasingly looking like two very unpopular nominees at the top of the two major party tickets, both sides are running war games on how to use 3rd party candidates to tip the scales. I'd be a little surprised if we don't have some that matter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-newest-political-party-on-the-ballot-in-three-states-has-democrats-terrified

Will be a very interesting election. You can learn a lot, as long as you don't indulge in the vanity that you already know everything.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra: "These are simple yes or no questions."

Actually, no. Certainly politicians want to frame issues in simple terms, often spinning the presentation in a way to make their opponent look malicious just for questioning them.

But in Reality, things can get more complex.

---

We disagree. The question of whether its right or wrong to criticize a fellow Republican candidate's wife's looks is pretty easy to answer. The question of whether its right or wrong to act like a 7th grade bully is pretty easy to answer. Reasonable adults cannot disagree with that position.

---

What strikes me here, is how you ignore every statement or attack, unless it's from Trump.

Him you hate to such degree that you are willing to exaggerate an offense in order to go after him.

And as much as I respect Ronald Reagan, Commandments come from God, not politicians.

---

Respectfully, you're speaking from a place of complete and total ignorance. You have no clue what you're talking about. I have regularly defended Trump from unfair attacks from Democrats, the media and Never Trumpers for the last 4+ years. Your post is just idiotic, ignoring years of my posting history. Who knows maybe you see my name on the post and just ignore it. Whatever it is, you're glib.

You seem to have a reflexive reaction to any critique of Trump. It's rather odd.

---

Your favorite phrase of late is "word salad"; shall I use that to describe your garbage post above?

A reasonable man might consider how his posts are being seen that they leave the impression your do.

Instead, you are full-blown virtue signaling and rallying up a mob to lynch Trump for the presumption of defending his record.

And - yet again - I say this as someone who does not want Trump for 2024. But you have to win over his supporters if you want to win in November 2024. Seems all you can do is insult and pick fights.

That's what I am warning you about.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra: "These are simple yes or no questions."

Actually, no. Certainly politicians want to frame issues in simple terms, often spinning the presentation in a way to make their opponent look malicious just for questioning them.

But in Reality, things can get more complex.

---

We disagree. The question of whether its right or wrong to criticize a fellow Republican candidate's wife's looks is pretty easy to answer. The question of whether its right or wrong to act like a 7th grade bully is pretty easy to answer. Reasonable adults cannot disagree with that position.

---

What strikes me here, is how you ignore every statement or attack, unless it's from Trump.

Him you hate to such degree that you are willing to exaggerate an offense in order to go after him.

And as much as I respect Ronald Reagan, Commandments come from God, not politicians.

---

Respectfully, you're speaking from a place of complete and total ignorance. You have no clue what you're talking about. I have regularly defended Trump from unfair attacks from Democrats, the media and Never Trumpers for the last 4+ years. Your post is just idiotic, ignoring years of my posting history. Who knows maybe you see my name on the post and just ignore it. Whatever it is, you're glib.

You seem to have a reflexive reaction to any critique of Trump. It's rather odd.

---

Your favorite phrase of late is "word salad"; shall I use that to describe your garbage post above?

A reasonable man might consider how his posts are being seen that they leave the impression your do.

Instead, you are full-blown virtue signaling and rallying up a mob to lynch Trump for the presumption of defending his record.

And - yet again - I say this as someone who does not want Trump for 2024. But you have to win over his supporters if you want to win in November 2024. Seems all you can do is insult and pick fights.

That's what I am warning you about.

---

So saying it's wrong for Trump to engage in mean-spirited personal attacks on other Republican candidates and the looks of their wives is "virtue signaling" and "rallying up a mob to lynch Trump."

Incredible.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Again, you are working too hard to avoid dealing with the world as it is. A political attack is a good idea if it moves the needle positively, and a bad idea if it doesn't. And in the real world of campaigns, attacks almost axiomatically move the needle both positively and negatively. Campaigns know that and have to decide if the gain on one side of the equation outweighs the offset on the other. Unpopular incumbents in particular live in a world of such choices....they willingly turn races into mudfests to the point of actually depressing turnout in key demographics (because their models show they can only win a low-turnout race.) They actually WANT to make independents get disgusted and stay home. Obama did it brilliantly. He won, despite popularity rates below Trump's current level. (which should be a warning to those who are convinced who can/cannot win the 2024 election....anything is possible.....) This last cycle, Democrats spent millions calling you and me a threat to democracy. What point is served talking about whether it was right or fair for them to have done so? It worked...it improved their outcome beyond what any reasonable analysis indicated it should have been. (and it gave you a platform to blame Trump, so indirectly, you benefited from it as well....)

I'm not going to worry a nanosecond about your concerns. You shouldn't either. The voters speak on these things. They hold elected officials accountable for the campaigns they run. When I see a campaign attack that raises my eyebrow, I don't get all huffy and threaten to sit out an election. I watch. Assess. Ask why they did that...what am I missing.....what angle are they working...how will voters respond.....? I try to learn what was the calculation behind it. Normally, it's not terribly hard to figure out what the campaigns are attempting to accomplish. That picture of RDS that offended you so.....by any measure a pretty gentle tap in the realm of campaign attacks. The purpose, obvious. And explained to you. Didn't bother me a bit. Shouldn't bother any mature adult. It's politics. Get over it. If you don't, you'll just get all huffy and miss the underlying dynamics really at play in the race.

Let me say this again, more pointedly. The person trying to force you to condemn something is preening their own vanity, at your expense. Stay away from people like that. They are bad news.

---

I didn't need another redundant word salad explaining the dynamics of political attacks. For the fourth or fifth time, I understand they occur in today's political climate. Understood? Now, just a word of advice: What would shorten our exchanges and save a lot of wasted bandwidth is just saying, "No, I will not answer your questions." Yes, it comes across as moral cowardice, but isn't that a much simpler and direct answer that will save you and I a lot of time?

A few points of clarification: As you know, the focus of my question was whether or not you thought it was good that Republican candidates (not Democrats) should be personally attacking each other with name-calling, personal attacks on the looks of their wives, personal attacks on other family members, suggestions they were pedophiles, etc. I was not seeking a "condemnation" as you call it. If you didn't want to make a moral judgment on whether it's right for an adult to be attacking the looks of another man's wife in public, then I told you just look at it from a "good of the party" standpoint - is it good for the Republican Party that its candidates are attacking each other in that way? As I pointed out, Dems don't do it. That being the case, do you think it helps the party and Republican causes when our candidates look like middle school bullies with one another instead of adhering to the 11th Commandment? Or perhaps does it look dysfunctional, petulant and off-putting to the American people?

These are simple yes or no questions. Either you think it's good for the party and for getting the person elected, or you don't. It doesn't require you to take a stand on what's right or wrong (I know, God forbid that someone would ask you that - the temerity!). If you're not going to answer that, then I'd suggest ignoring my email. I don't need another long-winded diatribe on a subject I have not broached.

Thanks in advance, whichever route you choose.

---

Sigh. In politics, political attacks will happen. It's better for the party that they happen in a primary than in a general. It shows voters who can give a good punch and who can take a bad one. If a candidate gets too shrill, that will be punished. If a candidate shows brittleness, that will be punished. We need to know these things, and the primary process is instructive and to your point....self-correcting. If those things which have inflamed you really are that bad, the voters will enforce accountability. It's part of the process.

I am somewhat amused at the latent irony of your position on this. I have not criticized any Republicans here, candidates or supporters. And you will not hear me do so. I'm going to support the nominee, which is likely to be one of the two men framing the context of our discussion. It is very, very possible that BOTH of them will be on the ticket. You can attack one or both of them if you wish. But then, that just illustrates who's really worried about the 11th.

Our bench is pretty deep. I can't think anyone of more classically presidential timber than Mike Pompeo (whom I've met). I don't see a pathway for him to win the primary and I think he'd have issues in the general, but guys like that elevate the process and we can..."dream." Haley I have some policy concerns with, but we could do worse and I'd sleep like a baby with her in control of the nuclear football. I think we'll have a few more jump in. But mostly this is going to be a great big barroom brawl between Trump and DeSantis. It'll be good theater. Clash of the titans. Supporters of the two men *****ing and clawing at each other like you're doing here at me. I'll watch, assess. Make up my mind late. And then offer bandaids and muzzles among the team according to needs. Somebody has to be an adult.....

Most likely outcome remains a Trump/DeSantis ticket, though. So easy on the mead.

---

More word salad and diversion. Again, just take my advice and instead of wasting any more bandwidth with inane and irrelevant commentary, tell me you wont answer.

Like the last 2 years of elections, you'll be wrong about 2024 as well. It wont be Trump and DeSantis. And if it's Trump, we will lose. Wait and see.

---

Well I'm not going to to virtue posture with you, if that's what you're hoping to achieve. Politics is a very bad place to go looking for virtue. As a general rule, don't trust people who do that. They inevitably get frustrated, lash out, and do very destructive things. The neverTrumpers are a great example. It's all about THEM.

Your analysis is seriously premature. With it increasingly looking like two very unpopular nominees at the top of the two major party tickets, both sides are running war games on how to use 3rd party candidates to tip the scales. I'd be a little surprised if we don't have some that matter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-newest-political-party-on-the-ballot-in-three-states-has-democrats-terrified

Will be a very interesting election. You can learn a lot, as long as you don't indulge in the vanity that you already know everything.

---

Didn't ask you to virtue poster. This isn't a trick question or an attempt to play gotcha. The only thing I am attempting is to find out whether you believe any personal attack by Trump on other Republican candidates is wrong or off limits.

It appears I have my answer: no. It's all good as long as it helps him in the polls. And that's a sad commentary of the current state of our party.

We are all going to be disappointed on election night if Trump is the nominee. Wait and see.

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Again, you are working too hard to avoid dealing with the world as it is. A political attack is a good idea if it moves the needle positively, and a bad idea if it doesn't. And in the real world of campaigns, attacks almost axiomatically move the needle both positively and negatively. Campaigns know that and have to decide if the gain on one side of the equation outweighs the offset on the other. Unpopular incumbents in particular live in a world of such choices....they willingly turn races into mudfests to the point of actually depressing turnout in key demographics (because their models show they can only win a low-turnout race.) They actually WANT to make independents get disgusted and stay home. Obama did it brilliantly. He won, despite popularity rates below Trump's current level. (which should be a warning to those who are convinced who can/cannot win the 2024 election....anything is possible.....) This last cycle, Democrats spent millions calling you and me a threat to democracy. What point is served talking about whether it was right or fair for them to have done so? It worked...it improved their outcome beyond what any reasonable analysis indicated it should have been. (and it gave you a platform to blame Trump, so indirectly, you benefited from it as well....)

I'm not going to worry a nanosecond about your concerns. You shouldn't either. The voters speak on these things. They hold elected officials accountable for the campaigns they run. When I see a campaign attack that raises my eyebrow, I don't get all huffy and threaten to sit out an election. I watch. Assess. Ask why they did that...what am I missing.....what angle are they working...how will voters respond.....? I try to learn what was the calculation behind it. Normally, it's not terribly hard to figure out what the campaigns are attempting to accomplish. That picture of RDS that offended you so.....by any measure a pretty gentle tap in the realm of campaign attacks. The purpose, obvious. And explained to you. Didn't bother me a bit. Shouldn't bother any mature adult. It's politics. Get over it. If you don't, you'll just get all huffy and miss the underlying dynamics really at play in the race.

Let me say this again, more pointedly. The person trying to force you to condemn something is preening their own vanity, at your expense. Stay away from people like that. They are bad news.

---

I didn't need another redundant word salad explaining the dynamics of political attacks. For the fourth or fifth time, I understand they occur in today's political climate. Understood? Now, just a word of advice: What would shorten our exchanges and save a lot of wasted bandwidth is just saying, "No, I will not answer your questions." Yes, it comes across as moral cowardice, but isn't that a much simpler and direct answer that will save you and I a lot of time?

A few points of clarification: As you know, the focus of my question was whether or not you thought it was good that Republican candidates (not Democrats) should be personally attacking each other with name-calling, personal attacks on the looks of their wives, personal attacks on other family members, suggestions they were pedophiles, etc. I was not seeking a "condemnation" as you call it. If you didn't want to make a moral judgment on whether it's right for an adult to be attacking the looks of another man's wife in public, then I told you just look at it from a "good of the party" standpoint - is it good for the Republican Party that its candidates are attacking each other in that way? As I pointed out, Dems don't do it. That being the case, do you think it helps the party and Republican causes when our candidates look like middle school bullies with one another instead of adhering to the 11th Commandment? Or perhaps does it look dysfunctional, petulant and off-putting to the American people?

These are simple yes or no questions. Either you think it's good for the party and for getting the person elected, or you don't. It doesn't require you to take a stand on what's right or wrong (I know, God forbid that someone would ask you that - the temerity!). If you're not going to answer that, then I'd suggest ignoring my email. I don't need another long-winded diatribe on a subject I have not broached.

Thanks in advance, whichever route you choose.

---

Sigh. In politics, political attacks will happen. It's better for the party that they happen in a primary than in a general. It shows voters who can give a good punch and who can take a bad one. If a candidate gets too shrill, that will be punished. If a candidate shows brittleness, that will be punished. We need to know these things, and the primary process is instructive and to your point....self-correcting. If those things which have inflamed you really are that bad, the voters will enforce accountability. It's part of the process.

I am somewhat amused at the latent irony of your position on this. I have not criticized any Republicans here, candidates or supporters. And you will not hear me do so. I'm going to support the nominee, which is likely to be one of the two men framing the context of our discussion. It is very, very possible that BOTH of them will be on the ticket. You can attack one or both of them if you wish. But then, that just illustrates who's really worried about the 11th.

Our bench is pretty deep. I can't think anyone of more classically presidential timber than Mike Pompeo (whom I've met). I don't see a pathway for him to win the primary and I think he'd have issues in the general, but guys like that elevate the process and we can..."dream." Haley I have some policy concerns with, but we could do worse and I'd sleep like a baby with her in control of the nuclear football. I think we'll have a few more jump in. But mostly this is going to be a great big barroom brawl between Trump and DeSantis. It'll be good theater. Clash of the titans. Supporters of the two men *****ing and clawing at each other like you're doing here at me. I'll watch, assess. Make up my mind late. And then offer bandaids and muzzles among the team according to needs. Somebody has to be an adult.....

Most likely outcome remains a Trump/DeSantis ticket, though. So easy on the mead.

---

More word salad and diversion. Again, just take my advice and instead of wasting any more bandwidth with inane and irrelevant commentary, tell me you wont answer.

Like the last 2 years of elections, you'll be wrong about 2024 as well. It wont be Trump and DeSantis. And if it's Trump, we will lose. Wait and see.

---

Well I'm not going to to virtue posture with you, if that's what you're hoping to achieve. Politics is a very bad place to go looking for virtue. As a general rule, don't trust people who do that. They inevitably get frustrated, lash out, and do very destructive things. The neverTrumpers are a great example. It's all about THEM.

Your analysis is seriously premature. With it increasingly looking like two very unpopular nominees at the top of the two major party tickets, both sides are running war games on how to use 3rd party candidates to tip the scales. I'd be a little surprised if we don't have some that matter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-newest-political-party-on-the-ballot-in-three-states-has-democrats-terrified

Will be a very interesting election. You can learn a lot, as long as you don't indulge in the vanity that you already know everything.

---

DeSantis WILL NOT take the position of Trump's VP. Mark my words. It is not in his personality. He will go the Reagan route, not be someone's, especially Trump's VP.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Whatever he decides, it will not be because of his personality, ego, or any of that. It will be solely about what he calculates to be most likely to result in his eventual inauguration as President of the United States.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

That said, things change. Trump sagged after the mid-terms because he was unprepared for the outcome, and caught flat-footed by Establishment GOP spin on same. Then, as I predicted, a number of things turned and ran in his favor:
--he was for much of the last 5 months the only declared candidate
--no one else was raising/spending monies.
--building bot operations on social media, moving toward voter harvesting, etc..... a growing campaign creates energy all its own.
--with elections in the past, current events take over, and Dems have terrible positions on issues.
--etc......

So now, Trump is hovering in the 60% support range. If the primary were held to day, it's over. He's the nominee. But the election is not today. And in about 10 weeks or so, RDS will jump into the race. That will suck off a lot of oxygen. I think we can expect the fundraising narrative to turn against Trump (donor class appears to be mostly all in for RDS). And RDS will have a luminous list of surrogates across the country singing his praises and barbing Trump. So I would suspect to see a dramatic tightening of the polling in the July-August timeframe. (ergo my prior comments about RDS being in a stronger position than current polling suggests).

Trump will not be an easy out. To pull into parity, to make it a true horserace, RDS needs to win at least one early primary state, so watch the polling in IA, NH, and SC. NH at the moment appears out of reach, a stunning +41 for Trump in a recent poll. Haley will hurt RDS in SC, if she's still in the race. (What kind of deal would she be willing to make to ensure the state goes for RDS? An RDS/Haley tickey would be pretty solid, would it not?)

IA will be instructive for RDS. I know a mega-donor who has already switched from Trump to RDS. This donor admits RDS has a likeability issue.....his idle position is just not warm, and when he goes into issues he gets a little preachy. (it is the genesis of the nickname Trump has given RDS - "DeSanctimonious.") It clearly didn't hurt RDS in FL. But how will it play in IA, NH, SC, eieio where he will have to press flesh? Running for national office is a lot harder than running for state office. RDS will have to grow to meet the challenge. I see no reason to conclude he can't or won't. But he has a long and steep climb ahead, and he has to make it all the way to the top. Until he does, it's all uphill......

I'm not worried about 2024. We can win. About the only thing we can do to screw it up is conclude there is only one way to win and throw up our hands & pout if we don't our first choice.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

What is it you want me to respond to again? Your position that my posts are "garbage"? Or that I am merely "virtue signaling" and "rallying up a mob to lynch Trump."? Do you feel you haven't received a substantive response to those two unfounded, incendiary attacks? If so, my apologies, sir. Please allow me to address them with the same level of, ahem, "respect" that you've shown me:

1) While I always welcome your constructive criticism, I disagree that my posts are garbage. But of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

2) Virtue signaling is the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience. My posts about Trump's mean-spirited personal attacks were not an attempt to demonstrate my good character, nor were they an attempt to improve my reputation on this board. In fact, I knew that people such as yourself would be chomping at the bit to attack me for my criticisms of Trump. Instead, I brought them up for two reasons:

a) As previously explained, I believe mean-spirited personal attacks on fellow Republicans only help the Democrats get elected. They make an individual who already has trouble behaving like an adult look like a petty bully, and that's off-putting to a number of Americans. And they also damage the party - something that Trump has demonstrated no aversion to while he held office. Constantly attacking people who play for the same team only erodes support for Republican candidates.

b) More importantly, mean-spirited attacks on fellow Republicans' wives and families are wrong.

Of course, as you know, I've already said these things, only for you to continue to accuse me of baseless accusations of virtue signaling and rallying a mob to attack Trump, which are absurd.

In my humble opinion, it appears to me that you are afraid of calling out anything he has done wrong for fear of offending his legion of followers, who you have repeatedly pointed out we need to get a Republican elected. I would respectfully submit that is moral cowardice. We should call out someone who is hurting both his own chances and his party's chances of getting elected. Letting him engage in unchecked self-destructive behavior will not win anything in 2024. If 2020 has proven anything, we need more than just his sycophants to vote Republican in order to win a national election.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

---

This is a simplistic and flawed analysis. Saying Trump's strategy is working merely because he's up in the polls doesn't account for a myriad of factors that have contributed to his polling numbers. You point some of them out later in your post - being one of only 3 candidates thus far.

Perhaps Trump would be doing even better in the polls if he were able to control his worse impulses. We saw many Republicans come out against him when he began the personal attacks on DeSantis. Perhaps his numbers would be higher than the 60's if he had been able to control his tongue.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

---

This is a simplistic and flawed analysis. Saying Trump's strategy is working merely because he's up in the polls doesn't account for a myriad of factors that have contributed to his polling numbers. You point some of them out later in your post - being one of only 3 candidates thus far.

Perhaps Trump would be doing even better in the polls if he were able to control his worse impulses. We saw many Republicans come out against him when he began the personal attacks on DeSantis. Perhaps his numbers would be higher than the 60's if he had been able to control his tongue.

---

Well, sure, if he'd done a thing or three differently, he might be in the 70's instead of the 60's, but he was putting up some numbers in the 30's only 90 days ago, so it's quite a remarkable improvement by any measure and it's hardly flawed or simplistic to note that numbers in the 60's are good enough to win.....

More importantly, it's not like those 20-30 points of gain are from people who have not seen what you and I have seen. Most of them know RDS, have seen RDS. And I doubt many of them dislike RDS. So what would cause them to return to Trump? Why is what Trump is doing working? There are many, many basic questions you refuse to ask & answer......foremost among which is that it is patently apparent that very few people see the campaign Trump has run thus far as terribly negative.

One key element that will start to form up this summer is the age-old tension between establishment & base. GOP establishment is firmly anti-Trump, and its support will flow like quicksilver to RDS. That is not a bad thing. One needs all the support one can get when attempting to knock of the leader of the party. But that flow of support is not opaque....the grassroots will see it. There is a lot of available talent with resumes built in establishment circles. RDS will have to hire it. That will confirm to many that RDS is in fact a trojan horse for the establishment. He's not that at all, but the grassroots vs establishment skirmishing is almost ritual battle The trenches and trebuchets never leave the battlefield. They just get re-manned every 2 years. So get ready for it. Trump will try to saddle RDS as owned-by-establishment and it will be interesting to see how RDS rebuts & maneuvers.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

---

This is a simplistic and flawed analysis. Saying Trump's strategy is working merely because he's up in the polls doesn't account for a myriad of factors that have contributed to his polling numbers. You point some of them out later in your post - being one of only 3 candidates thus far.

Perhaps Trump would be doing even better in the polls if he were able to control his worse impulses. We saw many Republicans come out against him when he began the personal attacks on DeSantis. Perhaps his numbers would be higher than the 60's if he had been able to control his tongue.

---

Well, sure, if he'd done a thing or three differently, he might be in the 70's instead of the 60's, but he was putting up some numbers in the 30's only 90 days ago, so it's quite a remarkable improvement by any measure and it's hardly flawed or simplistic to note that numbers in the 60's are good enough to win.....

More importantly, it's not like those 20-30 points of gain are from people who have not seen what you and I have seen. Most of them know RDS, have seen RDS. And I doubt many of them dislike RDS. So what would cause them to return to Trump? Why is what Trump is doing working? There are many, many basic questions you refuse to ask & answer......foremost among which is that it is patently apparent that very few people see the campaign Trump has run thus far as terribly negative.

One key element that will start to form up this summer is the age-old tension between establishment & base. GOP establishment is firmly anti-Trump, and its support will flow like quicksilver to RDS. That is not a bad thing. One needs all the support one can get when attempting to knock of the leader of the party. But that flow of support is not opaque....the grassroots will see it. There is a lot of available talent with resumes built in establishment circles. RDS will have to hire it. That will confirm to many that RDS is in fact a trojan horse for the establishment. He's not that at all, but the grassroots vs establishment skirmishing is almost ritual battle The trenches and trebuchets never leave the battlefield. They just get re-manned every 2 years. So get ready for it. Trump will try to saddle RDS as owned-by-establishment and it will be interesting to see how RDS rebuts & maneuvers.

---

Trump's unfavorability rating remains above 52%, and his favorability rating remains hovering around 42%. So there's been a difference of around 2% in the last month (it was 40% about a month ago). Trump saw those numbers dip when he was in the midst of attacking DeSantis. Interestingly, he's quieted down a bit since then. In fact, we've heard little from him reported in the media. Could it be possible that people don't have as much of a visceral and negative reaction to him when he's not being an *******? Perhaps. So it's possible it's what he hasn't done that has improved his favorability rating - slightly of course.

Of course, when things start heating up again, we'll undoubtedly see the candidate who is unable to control his worse impulses. I have no doubt you are correct, the nasty, petulant little bully will undoubtedly return. And in the **** slinging that ensures, we will most likely see those ratings go back down. Oh sure, he will still have his sycophants who think he can do no wrong who will continue to support him and vote for him no matter what, and it will most likely lead to another nomination for him (and a loss in the general election).

And so the cycle of losing will continue.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

---

This is a simplistic and flawed analysis. Saying Trump's strategy is working merely because he's up in the polls doesn't account for a myriad of factors that have contributed to his polling numbers. You point some of them out later in your post - being one of only 3 candidates thus far.

Perhaps Trump would be doing even better in the polls if he were able to control his worse impulses. We saw many Republicans come out against him when he began the personal attacks on DeSantis. Perhaps his numbers would be higher than the 60's if he had been able to control his tongue.

---

Well, sure, if he'd done a thing or three differently, he might be in the 70's instead of the 60's, but he was putting up some numbers in the 30's only 90 days ago, so it's quite a remarkable improvement by any measure and it's hardly flawed or simplistic to note that numbers in the 60's are good enough to win.....

More importantly, it's not like those 20-30 points of gain are from people who have not seen what you and I have seen. Most of them know RDS, have seen RDS. And I doubt many of them dislike RDS. So what would cause them to return to Trump? Why is what Trump is doing working? There are many, many basic questions you refuse to ask & answer......foremost among which is that it is patently apparent that very few people see the campaign Trump has run thus far as terribly negative.

One key element that will start to form up this summer is the age-old tension between establishment & base. GOP establishment is firmly anti-Trump, and its support will flow like quicksilver to RDS. That is not a bad thing. One needs all the support one can get when attempting to knock of the leader of the party. But that flow of support is not opaque....the grassroots will see it. There is a lot of available talent with resumes built in establishment circles. RDS will have to hire it. That will confirm to many that RDS is in fact a trojan horse for the establishment. He's not that at all, but the grassroots vs establishment skirmishing is almost ritual battle The trenches and trebuchets never leave the battlefield. They just get re-manned every 2 years. So get ready for it. Trump will try to saddle RDS as owned-by-establishment and it will be interesting to see how RDS rebuts & maneuvers.

---

Hey whiterock, you're a professional Republican. If Trump doesn't win the nomination, do you think he will support the Republican nominee?
"Will Donald Trump try to ensure that no Republican wins the White House if the party doesn't nominate him?"
Trump's Third-Party Play in 2024
If he loses the GOP nomination for president, he could make life miserable for Republicans.

At the first Republican presidential debate in 2015, Bret Baier of Fox News opened by asking for a show of hands from candidates who wouldn't promise to support the GOP nominee. Only Donald Trump raised his hand. Mr. Baier pressed him, asking if he understood that an independent run would almost certainly deliver the race to the Democrat.

"I will not make the pledge at this time," Mr. Trump confirmed.
That was a threat to the Republican Party then. It's a greater threat today. And it speaks to the unique challenge faced by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2024.
At this moment Mr. DeSantis trails Mr. Trump 43% to 28.3% in the RealClearPolitics poll average. Not only does Mr. DeSantis have to beat Mr. Trump in the primaries, he has to do it in a way that won't provoke the former president into stalking off and running as a third-party candidate in the general election.
Mr. Trump faces no such inhibition. He's already launched a few broadsides in the governor's direction and tried out some nicknames, although none have stuck. Mr. Trump remains the man to beat, but at the moment Mr. DeSantis appears the Republican likeliest to beat him.
The governor's record in Florida is impressive. He can also argue (and has) that, unlike President Trump, he was re-elected to a second term. Indeed, while the former president lost the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, Gov. DeSantis squeaked by in 2018 but was re-elected last November by 19.4%in the process flipping predominantly Latino Miami-Dade Country.
But Mr. Trump can't be written off. He remains the first choice of a huge chunk of Republican voters, and a crowded field could work for him if it ends up splintering the opposition. The winner-take-all nature of many GOP primaries could help him rack up enough delegates to prevent any challenger from gathering steam.
Even if Mr. DeSantis managed to win the nomination, Mr. Trump might still be able to frustrate his chances. Thin margins in some swing states clearly show that a shift of a few thousand votes in three or four states could mean a different president. The most dramatic example is Florida in 2000.
Florida's official tally shows George W. Bush bested Al Gore by 537 votes out of almost six million cast. Ralph Nader, who ran as the Green Party candidate, got 97,488 votes.
Assuming these Nader voters would have voted for Mr. Gore (far from a given), you can argue Mr. Nader threw the election to Mr. Bush. To add to the intrigue, seven other third-party candidates in Florida also topped Mr. Bush's 537-vote margin, including James Harris of the Socialist Workers Party, who got 562 votes.
It can work the other way too. A group called No Labels has already succeeded in getting on the 2024 ballot in Colorado, Arizona and Oregon. The idea is to offer a centrist alternative "if the two parties select unreasonably divisive candidates." Critics say all it will do is elect Mr. Trump.
As for Mr. Trump's strategy, Galen Druke argued in a FiveThirtyEight.com podcast that the former president benefits from leading primary voters to believe "that if he doesn't win the nomination he'll destroy Republicans' prospects of winning the presidency because then that will in a way create a sort of rally around the Trump flag."
Mr. Druke also brought up sore-loser laws, which might prevent him from getting on the ballot in certain states. But these laws would be largely irrelevant if Mr. Trump's real goal were not to win the presidency but simply to deny it to any other Republican. As Mr. Druke asked: "Would Trump's third-party candidacy be about winning, or just be about revenge?"
The GOP is well aware of the risk. On CNN Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said it's a "no-brainer" that the party will require candidates to sign a pledge to support the ultimate nominee as a condition of appearing in the GOP debates. Ms. McDaniel's problem is that there's no way to enforce such a pledge, and if Mr. Trump feels the party isn't treating him fairly, he could pull out and revoke his pledge at any time.
The longer he stays in, of course, the harder it would be to get on state ballots as a third party. But if defeating Mr. DeSantis became his real aim, he might not even need a third party. He could simply discourage his supporters from voting for Mr. DeSantis, forcing the governor to have to run against Messrs. Trump and Biden at the same time.
In 2016, the question was, "Can Donald Trump be elected?" In 2024, the question may be, "Will Donald Trump try to ensure that no Republican wins the White House if the party doesn't nominate him?"
[url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-third-party-play-desantis-primary-2024-election-florida-revenge-gop-pledge-nomination-debate-ballots-13d16839?mod=opinion_lead_pos9][/url]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-third-party-play-desantis-primary-2024-election-florida-revenge-gop-pledge-nomination-debate-ballots-13d16839?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

---

This is a simplistic and flawed analysis. Saying Trump's strategy is working merely because he's up in the polls doesn't account for a myriad of factors that have contributed to his polling numbers. You point some of them out later in your post - being one of only 3 candidates thus far.

Perhaps Trump would be doing even better in the polls if he were able to control his worse impulses. We saw many Republicans come out against him when he began the personal attacks on DeSantis. Perhaps his numbers would be higher than the 60's if he had been able to control his tongue.

---

Well, sure, if he'd done a thing or three differently, he might be in the 70's instead of the 60's, but he was putting up some numbers in the 30's only 90 days ago, so it's quite a remarkable improvement by any measure and it's hardly flawed or simplistic to note that numbers in the 60's are good enough to win.....

More importantly, it's not like those 20-30 points of gain are from people who have not seen what you and I have seen. Most of them know RDS, have seen RDS. And I doubt many of them dislike RDS. So what would cause them to return to Trump? Why is what Trump is doing working? There are many, many basic questions you refuse to ask & answer......foremost among which is that it is patently apparent that very few people see the campaign Trump has run thus far as terribly negative.

One key element that will start to form up this summer is the age-old tension between establishment & base. GOP establishment is firmly anti-Trump, and its support will flow like quicksilver to RDS. That is not a bad thing. One needs all the support one can get when attempting to knock of the leader of the party. But that flow of support is not opaque....the grassroots will see it. There is a lot of available talent with resumes built in establishment circles. RDS will have to hire it. That will confirm to many that RDS is in fact a trojan horse for the establishment. He's not that at all, but the grassroots vs establishment skirmishing is almost ritual battle The trenches and trebuchets never leave the battlefield. They just get re-manned every 2 years. So get ready for it. Trump will try to saddle RDS as owned-by-establishment and it will be interesting to see how RDS rebuts & maneuvers.

---

Trump's unfavorability rating remains above 52%, and his favorability rating remains hovering around 42%. So there's been a difference of around 2% in the last month (it was 40% about a month ago). Trump saw those numbers dip when he was in the midst of attacking DeSantis. Interestingly, he's quieted down a bit since then. In fact, we've heard little from him reported in the media. Could it be possible that people don't have as much of a visceral and negative reaction to him when he's not being an *******? Perhaps. So it's possible it's what he hasn't done that has improved his favorability rating - slightly of course.

Of course, when things start heating up again, we'll undoubtedly see the candidate who is unable to control his worse impulses. I have no doubt you are correct, the nasty, petulant little bully will undoubtedly return. And in the **** slinging that ensures, we will most likely see those ratings go back down. Oh sure, he will still have his sycophants who think he can do no wrong who will continue to support him and vote for him no matter what, and it will most likely lead to another nomination for him (and a loss in the general election).

And so the cycle of losing will continue.

---

Whatever else can be said about that argument, it's not done much to hurt Trump with primary voters thus far.

RDS is generating buzz, though….

The line for @RonDeSantisFL in Las Vegas was wrapped around both sides of the building several hours before his event #2024 pic.twitter.com/0htZiihxrE

— Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) March 11, 2023

Osodecentx said:

---

Hey whiterock, you're a professional Republican. If Trump doesn't win the nomination, do you think he will support the Republican nominee?
"Will Donald Trump try to ensure that no Republican wins the White House if the party doesn't nominate him?"

---

This possibility has been mentioned several times on this board, I have yet to see whiterock address the topic. I'm assuming that means it falls under his "Everything is fair game unless it costs you votes" mantra.

Pretty simple…abad! (anyone but a democrat)

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

---

This is a simplistic and flawed analysis. Saying Trump's strategy is working merely because he's up in the polls doesn't account for a myriad of factors that have contributed to his polling numbers. You point some of them out later in your post - being one of only 3 candidates thus far.

Perhaps Trump would be doing even better in the polls if he were able to control his worse impulses. We saw many Republicans come out against him when he began the personal attacks on DeSantis. Perhaps his numbers would be higher than the 60's if he had been able to control his tongue.

---

Well, sure, if he'd done a thing or three differently, he might be in the 70's instead of the 60's, but he was putting up some numbers in the 30's only 90 days ago, so it's quite a remarkable improvement by any measure and it's hardly flawed or simplistic to note that numbers in the 60's are good enough to win.....

More importantly, it's not like those 20-30 points of gain are from people who have not seen what you and I have seen. Most of them know RDS, have seen RDS. And I doubt many of them dislike RDS. So what would cause them to return to Trump? Why is what Trump is doing working? There are many, many basic questions you refuse to ask & answer......foremost among which is that it is patently apparent that very few people see the campaign Trump has run thus far as terribly negative.

One key element that will start to form up this summer is the age-old tension between establishment & base. GOP establishment is firmly anti-Trump, and its support will flow like quicksilver to RDS. That is not a bad thing. One needs all the support one can get when attempting to knock of the leader of the party. But that flow of support is not opaque....the grassroots will see it. There is a lot of available talent with resumes built in establishment circles. RDS will have to hire it. That will confirm to many that RDS is in fact a trojan horse for the establishment. He's not that at all, but the grassroots vs establishment skirmishing is almost ritual battle The trenches and trebuchets never leave the battlefield. They just get re-manned every 2 years. So get ready for it. Trump will try to saddle RDS as owned-by-establishment and it will be interesting to see how RDS rebuts & maneuvers.

---

Trump's unfavorability rating remains above 52%, and his favorability rating remains hovering around 42%. So there's been a difference of around 2% in the last month (it was 40% about a month ago). Trump saw those numbers dip when he was in the midst of attacking DeSantis. Interestingly, he's quieted down a bit since then. In fact, we've heard little from him reported in the media. Could it be possible that people don't have as much of a visceral and negative reaction to him when he's not being an *******? Perhaps. So it's possible it's what he hasn't done that has improved his favorability rating - slightly of course.

Of course, when things start heating up again, we'll undoubtedly see the candidate who is unable to control his worse impulses. I have no doubt you are correct, the nasty, petulant little bully will undoubtedly return. And in the **** slinging that ensures, we will most likely see those ratings go back down. Oh sure, he will still have his sycophants who think he can do no wrong who will continue to support him and vote for him no matter what, and it will most likely lead to another nomination for him (and a loss in the general election).

And so the cycle of losing will continue.

---

Whatever else can be said about that argument, it's not done much to hurt Trump with primary voters thus far.

RDS is generating buzz, though….

The line for @RonDeSantisFL in Las Vegas was wrapped around both sides of the building several hours before his event #2024 pic.twitter.com/0htZiihxrE

— Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) March 11, 2023

---

I agree with that. The sycophants will continue to vote for him regardless of what he says or does. And it will probably lead to another nomination. And if that happens, we will lose the white house again in 2024. Wait and see.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock, leave the virtue signaling to Mothra. He gets angry when he thinks someone else is leading the mob.

---

---

Well, I think you are wiser than was Vizzini, but I am flattered you compare me to Montoya.

In any case, I think our conversation would be much more effective if you responded to what I actually said, rather than a strawman you can attack.

Your problem is that any successful Republican candidate is going to need Trump's base. Your tone and tactics won't win them over.

---

Mothra is railing against the elegance of a dynamic that is working against him. A candidate will win or lose based upon an appeal to voters. If it's too negative, it won't work. Right now, surging at or above his high point over the last 12 months, what Trump is doing is working. Res ipsa loquitur.....

---

This is a simplistic and flawed analysis. Saying Trump's strategy is working merely because he's up in the polls doesn't account for a myriad of factors that have contributed to his polling numbers. You point some of them out later in your post - being one of only 3 candidates thus far.

Perhaps Trump would be doing even better in the polls if he were able to control his worse impulses. We saw many Republicans come out against him when he began the personal attacks on DeSantis. Perhaps his numbers would be higher than the 60's if he had been able to control his tongue.

---

Well, sure, if he'd done a thing or three differently, he might be in the 70's instead of the 60's, but he was putting up some numbers in the 30's only 90 days ago, so it's quite a remarkable improvement by any measure and it's hardly flawed or simplistic to note that numbers in the 60's are good enough to win.....

More importantly, it's not like those 20-30 points of gain are from people who have not seen what you and I have seen. Most of them know RDS, have seen RDS. And I doubt many of them dislike RDS. So what would cause them to return to Trump? Why is what Trump is doing working? There are many, many basic questions you refuse to ask & answer......foremost among which is that it is patently apparent that very few people see the campaign Trump has run thus far as terribly negative.

One key element that will start to form up this summer is the age-old tension between establishment & base. GOP establishment is firmly anti-Trump, and its support will flow like quicksilver to RDS. That is not a bad thing. One needs all the support one can get when attempting to knock of the leader of the party. But that flow of support is not opaque....the grassroots will see it. There is a lot of available talent with resumes built in establishment circles. RDS will have to hire it. That will confirm to many that RDS is in fact a trojan horse for the establishment. He's not that at all, but the grassroots vs establishment skirmishing is almost ritual battle The trenches and trebuchets never leave the battlefield. They just get re-manned every 2 years. So get ready for it. Trump will try to saddle RDS as owned-by-establishment and it will be interesting to see how RDS rebuts & maneuvers.

---

Trump's unfavorability rating remains above 52%, and his favorability rating remains hovering around 42%. So there's been a difference of around 2% in the last month (it was 40% about a month ago). Trump saw those numbers dip when he was in the midst of attacking DeSantis. Interestingly, he's quieted down a bit since then. In fact, we've heard little from him reported in the media. Could it be possible that people don't have as much of a visceral and negative reaction to him when he's not being an *******? Perhaps. So it's possible it's what he hasn't done that has improved his favorability rating - slightly of course.

Of course, when things start heating up again, we'll undoubtedly see the candidate who is unable to control his worse impulses. I have no doubt you are correct, the nasty, petulant little bully will undoubtedly return. And in the **** slinging that ensures, we will most likely see those ratings go back down. Oh sure, he will still have his sycophants who think he can do no wrong who will continue to support him and vote for him no matter what, and it will most likely lead to another nomination for him (and a loss in the general election).

And so the cycle of losing will continue.

---

Whatever else can be said about that argument, it's not done much to hurt Trump with primary voters thus far.

RDS is generating buzz, though….

The line for @RonDeSantisFL in Las Vegas was wrapped around both sides of the building several hours before his event #2024 pic.twitter.com/0htZiihxrE

— Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) March 11, 2023

---

I agree with that. The sycophants will continue to vote for him regardless of what he says or does. And it will probably lead to another nomination. And if that happens, we will lose the white house again in 2024. Wait and see.

---

Hear, hear. Well said

whiterock said:

---

NEW POLL: Trump's Net Favorability rating is up ~18% since December 13, 2022

Trump - Favorable/Unfavorable:

Dec 13, 2022: 39/58 (net -19)
January 17, 2023: 48/49 (net -1)

YouGov/Economist, 01/14-17, 1,309 RVhttps://t.co/ZixY2kZpqI pic.twitter.com/FSG8iXCX2S

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) January 18, 2023

---

I am not doubting he can get the nomination, just do not believe he can win a General Election.

And there it is. Millions of voters still want Trump, so they must be 'sycophants'.

Oso, Mothra and others can't be bothered to actually think about why Trump still has that support, so they do nothing to provide an effective alternative to Trump. But be sure that no matter how much harm their arrogance causes, if Trump gets the nomination it's not their fault, it's everyone else they can blame.

Blaming the very people they should be listening to.