Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Exactly.

When something makes no sense, you are probably missing something important.

Quinnipiac. One of the least reliable polls last few cycles, again showing apparently inconsistent results:

Here we are not statistically different results;
'

Quinnipiac national GOP nomination: Trump 46, DeSantis 32https://t.co/RnQS8nXj9O

General election: Biden 49, Trump 45https://t.co/GuSEE7uAdv

General election: Biden 47, DeSantis 46https://t.co/7qOYGjEv13

— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) March 15, 2023

And then this:

🇺🇲 2024 Pres. Election: independents

(R) DeSantis: 49% (+4)
(D) Biden: 45%

(D) Biden: 50% (+8)
(R) Trump: 42%

Independents were lost by Republicans in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The Republicans last won independents in 2016 (Trump +6)

Quinnipiac (A-) | Mar 9-13 | 1,635 RV pic.twitter.com/B9k9Gc3CCw

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 15, 2023

Moderately big deal for RDS. Also an indication Ted Cruz will not be running.

Ron DeSantis for President of the United States #NeverBackDown #DeSantis2024 pic.twitter.com/g7b4sDavNK

— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) March 15, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Moderately big deal for RDS. Also an indication Ted Cruz will not be running.

Ron DeSantis for President of the United States #NeverBackDown #DeSantis2024 pic.twitter.com/g7b4sDavNK

— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) March 15, 2023

---

Chip Roy: 'It's Time for Ron DeSantis to Be President'

While Florida governor Ron DeSantis has not formally said whether he plans to run for president in 2024, he's already secured an endorsement from at least one member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Representative Chip Roy (R., Texas) endorsed the governor on Wednesday.

"The next President of the United States must be a vibrant and energetic leader with the faith, vision and courage to chart a new course," Roy said in a statement. "America needs a leader who will truly defend her and empower the people against the destructive force of unrestrained government and corporate excess, profligate spending, and woke cultural indoctrination. That leader is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis."

Roy's endorsement calls DeSantis "a man of conviction" who has "unequivocally" made Florida "stronger and freer."

"Economic growth and prosperity in Florida surged upon his firm rejection of the devastating COVID mandates foisted upon us by foolishly empowered Washington bureaucrats," he said.

The congressman noted that DeSantis "stood with Texas in defense of our border sending a message to elites in Martha's Vineyard that they cannot ignore the human and economic toll of open borders."

Roy concluded: "When Republicans choose our 2024 presidential nominee whom I intend to support against Joe Biden or any other Democrat candidate I believe it's time for a new generation of leadership. It's time for younger, but proven, leadership to offer America eight solid years of transformational change. It's time for Ron DeSantis to be President of the United States."

Roy's endorsement shows that DeSantis could in fact have appeal with hard-right conservatives who have typically supported Trump. Roy, who was once a Trump ally, opposed efforts to overturn the results of the Electoral College after the 2020 election. He voted to certify the results and acknowledged the move "may well sign my political death warrant, but so be it." Trump later condemned Roy's bid to become the third-ranking House Republican saying Roy "has not done a great job."

In November 2022, Roy responded to a clip of former president Donald Trump calling DeSantis "Ron DeSanctimonious" by saying, "Or.. Ron De…SaidNoToFauci… that's another angle… #StandUpForAmerica."

He later added: "My comment is to let people know I believe Ron DeSantis is a great Governor and I don't give two sh*ts what any current or former Congress-critters… or Presidents… think about him. #StandUpForAmerica"

Roy's endorsement comes as former Trump official Ken Cuccinelli is kicking off a tour of the early primary states this week to meet with voters and discuss why the Florida governor should run in 2024. Cuccinelli, who previously served as the acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security under Trump, announced the launch of the Never Back Down PAC last week to urge DeSantis to run for president in 2024.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/chip-roy-its-time-for-ron-desantis-to-be-president/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=30845523

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Disagree with that to an extend. DeSantis sees himself more as Reagan than Bush, definitely not Pence.


The basic issue being that if he is Gov he can control his own destiny. As VP, he is tied to Trump's. I can't see him tying his wagon to Trump. Too unstable for RDS.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Disagree with that to an extend. DeSantis sees himself more as Reagan than Bush, definitely not Pence.


The basic issue being that if he is Gov he can control his own destiny. As VP, he is tied to Trump's. I can't see him tying his wagon to Trump. Too unstable for RDS.

---

Agree. There's not really anything to gain for DeSantis to be Trump's VP. Governors usually fare well in national elections because they can point to specific executive successes.

Trump would love to have DeSantis as a running mate, but he can't offer anything RDS can't already get on his own.

What DeSantis does lack, is the success of Trump's policies, judicial appointments and so on. But DeSantis can gradually start to weigh in on national issues and show his cred through reason and logic.

I think DeSantis can play the media in 2024 better than Trump did in 2016, but he needs someone who can plan out the campaign in advance, especially knowing the media will go after him as soon as he starts to look like he could win.

,The target demographic for DeSantis is suburban women. Trump really has no chance at them and neither does Biden, so RDS could establish a dominating campaign by winning this bloc.

The Economy is the focus.

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Disagree with that to an extend. DeSantis sees himself more as Reagan than Bush, definitely not Pence.


The basic issue being that if he is Gov he can control his own destiny. As VP, he is tied to Trump's. I can't see him tying his wagon to Trump. Too unstable for RDS.

---

Agree. There's not really anything to gain for DeSantis to be Trump's VP. Governors usually fare well in national elections because they can point to specific executive successes.

Trump would love to have DeSantis as a running mate, but he can't offer anything RDS can't already get on his own.

What DeSantis does lack, is the success of Trump's policies, judicial appointments and so on. But DeSantis can gradually start to weigh in on national issues and show his cred through reason and logic.

I think DeSantis can play the media in 2024 better than Trump did in 2016, but he needs someone who can plan out the campaign in advance, especially knowing the media will go after him as soon as he starts to look like he could win.

,The target demographic for DeSantis is suburban women. Trump really has no chance at them and neither does Biden, so RDS could establish a dominating campaign by winning this bloc.

The Economy is the focus.

---

RDS has the pandemic. Since his policies kept Florida we have gained a 1000 a day, a 40% increase since 2017. Most of it is being attributed to RDS handling of the Pandemic.

Now, I do think he needs to be careful as he is pushing the far right stuff to far. He keeps it up and he will lose his attraction to the middle. That is really where he differs from Trump, he can win in the suburbs

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.

---

An ethics complaint by allies of former president Donald Trump accusing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis of illegally benefitting from a shadow presidential campaign is nothing more than a "frivolous" and "politically motivated" attack, DeSantis's office said Wednesday.

The ethics complaint by Make America Great Again, Inc., and first reported by NBC News, accuses DeSantis a likely Trump competitor for the Republican presidential nomination of illegally soliciting and receiving millions of dollars in gifts as part of a "shadow presidential campaign." The complaint was being filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics, whose chair, Glenton Gilzean Jr., was appointed by DeSantis in 2019.
The complaint says there is "strong evidence" DeSantis misused his position as governor and violated prohibitions on the solicitation and acceptance of gifts, federal campaign finance laws, and Florida laws on conflicting employment or contractual relationships.

Osodecentx 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.

---

An ethics complaint by allies of former president Donald Trump accusing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis of illegally benefitting from a shadow presidential campaign is nothing more than a "frivolous" and "politically motivated" attack, DeSantis's office said Wednesday.

The ethics complaint by Make America Great Again, Inc., and first reported by NBC News, accuses DeSantis a likely Trump competitor for the Republican presidential nomination of illegally soliciting and receiving millions of dollars in gifts as part of a "shadow presidential campaign." The complaint was being filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics, whose chair, Glenton Gilzean Jr., was appointed by DeSantis in 2019.
The complaint says there is "strong evidence" DeSantis misused his position as governor and violated prohibitions on the solicitation and acceptance of gifts, federal campaign finance laws, and Florida laws on conflicting employment or contractual relationships.

---

Looks like Trump's lawyers are getting smarter...at least they knew better than to put their names on this one.

The dilemma in a nutshell. DeSantis has better numbers (these below being best case) with indies, but trails significantly in the primary, setting up the prospect of two deeply and equally unpopular candidates facing off in the general.

Do you have a Favorable or Unfavorable opinion of...?

Overall:
• DeSantis: 48/39 (net +9)
• Biden: 47/51 (net -4)
• Trump: 45/53 (net -8)

Suburban voters:
• DeSantis: 46/38 (net +8)
• Trump: 42/55 (net -13)
• Biden: 42/55 (net -13)

YouGov (B+) | Mar 11-14 | 1,298 RV pic.twitter.com/0v7vUiza8W

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 15, 2023

another good question.

My answer would be that beyond the FL Gov thing, there's not a lot of common ground between the two; Jeb is a moderate who lost touch with the base of the party, while DeSantis is a is a genuine movement conservative who entered the party stage right and has governed thusly.

At this point in 2015, Bush was polling at 10-15% in the polling average. DeSantis is at more like 30%. It's a reasonably big difference. He also was just reelected whereas Jeb! was a decade+ out from his last reelection in 2015. Far more signs of having traction with voters. https://t.co/xh9Um0UcSm

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 16, 2023

whiterock said:

---

another good question.

My answer would be that beyond the FL Gov thing, there's not a lot of common ground between the two; Jeb is a moderate who lost touch with the base of the party, while DeSantis is a is a genuine movement conservative who entered the party stage right and has governed thusly.

At this point in 2015, Bush was polling at 10-15% in the polling average. DeSantis is at more like 30%. It's a reasonably big difference. He also was just reelected whereas Jeb! was a decade+ out from his last reelection in 2015. Far more signs of having traction with voters. https://t.co/xh9Um0UcSm

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 16, 2023

---

America was tired of the last name Bush.

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

another good question.

My answer would be that beyond the FL Gov thing, there's not a lot of common ground between the two; Jeb is a moderate who lost touch with the base of the party, while DeSantis is a is a genuine movement conservative who entered the party stage right and has governed thusly.

At this point in 2015, Bush was polling at 10-15% in the polling average. DeSantis is at more like 30%. It's a reasonably big difference. He also was just reelected whereas Jeb! was a decade+ out from his last reelection in 2015. Far more signs of having traction with voters. https://t.co/xh9Um0UcSm

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 16, 2023

---

America was tired of the last name Bush.

---

Also, no one was ever really excited by Jeb, Neil, and the other Bushes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Another stupid take, with lots of stupid assumptions.

I of course understand why Trump continues to have a cult-like following. There is a myriad of reasons. Among other things, there is a cult of personality that he has engendered that has conservatives, like many of my family members, still clamoring for him. They see him as the guy who finally stood up to and "owned" the liberals. He's been staunchly pro-life in his policies and judicial nominations (if he isn't really personally). He has been at the forefront of the culture war with many of his positions. Many see him as someone who will stand up the to woke policies of Biden and his ilk. He has spoken out strongly against illegal immigration, and promised a border wall (a promise he never fulfilled, mind you). He has a tendency to fight fire with fire, a welcome reprieve from milquetoast conservatives like the Bushes, Romneys and McCains. He's from outside of the beltway, and not establishment. And he has brought a populist bent to the party that has attracted blue collar workers and minorities like never before.

Many of these are good things, and can be carried on by other conservatives (a much smarter Trump without the significant negatives). The problem is Trump's downside is as big as his upside, and he doesn't attract that middle 5-10% of voters he needs to win an election. If conservatives were not a minority, then his failure to attract the independents wouldn't be so significant. But we are, so we need a certain amount of cross-over to win the election. Given Trump's polling numbers outside of the base, therein lies the problem, and the reason he has little chance of getting elected in a national election.

There is a candidate who embodies Trump's fighting spirit without the significant downside. If we could turn our allegiance to him instead of a 76-year-old loser who can't control his worse impulses, I think we might have a real shot at winning in 2024. But if we continue to prop up a loser and geriatric patient, we have little chance of success.

Trump could drop out. But he has no self awareness or honor, and the diehards can't quit him.

For a very large and still growing part of the electorate, the divide isn't really Republicans vs Democrats. It's Us vs Them.

Swamp GOP ‘secretly’ worked with Democrats to doom Trump's 2020 chances: Voters @Rasmussen_Poll

55% of all voters.
67% of Republicans.
51% of Democrats.https://t.co/RucxvQuBne pic.twitter.com/zyYIgUJdYf

— Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) March 16, 2023

whiterock said:

---

For a very large and still growing part of the electorate, the divide isn't really Republicans vs Democrats. It's Us vs Them.

Swamp GOP ‘secretly’ worked with Democrats to doom Trump's 2020 chances: Voters @Rasmussen_Poll

55% of all voters.
67% of Republicans.
51% of Democrats.https://t.co/RucxvQuBne pic.twitter.com/zyYIgUJdYf

— Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) March 16, 2023

---

it wasnt a secret, just like it wasnt a secret in 2022 when they failed to back certain people running for senate. They told you it was gonna go down the way it did and everybody blamed Trump, just like they wanted you to..

GOP doesnt want to be in charge, they want to be the party of no..

Mothra: "Another stupid take, with lots of stupid assumptions."

This is what I mean when I call you on hypocrisy, Mothra.

How does a cheap shot like that do anything but provoke ill will?

You know, it's possible, even common in some places to disagree without taking a crap on anything you don't like.

But posting something like that, while pretending all you are doing is having a reasoned discussion, is just delusional.

2024 Texas Republican Primary Poll

• Trump — 43% (+7 from Jan)
• DeSantis — 27% (-8)
• Haley — 5%
• Pence — 4%
• Cruz — 4%
• Ramaswamy — 2%
• Pompeo — 1%
• T. Scott — 1%@CWS_Research | 879 LV | Feb 28-Mar 2https://t.co/EZDzBxGIBr pic.twitter.com/5dwfOZ5bU4

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 16, 2023

whiterock said:

---

For a very large and still growing part of the electorate, the divide isn't really Republicans vs Democrats. It's Us vs Them.

Swamp GOP ‘secretly’ worked with Democrats to doom Trump's 2020 chances: Voters @Rasmussen_Poll

55% of all voters.
67% of Republicans.
51% of Democrats.https://t.co/RucxvQuBne pic.twitter.com/zyYIgUJdYf

— Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) March 16, 2023

---

Well Trump is about as "them" as you can get,

whiterock said:

---

2024 Texas Republican Primary Poll

• Trump — 43% (+7 from Jan)
• DeSantis — 27% (-8)
• Haley — 5%
• Pence — 4%
• Cruz — 4%
• Ramaswamy — 2%
• Pompeo — 1%
• T. Scott — 1%@CWS_Research | 879 LV | Feb 28-Mar 2https://t.co/EZDzBxGIBr pic.twitter.com/5dwfOZ5bU4

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 16, 2023

---

This August 16th marks the 25th anniversary of the official death of Elvis Presley, but eight percent of respondents in a recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll say they believe there is a chance that Elvis could be alive. Eighty-one percent of the respondents think people who believe Elvis may be alive are crazy and 11 percent are not sure whether The King may still be around or not.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

2024 Texas Republican Primary Poll

• Trump — 43% (+7 from Jan)
• DeSantis — 27% (-8)
• Haley — 5%
• Pence — 4%
• Cruz — 4%
• Ramaswamy — 2%
• Pompeo — 1%
• T. Scott — 1%@CWS_Research | 879 LV | Feb 28-Mar 2https://t.co/EZDzBxGIBr pic.twitter.com/5dwfOZ5bU4

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 16, 2023

---

Democrats are smiling

---

And you helped.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra: "Another stupid take, with lots of stupid assumptions."

This is what I mean when I call you on hypocrisy, Mothra.

How does a cheap shot like that do anything but provoke ill will?

You know, it's possible, even common in some places to disagree without taking a crap on anything you don't like.

But posting something like that, while pretending all you are doing is having a reasoned discussion, is just delusional.

---

Originally posted by Oldbear about Mothra, on this very thread:

Sorry, trying logic was not working so I resorted to your level in a desperate effort to get through to you.

The spite has eaten away most of your cognitive functions, it seems.

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

You have no point. You only have spite and malice.

Your admonition regarding my "cheap shot" is highly ironic in light of the foregoing. Is this the kind of respectful, high-brow language I need to emulate, oldbear. Would it have been more respectful to suggest you can't think logically, that you lack cognitive functions, that your posts are garbage, or that your posts are nothing but spite or malice?

Man, I have seen some posters with blind spots to their own boorish behavior over the years, but yours is the worst case I've ever seen. And then to do it while at the same time accusing me of hypocrisy. Just wow.

Matthew 7:3-5 comes to mind.

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

Oldbear83 said:

---

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

---

Deflection instead of admitting any error whatsoever or culpability for your own boorish behavior.

Why am I not surprised?

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

---

Deflection instead of admitting any error whatsoever or culpability for your own boorish behavior.

Why am I not surprised?

---

Because you see everything through your solipsism, Mothra.

Context and specific conditiion are lost on you.

But I am sure after you and Oso drive all Trump's supporters into not voting, you will pretend the resulting loss in the election was in no way your fault.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

---

Deflection instead of admitting any error whatsoever or culpability for your own boorish behavior.

Why am I not surprised?

---

Because you see everything through your solipsism, Mothra.

Context and specific conditiion are lost on you.

But I am sure after you and Oso drive all Trump's supporters into not voting, you will pretend the resulting loss in the election was in no way your fault.

---

Another "garbage" post. Clearly you're "full of spite and malice" toward me, and lack any "cognitive functions."

P.S. Am I doing this right?

I've mentioned this issue before. It was mentioned to me by two well-connected people, one of them a 7-digit-class donor who has moved over from Trump to RDS. RDS's biggest weakness has been identified. His opponents will bore in on it. The media is starting to talk about it. He has good positions on issues, a great record and a powerful base of support. But he's going to have to get better at this issue…..

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-republican-2024-presidential-campaign-trail-is-already-getting-gov-ron-desantis-proofed?ref=home

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For a very large and still growing part of the electorate, the divide isn't really Republicans vs Democrats. It's Us vs Them.

Swamp GOP ‘secretly’ worked with Democrats to doom Trump's 2020 chances: Voters @Rasmussen_Poll

55% of all voters.
67% of Republicans.
51% of Democrats.https://t.co/RucxvQuBne pic.twitter.com/zyYIgUJdYf

— Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) March 16, 2023

---

Well Trump is about as "them" as you can get,

---

Exactly. Which is one reason why Trump is so resilient against challenges which should, by any traditional criteria, have cratered his support.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

---

Deflection instead of admitting any error whatsoever or culpability for your own boorish behavior.

Why am I not surprised?

---

Because you see everything through your solipsism, Mothra.

Context and specific conditiion are lost on you.

But I am sure after you and Oso drive all Trump's supporters into not voting, you will pretend the resulting loss in the election was in no way your fault.

---

Another "garbage" post. Clearly you're "full of spite and malice" toward me, and lack any "cognitive functions."

P.S. Am I doing this right?

---

Not even close.

But you have the 'hypocrite' role down to second nature.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

---

Deflection instead of admitting any error whatsoever or culpability for your own boorish behavior.

Why am I not surprised?

---

Because you see everything through your solipsism, Mothra.

Context and specific conditiion are lost on you.

But I am sure after you and Oso drive all Trump's supporters into not voting, you will pretend the resulting loss in the election was in no way your fault.

---

Another "garbage" post. Clearly you're "full of spite and malice" toward me, and lack any "cognitive functions."

P.S. Am I doing this right?

---

Not even close.

But you have the 'hypocrite' role down to second nature.

---

Well I will give you this: you would know.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

---

Deflection instead of admitting any error whatsoever or culpability for your own boorish behavior.

Why am I not surprised?

---

Because you see everything through your solipsism, Mothra.

Context and specific conditiion are lost on you.

But I am sure after you and Oso drive all Trump's supporters into not voting, you will pretend the resulting loss in the election was in no way your fault.

---

Another "garbage" post. Clearly you're "full of spite and malice" toward me, and lack any "cognitive functions."

P.S. Am I doing this right?

---

Not even close.

But you have the 'hypocrite' role down to second nature.

---

Well I will give you this: you would know.

---

Only because of experience with smarmy self-righteous types who talk down to everyone.

You didn't use to be like that. TDS really is a thing.

Remarkable clip here. DeSantis explains how he used all the levers of the executive and the emergency COVID powers to force schools open, prevent business closures, and prevent local jurisdictions from penalizing people for mask violations. Then, and most importantly, work with… https://t.co/gu1tomlE4z

— J L Fairchild (@J_L_Fairchild) March 16, 2023

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No thanks, I don't need more of your virtue signaling, Mothra.

Btw, a decent person would have considered the point and apologized.

But you do you. Keep helping Biden, you are.

---

Deflection instead of admitting any error whatsoever or culpability for your own boorish behavior.

Why am I not surprised?

---

Because you see everything through your solipsism, Mothra.

Context and specific conditiion are lost on you.

But I am sure after you and Oso drive all Trump's supporters into not voting, you will pretend the resulting loss in the election was in no way your fault.

---

Another "garbage" post. Clearly you're "full of spite and malice" toward me, and lack any "cognitive functions."

P.S. Am I doing this right?

---

Not even close.

But you have the 'hypocrite' role down to second nature.

---

Well I will give you this: you would know.

---

Only because of experience with smarmy self-righteous types who talk down to everyone.

---

More irony. You've just described yourself.