Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

Sigh. Facts are facts. Personal attacks are quite common in politics. So much so it's completely unserious to demand proof that such occurs. It IS somewhat unusual for the candidate to engage in them directly, particularly at the presidential level, as I have allowed. But nastiness in a primary or general election is hardly unusual, and it tends to get worse as one moves down the hierarchy, as your posts here illustrate.

---

Sigh. You keep responding to arguments I've never made. Try to stick to the questions posed and we can save time with all of the non-responsive answers you tend to give. Do you remember the questions? I'm asking for just one example of the Bush admins and Reagan admins engaging in a similar attack on a fellow republicans.

Again, we all know the truth. Trump's attacks aren't unique merely because he makes them himself, but also because of the nature of the attacks. They are personal and vicious - e.g. focusing on another candidates appearance or suggesting he's guilty of crimes. You can't cite me an example of a similar attack by Bush or Reagan because they simply don't exist. Thus we know your position that Trump's attacks are somehow in line with what Reagan and Bush did is just a bunch of b.s.

---

Sigh. It is a stone cold fact that in both parties, personal attacks are levied in every election cycle, primary and general. I have also stipulated the obvious, that Trump personally engages in them in a way that few other candidates do. Reagan let Atwood do the dirty work. Does that make it any less dirty? Another poster gave you some examples of what I'm talking about.

Politics is a tough game. Nancy Reagan took a lot of heat. So has Michelle Obama. (to name but a few.) An attack that works is a good attack. An attack that doesn't isn't. If you're going to play, grow some 'nads and focus on effective outcomes. The proper critique you should be making is that Trump's attacks might harm his appeal to moderates/independents, not juvenile arguments that issuance of attacks raise questions about character.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Osodecentx said:

---

Never Trump

---

lol

Low IQ attack.

bularry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

would trump go Independent without Republican nomination?

---

Ross Perot 2.0

Would have the same result and give Dems the White House. Trump just may do it out of arrogance and spite.

---

Very unfair to assume he would only do it out of arrogance and spite. You're completely overlooking greed (the chance to bleed more money from his followers) and desperation (the hope it will keep him out of prison a while longer).

---

Hard to delineate all the fallacies woven in that. Reality is, he can't legally profit from political fundraising, and it's not at all clear how he personally benefits more from 3rd party spite that would make his brand smaller rather than larger.

The 3rd party play only makes sense if he's actually trying to win the WH and/or build a true 3rd party.

---

he doesn't profit from "fundraising" but it keeps many other brands and items in play with his loyal supporters that his kids and their business interests take advantage of. I guarantee, if there wasn't money in this, Trump would have quit politics long ago.

I don't think that is even contrary to the thought he might want to build a true 3rd party

---

If there was money in it (or so your reasoning would go), he'd have already done it.

Fact is, a third-party bid loses him an awful lot of voters, like half-ish. remember, one of the more remarkable things about Trump is the number of people supporting him who really don't LIKE him. He goes third-party and that "brand ID" coalition he's been trying to build gets a LOT smaller. On the other hand, if he loses and plays nice, he will add a little to his brand....people who may not have voted for him but can see how unfairly he was treated in office, and afterwards by abuse of sovereign power.

The insistence that he will burn down the GOP if he loses is mostly projection from the neverTrumpers, who have have indeed tried to burn down the GOP since Trump got elected......

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

Sigh. Facts are facts. Personal attacks are quite common in politics. So much so it's completely unserious to demand proof that such occurs. It IS somewhat unusual for the candidate to engage in them directly, particularly at the presidential level, as I have allowed. But nastiness in a primary or general election is hardly unusual, and it tends to get worse as one moves down the hierarchy, as your posts here illustrate.

---

Sigh. You keep responding to arguments I've never made. Try to stick to the questions posed and we can save time with all of the non-responsive answers you tend to give. Do you remember the questions? I'm asking for just one example of the Bush admins and Reagan admins engaging in a similar attack on a fellow republicans.

Again, we all know the truth. Trump's attacks aren't unique merely because he makes them himself, but also because of the nature of the attacks. They are personal and vicious - e.g. focusing on another candidates appearance or suggesting he's guilty of crimes. You can't cite me an example of a similar attack by Bush or Reagan because they simply don't exist. Thus we know your position that Trump's attacks are somehow in line with what Reagan and Bush did is just a bunch of b.s.

---

Sigh. It is a stone cold fact that in both parties, personal attacks are levied in every election cycle, primary and general. I have also stipulated the obvious, that Trump personally engages in them in a way that few other candidates do. Reagan let Atwood do the dirty work. Does that make it any less dirty? Another poster gave you some examples of what I'm talking about.

Politics is a tough game. Nancy Reagan took a lot of heat. So has Michelle Obama. (to name but a few.) An attack that works is a good attack. An attack that doesn't isn't. If you're going to play, grow some 'nads and focus on effective outcomes. The proper critique you should be making is that Trump's attacks might harm his appeal to moderates/independents, not juvenile arguments that issuance of attacks raise questions about character.

---

Objection, non-responsive. Not looking for another one of your inane diatribes on how tough elections are. I got that before you said it the first time (many posts and moons ago). Just FYI, you saying the same thing over and over ad nauseum is not an answer to the question posted. Let me remind you again: I am asking for one example of a Republican candidate (or its staff) attacking a fellow Republican candidate in the same way that Trump does. You said another poster mentioned Atwood's attacks. Excellent. Can you direct me to the post that provided an example of a similar personal and vicious attack by Atwood or a member of Reagan's staff? Didn't see it on this thread.

Thanks again.

BTW, yes people did go after Michelle and Nancy. The difference was, they weren't fellow Dems and Reps. You didn't hear Democrat candidates attacking Michelle, nor did you hear Republican candidates attacking Nancy. This is yet another distinction you miss in your flawed argument.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

Anything that violates Reagan's 11th Commandment is not a good thing. Sorry, but you're wrong (again).

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

You're an Always Trumper. You've posted nothing but defense of the Dear Leader no matter what the guy says or does.
You aren't a disinterested observer

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

Sigh. Facts are facts. Personal attacks are quite common in politics. So much so it's completely unserious to demand proof that such occurs. It IS somewhat unusual for the candidate to engage in them directly, particularly at the presidential level, as I have allowed. But nastiness in a primary or general election is hardly unusual, and it tends to get worse as one moves down the hierarchy, as your posts here illustrate.

---

Sigh. You keep responding to arguments I've never made. Try to stick to the questions posed and we can save time with all of the non-responsive answers you tend to give. Do you remember the questions? I'm asking for just one example of the Bush admins and Reagan admins engaging in a similar attack on a fellow republicans.

Again, we all know the truth. Trump's attacks aren't unique merely because he makes them himself, but also because of the nature of the attacks. They are personal and vicious - e.g. focusing on another candidates appearance or suggesting he's guilty of crimes. You can't cite me an example of a similar attack by Bush or Reagan because they simply don't exist. Thus we know your position that Trump's attacks are somehow in line with what Reagan and Bush did is just a bunch of b.s.

---

Sigh. It is a stone cold fact that in both parties, personal attacks are levied in every election cycle, primary and general. I have also stipulated the obvious, that Trump personally engages in them in a way that few other candidates do. Reagan let Atwood do the dirty work. Does that make it any less dirty? Another poster gave you some examples of what I'm talking about.

Politics is a tough game. Nancy Reagan took a lot of heat. So has Michelle Obama. (to name but a few.) An attack that works is a good attack. An attack that doesn't isn't. If you're going to play, grow some 'nads and focus on effective outcomes. The proper critique you should be making is that Trump's attacks might harm his appeal to moderates/independents, not juvenile arguments that issuance of attacks raise questions about character.

---

Objection, non-responsive. Not looking for another one of your inane diatribes on how tough elections are. I got that before you said it the first time (many posts and moons ago). Just FYI, you saying the same thing over and over ad nauseum is not an answer to the question posted. Let me remind you again: I am asking for one example of a Republican candidate (or its staff) attacking a fellow Republican candidate in the same way that Trump does. You said another poster mentioned Atwood's attacks. Excellent. Can you direct me to the post that provided an example of a similar personal and vicious attack by Atwood or a member of Reagan's staff? Didn't see it on this thread.

Thanks again.

BTW, yes people did go after Michelle and Nancy. The difference was, they weren't fellow Dems and Reps. You didn't hear Democrat candidates attacking Michelle, nor did you hear Republican candidates attacking Nancy. This is yet another distinction you miss in your flawed argument.

---

You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

You're an Always Trumper. You've posted nothing but defense of the Dear Leader no matter what the guy says or does.
You aren't a disinterested observer

---

I'll also defend RDS from unfair attacks, like this one from the noted neverTrumper Lincoln Project, who are all Republicans.

never trust neverTrumpers.

How strange that a group whose mission is, allegedly, to take down Trump... is doing ads to take down Trump's opponent.

Hmm... odd. Very odd. https://t.co/c2DD80vRdt

— A.J. Delgado (@AJDelgado13) March 25, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

Sigh. Facts are facts. Personal attacks are quite common in politics. So much so it's completely unserious to demand proof that such occurs. It IS somewhat unusual for the candidate to engage in them directly, particularly at the presidential level, as I have allowed. But nastiness in a primary or general election is hardly unusual, and it tends to get worse as one moves down the hierarchy, as your posts here illustrate.

---

Sigh. You keep responding to arguments I've never made. Try to stick to the questions posed and we can save time with all of the non-responsive answers you tend to give. Do you remember the questions? I'm asking for just one example of the Bush admins and Reagan admins engaging in a similar attack on a fellow republicans.

Again, we all know the truth. Trump's attacks aren't unique merely because he makes them himself, but also because of the nature of the attacks. They are personal and vicious - e.g. focusing on another candidates appearance or suggesting he's guilty of crimes. You can't cite me an example of a similar attack by Bush or Reagan because they simply don't exist. Thus we know your position that Trump's attacks are somehow in line with what Reagan and Bush did is just a bunch of b.s.

---

Sigh. It is a stone cold fact that in both parties, personal attacks are levied in every election cycle, primary and general. I have also stipulated the obvious, that Trump personally engages in them in a way that few other candidates do. Reagan let Atwood do the dirty work. Does that make it any less dirty? Another poster gave you some examples of what I'm talking about.

Politics is a tough game. Nancy Reagan took a lot of heat. So has Michelle Obama. (to name but a few.) An attack that works is a good attack. An attack that doesn't isn't. If you're going to play, grow some 'nads and focus on effective outcomes. The proper critique you should be making is that Trump's attacks might harm his appeal to moderates/independents, not juvenile arguments that issuance of attacks raise questions about character.

---

Objection, non-responsive. Not looking for another one of your inane diatribes on how tough elections are. I got that before you said it the first time (many posts and moons ago). Just FYI, you saying the same thing over and over ad nauseum is not an answer to the question posted. Let me remind you again: I am asking for one example of a Republican candidate (or its staff) attacking a fellow Republican candidate in the same way that Trump does. You said another poster mentioned Atwood's attacks. Excellent. Can you direct me to the post that provided an example of a similar personal and vicious attack by Atwood or a member of Reagan's staff? Didn't see it on this thread.

Thanks again.

BTW, yes people did go after Michelle and Nancy. The difference was, they weren't fellow Dems and Reps. You didn't hear Democrat candidates attacking Michelle, nor did you hear Republican candidates attacking Nancy. This is yet another distinction you miss in your flawed argument.

---

You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

---

Please point out the post where you cited an example of the Reagan/Bush admins making the same kind of incendiary and personal attacks on fellow Republicans as Trump, if you feel you've answered the question I posed. While I believe I've read every single one of your posts, I might have missed it.

Otherwise, you're full of *****

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

You're an Always Trumper. You've posted nothing but defense of the Dear Leader no matter what the guy says or does.
You aren't a disinterested observer

---

I'll also defend RDS from unfair attacks (unless they're from Trump), like this one from the noted neverTrumper Lincoln Project, who are all Republicans.

never trust neverTrumpers.

How strange that a group whose mission is, allegedly, to take down Trump... is doing ads to take down Trump's opponent.

Hmm... odd. Very odd. https://t.co/c2DD80vRdt

— A.J. Delgado (@AJDelgado13) March 25, 2023

---

LMAO. You're the same guy who defended Trump's insinuation that RDS was a groomer and child molester based on his photo with blurred out images of purported high school girls.

FIFY. Sure, you'll defend him from unfair attacks, unless of course those unfair attacks come from Trump.

You are an absolute clown.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

Anything that violates Reagan's 11th Commandment is not a good thing. Sorry, but you're wrong (again).

---

yeah, in a perfect world, campaigns are searches for truth that stick scrupulously to issues. Unfortunately, that rarely happens much above the local level, and federal elections almost always miss the bar. I encourage you to come to terms with it.

Here's a Spectator argument which makes the points I have. I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates.
https://spectator.org/trump-critics-whine-as-he-attacks-desantis/

Another:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-10/bob-dole-george-bush-and-historys-most-brutal-presidential-campaign-attacks


I could go on and on. All it would prove is that campaigns rarely adhere well to the 11th commandment, so you have picked very odd ground upon which to virtue posture.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

You know what I mean, and you know why they couldn't agree on a platform in 2020. If Trump had had his way, he would have gutted it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

You know what I mean, and you know why they couldn't agree on a platform in 2020. If Trump had had his way, he would have gutted it.

---

Sam Lowry, a man so psychic he knows what Trump would say or do, but has never won the lottery and his bracket busted the first weekend.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

You know what I mean, and you know why they couldn't agree on a platform in 2020. If Trump had had his way, he would have gutted it.

---

Sam Lowry, a man so psychic he knows what Trump would say or do, but has never won the lottery and his bracket busted the first weekend.

---

I won the lottery when you started posting here. All I do is read your predictions and bet the other way.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

You know what I mean, and you know why they couldn't agree on a platform in 2020. If Trump had had his way, he would have gutted it.

---

Sam Lowry, a man so psychic he knows what Trump would say or do, but has never won the lottery and his bracket busted the first weekend.

---

I won the lottery when you started posting here. All I do is read your predictions and bet the other way.

---

I don't make predictions, as you know. And if your quip means you take actions opposite of me, then you lost in 2016 and lost a buttload of money on FTX.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

You know what I mean, and you know why they couldn't agree on a platform in 2020. If Trump had had his way, he would have gutted it.

---

Sam Lowry, a man so psychic he knows what Trump would say or do, but has never won the lottery and his bracket busted the first weekend.

---

I won the lottery when you started posting here. All I do is read your predictions and bet the other way.

---

I don't make predictions, as you know. And if your quip means you take actions opposite of me, then you lost in 2016 and lost a buttload of money on FTX.

---

Please just stop saying there's zero chance of nuclear war. Seriously, don't do that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

You know what I mean, and you know why they couldn't agree on a platform in 2020. If Trump had had his way, he would have gutted it.

---

Sam Lowry, a man so psychic he knows what Trump would say or do, but has never won the lottery and his bracket busted the first weekend.

---

I won the lottery when you started posting here. All I do is read your predictions and bet the other way.

---

I don't make predictions, as you know. And if your quip means you take actions opposite of me, then you lost in 2016 and lost a buttload of money on FTX.

---

Please just stop saying there's zero chance of nuclear war. Seriously, don't do that.

---

Yet again Sam, something I never said.

I know you ignore what I post, but you look dumb 'quoting' things I never said.

Nuclear War would seem to have little to do with next year's election, but I do know how you love to pretend everything is Ragnarok or some such reason to panic.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

Anything that violates Reagan's 11th Commandment is not a good thing. Sorry, but you're wrong (again).

---

yeah, in a perfect world, campaigns are searches for truth that stick scrupulously to issues. Unfortunately, that rarely happens much above the local level, and federal elections almost always miss the bar. I encourage you to come to terms with it.

Here's a Spectator argument which makes the points I have. I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates.
https://spectator.org/trump-critics-whine-as-he-attacks-desantis/

Another:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-10/bob-dole-george-bush-and-historys-most-brutal-presidential-campaign-attacks


I could go on and on. All it would prove is that campaigns rarely adhere well to the 11th commandment, so you have picked very odd ground upon which to virtue posture.

---

I appreciate you finally acknowledging that the kind of attacks Trump engages in are unprecedented, not just because he is making them himself but also because of the level of vitriol. Your second article says as much. Wish you could have acknowledged that many posts ago.

If you think trump suggesting that RDS is a child molester and groomer is a good thing, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. But let's stop pretending that you defend him from unfair attacks, shall we? We both know you'll endorse or at the very least defend any attack that trump levels at a fellow Republican candidate.

No doubt trumps attacks are working among the trumpists. Had a friend who tells me he can no longer support RDS because he's gone "mainstream." So he'll pull the trigger for trump.

No doubt in my mind it's going to be trump again in 2024. Hopefully he'll die off before the 2028 election so we don't have to go through this song and dance again.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Have you actually listened to his full Ukraine remarks?

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

Only Trump has flip-flopped on Ukraine and Putin, and he has done so multiple times. His full quotes are out there for all to see.

---

Well if he is for continued funding of Ukraine then I wont vote for him. Thanks for letting me know.

---

That's fine. But do you know Trump's position?

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

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

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

He has questioned our funding, but mostly tying it to us paying NATO disproportionately. If he has called for ending all Ukraine support, I have not seen it, and even if he has said it, it has contradicted many of his own statements.

---

I dont care what Trump says or what his postions are. I like him bc the democrats hate him, the GOP establishment hate him and the deep state him. That means he's my guy.

---

But you said you won't vote for RD b/c he did not come out for immediately ending all Ukraine funding. That's the only reason I summarized Trump's positions.

---

I think you will find "Sticking it to the libs" to be a big reason a lot of Trump supporters are Trump supporters. They don't necessarily know what that means or what he will do, but they know he's the loudest about doing it.

---

Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies is a big part of politics.

The Democratic party knows this very well.

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

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

The Republican party leadership thinks its purpose is to play nice with its political enemies and screw over its own voters at every turn.

---

My point is that many Trump supporters don't know or don't care exactly what he stands for other than people they don't like hate him.

---

perhaps that's true to some degree personally. But we do know where he stands on issues and the GOP platform.

---

What platform? They haven't had one since Trump took over.

---

LOL just because you can't be bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

You know what I mean, and you know why they couldn't agree on a platform in 2020. If Trump had had his way, he would have gutted it.

---

You know full well that Presidents get their priorities enacted on the platform.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

Anything that violates Reagan's 11th Commandment is not a good thing. Sorry, but you're wrong (again).

---

yeah, in a perfect world, campaigns are searches for truth that stick scrupulously to issues. Unfortunately, that rarely happens much above the local level, and federal elections almost always miss the bar. I encourage you to come to terms with it.

Here's a Spectator argument which makes the points I have. I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates.
https://spectator.org/trump-critics-whine-as-he-attacks-desantis/

Another:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-10/bob-dole-george-bush-and-historys-most-brutal-presidential-campaign-attacks


I could go on and on. All it would prove is that campaigns rarely adhere well to the 11th commandment, so you have picked very odd ground upon which to virtue posture.

---

I appreciate you finally acknowledging that the kind of attacks Trump engages in are unprecedented, not just because he is making them himself but also because of the level of vitriol. Your second article says as much. Wish you could have acknowledged that many posts ago.
LOL that is hilarious. Man you can pester and posture and spin with the best of them, on this issue to create an almost artificial disagreement. I have said many times that Trump is "unpresidential" and in this thread repeatedly allowed that what was most remarkable about Trump campaign attacks is that HE issues them personally to a degree no other candidate I can recall.

If you think trump suggesting that RDS is a child molester and groomer is a good thing, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. But let's stop pretending that you defend him from unfair attacks, shall we? We both know you'll endorse or at the very least defend any attack that trump levels at a fellow Republican candidate.
Again you spin. The picture of RDS with young women was a jab, and a fairly soft one, at that. So far, it has proved effective, as RDS (with one exception, noted below) has not joined in the ritualistic attacks on Trump's womanizing. My comments were not supportive of the attack, but simple analysis of it. RDS is a baseball player, Ivy Leaguer, lawyer, SEAL, then a Congressman and now a lawyer. Reckon he would have prompted more giggling and flirting than your average male teacher? For sure I doubt women found him unhandsome in Navy whites. Guy probably scored more than average in his day. Women from the past is always a potential issue in national politics. What might be there for RDS? Has he been scrupulously faithful? That's certainly the impression, but is it the reality? What might Trump know (via oppo research) that we don't? Trump's jab was a shot across the bow..."don't go there." To the extent it keeps RDS away from Trump's playboy days, that is a tactical win for Trump.

No doubt trumps attacks are working among the trumpists. Had a friend who tells me he can no longer support RDS because he's gone "mainstream." So he'll pull the trigger for trump.
I told you that would happen, inevitably. And it's not an irrational fear. All those neverTrumpers (and the Bushes are neverTrumers....) who support RDS will expect appointments, access, influence, if RDS gets elected POTUS. And will be obligated to reward his supporters. RDS is no Bushie (see next post below), but the establishment support he's getting is visible and will hurt RDS with persuadable primary voters.

No doubt in my mind it's going to be trump again in 2024. Hopefully he'll die off before the 2028 election so we don't have to go through this song and dance again.
Have another post on that, below.

---

I lauded RDS public statements on the (allegedly) looming indictment of Trump in NYC. He focused on the right aspect (outrageous prosecutorial misconduct for partisan reasons). And he did float a personal attack of his own with the "...I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star..." line. He risked overtly joining the Dem/neverTrumper attacks on an issue where Trump denies any wrongdoing. But I thought it was phrased well...not too hard, not too soft, and I've heard no blowback at all.

Again, politics is a tough game. Jabs and haymakers get thrown, on issues as well as ad hominem. You and I might disagree on the appropriateness of the attack, and to debate it is plowing the ocean. The voters will tell us whether an attack when too far. If Trump's attacks really are wildly outside of norms, voters will punish him for it. If they don't.....then it's pointless to criticize the attacks.

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

---

The Bushes and Karl Rove are running Ron DeSantis’ shadow campaign according to this Fox News Commentator.. Wow.

pic.twitter.com/eOJxnIxlN8

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) March 27, 2023

Dont forget Karl Rove.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whiterock thinks otherwise. He has said Trump's attacks are nothing new, and said the Reagan and Bush admins engaged in similar attacks against fellow Repubs.

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

---

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

Primary elections can be very tough affairs. To insist otherwise is to misremember most of past election history. Trump's attacks are only remarkable in that he issues them himself rather than by proxy.

---

Excellent. So your position is the only thing unremarkable about Trump's attacks are that he issues them himself. There's nothing remarkable about Republican campaigns issuing scathing personal attacks on a fellow Republican's wife's looks, or suggesting that another Republican candidate is a groomer and sexual assaulter of underage girls based on a mere photograph. Correct? Then let me pose my question again, and perhaps you can provide a responsive answer this time:

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

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

I will hang up and listen.

---

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

Surely you have more than this.

---

Just a little unsolicited advice, when you make an unsupported assertion that these types of attacks are the norm, and then can't produce a single freakin example supporting your assertion, you might reconsider suggesting the poster asking the question has nothing.

I always knew your were full of ***** Now the board does as well. Contrary to your assertions, Trump's attacks simply aren't the norm. But you knew that was a lie at the time you made the statement.

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

Anything that violates Reagan's 11th Commandment is not a good thing. Sorry, but you're wrong (again).

---

yeah, in a perfect world, campaigns are searches for truth that stick scrupulously to issues. Unfortunately, that rarely happens much above the local level, and federal elections almost always miss the bar. I encourage you to come to terms with it.

Here's a Spectator argument which makes the points I have. I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates.
https://spectator.org/trump-critics-whine-as-he-attacks-desantis/

Another:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-10/bob-dole-george-bush-and-historys-most-brutal-presidential-campaign-attacks


I could go on and on. All it would prove is that campaigns rarely adhere well to the 11th commandment, so you have picked very odd ground upon which to virtue posture.

---

I appreciate you finally acknowledging that the kind of attacks Trump engages in are unprecedented, not just because he is making them himself but also because of the level of vitriol. Your second article says as much. Wish you could have acknowledged that many posts ago.
LOL that is hilarious. Man you can pester and posture and spin with the best of them, on this issue to create an almost artificial disagreement. I have said many times that Trump is "unpresidential" and in this thread repeatedly allowed that what was most remarkable about Trump campaign attacks is that HE issues them personally to a degree no other candidate I can recall.

If you think trump suggesting that RDS is a child molester and groomer is a good thing, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. But let's stop pretending that you defend him from unfair attacks, shall we? We both know you'll endorse or at the very least defend any attack that trump levels at a fellow Republican candidate.
Again you spin. The picture of RDS with young women was a jab, and a fairly soft one, at that. So far, it has proved effective, as RDS (with one exception, noted below) has not joined in the ritualistic attacks on Trump's womanizing. My comments were not supportive of the attack, but simple analysis of it. RDS is a baseball player, Ivy Leaguer, lawyer, SEAL, then a Congressman and now a lawyer. Reckon he would have prompted more giggling and flirting than your average male teacher? For sure I doubt women found him unhandsome in Navy whites. Guy probably scored more than average in his day. Women from the past is always a potential issue in national politics. What might be there for RDS? Has he been scrupulously faithful? That's certainly the impression, but is it the reality? What might Trump know (via oppo research) that we don't? Trump's jab was a shot across the bow..."don't go there." To the extent it keeps RDS away from Trump's playboy days, that is a tactical win for Trump.

No doubt trumps attacks are working among the trumpists. Had a friend who tells me he can no longer support RDS because he's gone "mainstream." So he'll pull the trigger for trump.
I told you that would happen, inevitably. And it's not an irrational fear. All those neverTrumpers (and the Bushes are neverTrumers....) who support RDS will expect appointments, access, influence, if RDS gets elected POTUS. And will be obligated to reward his supporters. RDS is no Bushie (see next post below), but the establishment support he's getting is visible and will hurt RDS with persuadable primary voters.

No doubt in my mind it's going to be trump again in 2024. Hopefully he'll die off before the 2028 election so we don't have to go through this song and dance again.
Have another post on that, below.

---

I lauded RDS public statements on the (allegedly) looming indictment of Trump in NYC. He focused on the right aspect (outrageous prosecutorial misconduct for partisan reasons). And he did float a personal attack of his own with the "...I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star..." line. He risked overtly joining the Dem/neverTrumper attacks on an issue where Trump denies any wrongdoing. But I thought it was phrased well...not too hard, not too soft, and I've heard no blowback at all.

Again, politics is a tough game. Jabs and haymakers get thrown, on issues as well as ad hominem. You and I might disagree on the appropriateness of the attack, and to debate it is plowing the ocean. The voters will tell us whether an attack when too far. If Trump's attacks really are wildly outside of norms, voters will punish him for it. If they don't.....then it's pointless to criticize the attacks.

---

These are your words: "I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates."

If you hadn't continued to argue the (inaccurate) point that Trump's attacks aren't unique or different from other Republican campaigns' attacks, I would have dropped the issue. But when you continued to make that same unsupported statement in defense of Trump, you deservedly got called out, and asked for evidence supporting your statement - evidence of course you could not produce.

You seem to have real trouble conceding basic points and facts. I am not sure if it's a desire to "win" an argument, if it's your zeal to defend all things Trump, or if you think any concession on your part shows weakness. But whatever the motivations, if you had simply acknowledged Trump's attacks are out of the mainstream, sharper, and more frequent, as you finally admitted above, we would no longer be engaged in this conversation. In fact, we could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had acknowledged the obvious many pages ago.

As for your defense of Trump's "jab," as you call it, of course you will downplay it. But Trump stating that a photo proves that DeSantis was "grooming" high school girls is a pretty serious allegation. It's more than a mere "jab." I mean, if Trump is correct, then DeSantis committed a sex crime with underage girls, did he not? You think that's a mere jab? And you don't think that is a serious allegation? Of course you do, but as we all know, you'll pretend what Trump said isn't a big deal because Trump made the statement.

Here is Trump's statement about DeSantis: "Here is Ron DeSantimonious grooming high school girls with alcohol as a teacher." Since you claim you will always defend RDS against "unfair" attacks, tell me, do you think it was fair for Trump to accuse DeSantis of being a groomer of underage girls based on that photo?

BTW, it was reported that Trump's attacks on DeSantis at his Waco rally didn't go over well at all. Were met with almost complete silence. While that's a good sign, the fact so many attended to see this grifter is further proof to me he wins the nom. So we are looking at another 4 years of Dem rule, it appears.

muddybrazos said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

---

The Bushes and Karl Rove are running Ron DeSantis’ shadow campaign according to this Fox News Commentator.. Wow.

pic.twitter.com/eOJxnIxlN8

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) March 27, 2023

Dont forget Karl Rove.

---

Of course that's what they're claiming. Any attempts to make RDS look "mainstream" will hurt him with the moronic and brainless sycophants. This is like red meat to those bumpkins. Doesn't matter if it's complete bull *****

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

---

The Bushes and Karl Rove are running Ron DeSantis’ shadow campaign according to this Fox News Commentator.. Wow.

pic.twitter.com/eOJxnIxlN8

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) March 27, 2023

Dont forget Karl Rove.

---

Of course that's what they're claiming. Any attempts to make RDS look "mainstream" will hurt him with the moronic and brainless sycophants. This is like red meat to those bumpkins. Doesn't matter if it's complete bull *****

---

Well, it doesnt seem very far fetched to me. The Bushes, Paul Ryan & Karl Rove hate Trump so naturally they would back the Yale grad guy and use him to steer the party back under their control. Betting odds would naturally say that is what is happening.

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

---

The Bushes and Karl Rove are running Ron DeSantis’ shadow campaign according to this Fox News Commentator.. Wow.

pic.twitter.com/eOJxnIxlN8

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) March 27, 2023

Dont forget Karl Rove.

---

Of course that's what they're claiming. Any attempts to make RDS look "mainstream" will hurt him with the moronic and brainless sycophants. This is like red meat to those bumpkins. Doesn't matter if it's complete bull *****

---

Well, it doesnt seem very far fetched to me. The Bushes, Paul Ryan & Karl Rove hate Trump so naturally they would back the Yale grad guy and use him to steer the party back under their control. Betting odds would naturally say that is what is happening.

---

RDS is a very smart, tough politician. The idea that he is the kind of guy who will allow himself to be manipulated simply isn't supported by the evidence.

If Repubs want to have any chance of winning, they are going to need MAGA and establishment to come together. MAGA cannot win the general election alone. It's going to have to find some crossover among moderates and independents. Otherwise, Trump runs away with the nomination, and loses the general election (again). If RDS has both of their support, I am perfectly fine with that.

J.R. 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.

---

He is a POS, true and simple. He is a miserable human.

---

What politician isn't?

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

Anything that violates Reagan's 11th Commandment is not a good thing. Sorry, but you're wrong (again).

---

yeah, in a perfect world, campaigns are searches for truth that stick scrupulously to issues. Unfortunately, that rarely happens much above the local level, and federal elections almost always miss the bar. I encourage you to come to terms with it.

Here's a Spectator argument which makes the points I have. I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates.
https://spectator.org/trump-critics-whine-as-he-attacks-desantis/

Another:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-10/bob-dole-george-bush-and-historys-most-brutal-presidential-campaign-attacks


I could go on and on. All it would prove is that campaigns rarely adhere well to the 11th commandment, so you have picked very odd ground upon which to virtue posture.

---

I appreciate you finally acknowledging that the kind of attacks Trump engages in are unprecedented, not just because he is making them himself but also because of the level of vitriol. Your second article says as much. Wish you could have acknowledged that many posts ago.
LOL that is hilarious. Man you can pester and posture and spin with the best of them, on this issue to create an almost artificial disagreement. I have said many times that Trump is "unpresidential" and in this thread repeatedly allowed that what was most remarkable about Trump campaign attacks is that HE issues them personally to a degree no other candidate I can recall.

If you think trump suggesting that RDS is a child molester and groomer is a good thing, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. But let's stop pretending that you defend him from unfair attacks, shall we? We both know you'll endorse or at the very least defend any attack that trump levels at a fellow Republican candidate.
Again you spin. The picture of RDS with young women was a jab, and a fairly soft one, at that. So far, it has proved effective, as RDS (with one exception, noted below) has not joined in the ritualistic attacks on Trump's womanizing. My comments were not supportive of the attack, but simple analysis of it. RDS is a baseball player, Ivy Leaguer, lawyer, SEAL, then a Congressman and now a lawyer. Reckon he would have prompted more giggling and flirting than your average male teacher? For sure I doubt women found him unhandsome in Navy whites. Guy probably scored more than average in his day. Women from the past is always a potential issue in national politics. What might be there for RDS? Has he been scrupulously faithful? That's certainly the impression, but is it the reality? What might Trump know (via oppo research) that we don't? Trump's jab was a shot across the bow..."don't go there." To the extent it keeps RDS away from Trump's playboy days, that is a tactical win for Trump.

No doubt trumps attacks are working among the trumpists. Had a friend who tells me he can no longer support RDS because he's gone "mainstream." So he'll pull the trigger for trump.
I told you that would happen, inevitably. And it's not an irrational fear. All those neverTrumpers (and the Bushes are neverTrumers....) who support RDS will expect appointments, access, influence, if RDS gets elected POTUS. And will be obligated to reward his supporters. RDS is no Bushie (see next post below), but the establishment support he's getting is visible and will hurt RDS with persuadable primary voters.

No doubt in my mind it's going to be trump again in 2024. Hopefully he'll die off before the 2028 election so we don't have to go through this song and dance again.
Have another post on that, below.

---

I lauded RDS public statements on the (allegedly) looming indictment of Trump in NYC. He focused on the right aspect (outrageous prosecutorial misconduct for partisan reasons). And he did float a personal attack of his own with the "...I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star..." line. He risked overtly joining the Dem/neverTrumper attacks on an issue where Trump denies any wrongdoing. But I thought it was phrased well...not too hard, not too soft, and I've heard no blowback at all.

Again, politics is a tough game. Jabs and haymakers get thrown, on issues as well as ad hominem. You and I might disagree on the appropriateness of the attack, and to debate it is plowing the ocean. The voters will tell us whether an attack when too far. If Trump's attacks really are wildly outside of norms, voters will punish him for it. If they don't.....then it's pointless to criticize the attacks.

---

These are your words: "I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates."

If you hadn't continued to argue the (inaccurate) point that Trump's attacks aren't unique or different from other Republican campaigns' attacks, I would have dropped the issue. But when you continued to make that same unsupported statement in defense of Trump, you deservedly got called out, and asked for evidence supporting your statement - evidence of course you could not produce.

You seem to have real trouble conceding basic points and facts. I am not sure if it's a desire to "win" an argument, if it's your zeal to defend all things Trump, or if you think any concession on your part shows weakness. But whatever the motivations, if you had simply acknowledged Trump's attacks are out of the mainstream, sharper, and more frequent, as you finally admitted above, we would no longer be engaged in this conversation. In fact, we could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had acknowledged the obvious many pages ago.

As for your defense of Trump's "jab," as you call it, of course you will downplay it. But Trump stating that a photo proves that DeSantis was "grooming" high school girls is a pretty serious allegation. It's more than a mere "jab." I mean, if Trump is correct, then DeSantis committed a sex crime with underage girls, did he not? You think that's a mere jab? And you don't think that is a serious allegation? Of course you do, but as we all know, you'll pretend what Trump said isn't a big deal because Trump made the statement.

Here is Trump's statement about DeSantis: "Here is Ron DeSantimonious grooming high school girls with alcohol as a teacher." Since you claim you will always defend RDS against "unfair" attacks, tell me, do you think it was fair for Trump to accuse DeSantis of being a groomer of underage girls based on that photo?

BTW, it was reported that Trump's attacks on DeSantis at his Waco rally didn't go over well at all. Were met with almost complete silence. While that's a good sign, the fact so many attended to see this grifter is further proof to me he wins the nom. So we are looking at another 4 years of Dem rule, it appears.

---

LOL I had made statements like that several times previously. You just kept picking at it because it was the answer you wanted.

Does it strike you as odd that the picture you mentioned has vanished? I haven't seen anyone reposting it or or commenting on it anywhere. You are, literally, the only one carrying a torch for it. IWhy is that? Think it thru.

I would also note that I saw a Twitter post that made the "complete silence" comment you did. I reviewed the attached video for possible posting here. It was 7-seconds long and cut off before Trump had completed his comments on the subject. Realizing it was just spin, I moved on. You should have, too.

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

---

The Bushes and Karl Rove are running Ron DeSantis’ shadow campaign according to this Fox News Commentator.. Wow.

pic.twitter.com/eOJxnIxlN8

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) March 27, 2023

Dont forget Karl Rove.

---

Of course that's what they're claiming. Any attempts to make RDS look "mainstream" will hurt him with the moronic and brainless sycophants. This is like red meat to those bumpkins. Doesn't matter if it's complete bull *****

---

Well, it doesnt seem very far fetched to me. The Bushes, Paul Ryan & Karl Rove hate Trump so naturally they would back the Yale grad guy and use him to steer the party back under their control. Betting odds would naturally say that is what is happening.

---

RDS is a very smart, tough politician. The idea that he is the kind of guy who will allow himself to be manipulated simply isn't supported by the evidence.

If Repubs want to have any chance of winning, they are going to need MAGA and establishment to come together. MAGA cannot win the general election alone. It's going to have to find some crossover among moderates and independents. Otherwise, Trump runs away with the nomination, and loses the general election (again). If RDS has both of their support, I am perfectly fine with that.

---

Assuming that you and I are correct that Trump will most likely be the nominee, the most obvious, easiest, best way to have MAGA and establishment come together is for a Trump/DeSantis ticket. Trumpers will like it because they like RDS. Establishment will like it because they can have a doorway back into power without having to openly touch Trump. Just stand back and let their avatar (RDS) deal with it publicly. It's like a two-piece puzzle and all the pieces are magnetic. The attraction will be powerful, and the two men will receive enormous pressure to come together..

And none of that will have much impact on independents.....

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

---

He has to listen to them. He's taking their money. But RDS has a team that my sources tell me is top-notch, perfectly capable to taking him all the way. So I suspect the reverbs we are hearing about Team Bush coaching Team RDS has more to do with what's happening at the SuperPac level. RDS has never had a national SuperPac, and for him to form up such an effort would require him to either divide his own team, or hire outside. He has pretty clearly chosen the latter. And that's where Team Bush almost certainly will have the big impact. And remember......the campaign and the PAC cannot coordinate. Needs to be a firewall between them. Ted Cruz sent his long-time campaign manager to head up the Cruz SuperPac. I'm not sure that was the right call. Ted and Jon literally could not communicate with one another, after years of almost joined-at-the-hip operations.

Here's an odd article from the Bulwark, a nest of conservative neverTrumpers that one would assume would be friendly toward the most compelling challenger to Trump. Reads like a Democrat hit piece, but would undermine the allegation that RDS had sold out to the establishment.

https://www.thebulwark.com/desantis-finds-his-voice-a-natcon-culture-warrior-who-praised-a-prominent-white-nationalist/

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

On one hand, interesting. On the other perplexing....at odds with other polling, particularly a very recent NH poll showing Trump with a 41 point margin. Could be real. Could be spin. Need to see more polling done on IA. Not a lot out there.

I know nothing about the GOP firm, but they do have an anodyne name....Public Opinion Strategies...that offers up an unfortunate acronym: POS. It's so odd that it causes one to wonder if it isn't a parody (but apparently isn't).


https://www.axios.com/2023/03/26/desantis-iowa-new-hampshire-polls

---

People are sometimes blind to things. A lot of people read 'POS' and think 'Point of Sale'.

Also, FWIW I just learned that DeSantis is taking campaign advice from the Bush Team. Like Jeb "Please Clap" Bush?

---

The Bushes and Karl Rove are running Ron DeSantis’ shadow campaign according to this Fox News Commentator.. Wow.

pic.twitter.com/eOJxnIxlN8

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) March 27, 2023

Dont forget Karl Rove.

---

Of course that's what they're claiming. Any attempts to make RDS look "mainstream" will hurt him with the moronic and brainless sycophants. This is like red meat to those bumpkins. Doesn't matter if it's complete bull *****

---

Well, it doesnt seem very far fetched to me. The Bushes, Paul Ryan & Karl Rove hate Trump so naturally they would back the Yale grad guy and use him to steer the party back under their control. Betting odds would naturally say that is what is happening.

---

RDS is a very smart, tough politician. The idea that he is the kind of guy who will allow himself to be manipulated simply isn't supported by the evidence.

If Repubs want to have any chance of winning, they are going to need MAGA and establishment to come together. MAGA cannot win the general election alone. It's going to have to find some crossover among moderates and independents. Otherwise, Trump runs away with the nomination, and loses the general election (again). If RDS has both of their support, I am perfectly fine with that.

---

Assuming that you and I are correct that Trump will most likely be the nominee, the most obvious, easiest, best way to have MAGA and establishment come together is for a Trump/DeSantis ticket. Trumpers will like it because they like RDS. Establishment will like it because they can have a doorway back into power without having to openly touch Trump. Just stand back and let their avatar (RDS) deal with it publicly. It's like a two-piece puzzle and all the pieces are magnetic. The attraction will be powerful, and the two men will receive enormous pressure to come together..

And none of that will have much impact on independents.....

---

I know that's your dream scenario, but I suspect DeSantis knows it would be colossal mistake to hitch his wagon to someone like Trump. If his Waco rally is any indication, the Donald Trump revenge tour will be a total **** show, airing perceived grievances, whether real or imagined. The establishment won't vote for that ticket, by and large IMO. Trump is simply too toxic. And quite frankly, I am not sure Trump's ego could handle it.

Ain't gonna happen, nor quite frankly would I want it to.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

M said:

---

You realize that you and Whiterock will probably be on the same side in a year or so, right? You'd better save some of that rancor for me and Oso.

---

---

I know which trench I'll be in, and I'll pass out ammo to anyone in it with me.

Also know who to shoot at.
And who I can trust when the shooting starts.....

---

The TrumpDeSantis Fight Is Going to Be Hideous
Dear Weekend Jolter,
Placing a bet that even Gamblers Anonymous would call safe, Rich Lowry wrote this week that a second Trump administration would be, in a word, "bonkers." The Left would assume a state of perpetual apoplexy, while Trump himself has promised a presidency of "retribution." The guardrails that contained much of the madness to the president's Twitter account the last go-round would be gone; an administration staffed by whoever showed up at Bedminster the night before would apply a philosophy of Truth Social textualism in effectuating his orders.
This vibe is what we got a taste of in the pre-action to Alvin Bragg's supposedly looming Trump indictment (the status of which remains unclear). But we can take solace that a second Trump presidency is a mere possibility. Not so for his campaign reboot it is upon us, and "bonkers" doesn't even begin to cover what America is in for once the field takes shape.
"Imagine the perfervid rantings in a padded cell of a mental patient off his lithium and you're mostly there" is how Jeffrey Blehar scene-sets Trump's early take on the Bragg rumblings. That's probably an apt description, too, for the conduct of the 2024 campaign starting with the primary. It will render quaint what was shocking in 2016 the insinuations about Ted Cruz's father, the comments about his wife, the on-stage stalking of Hillary Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape, "Little Marco," "Lock Her Up" . . . It's all Clark Gable swearing, by comparison. Get ready to hear about how "Lockdown" Ron DeSantis snorted Pfizer doses inside a shuttered kindergarten classroom, next to a cutout of Paul Ryan.
Voters got an early glimpse of the warfare the Florida governor's expected entry into the race will trigger, when DeSantis cleverly paired his condemnation of Bragg with the caveat that he doesn't know "what goes into paying hush money to a porn star." Trump, in turn, hinted at theoretical sex allegations from an underage girl or maybe a dude.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/the-trump-desantis-fight-is-going-to-be-hideous/

---

Yes, it does indeed look like it will be a very spirited primary. That is a good thing, because we will need a nominee who can stand up to the brutality of the general elections. Nothing about them will be fair. Democrats will smother the airwaves with the most outlandish things imaginable and do everything they can to silence opponents in the public square. They will continue to use sovereign power to intimidate opponents, as they have done continuously since 2020. And they will ballot harvest well beyond legality in the swing states.

I will be watching to see which candidate does the best job in the primary. We need toughness on offense and defense, as well as robust operations with internet bots and ballot harvesting. We are going to have to out-Democrat the Democrats to win this one.

I can't recall a primary like what appears to be shaping up - TWO candidates who each appear to be conservative enough and tough enough to do the job.....it's just a question of which one survives the gauntlet.

---

Anything that violates Reagan's 11th Commandment is not a good thing. Sorry, but you're wrong (again).

---

yeah, in a perfect world, campaigns are searches for truth that stick scrupulously to issues. Unfortunately, that rarely happens much above the local level, and federal elections almost always miss the bar. I encourage you to come to terms with it.

Here's a Spectator argument which makes the points I have. I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates.
https://spectator.org/trump-critics-whine-as-he-attacks-desantis/

Another:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-10/bob-dole-george-bush-and-historys-most-brutal-presidential-campaign-attacks


I could go on and on. All it would prove is that campaigns rarely adhere well to the 11th commandment, so you have picked very odd ground upon which to virtue posture.

---

I appreciate you finally acknowledging that the kind of attacks Trump engages in are unprecedented, not just because he is making them himself but also because of the level of vitriol. Your second article says as much. Wish you could have acknowledged that many posts ago.
LOL that is hilarious. Man you can pester and posture and spin with the best of them, on this issue to create an almost artificial disagreement. I have said many times that Trump is "unpresidential" and in this thread repeatedly allowed that what was most remarkable about Trump campaign attacks is that HE issues them personally to a degree no other candidate I can recall.

If you think trump suggesting that RDS is a child molester and groomer is a good thing, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. But let's stop pretending that you defend him from unfair attacks, shall we? We both know you'll endorse or at the very least defend any attack that trump levels at a fellow Republican candidate.
Again you spin. The picture of RDS with young women was a jab, and a fairly soft one, at that. So far, it has proved effective, as RDS (with one exception, noted below) has not joined in the ritualistic attacks on Trump's womanizing. My comments were not supportive of the attack, but simple analysis of it. RDS is a baseball player, Ivy Leaguer, lawyer, SEAL, then a Congressman and now a lawyer. Reckon he would have prompted more giggling and flirting than your average male teacher? For sure I doubt women found him unhandsome in Navy whites. Guy probably scored more than average in his day. Women from the past is always a potential issue in national politics. What might be there for RDS? Has he been scrupulously faithful? That's certainly the impression, but is it the reality? What might Trump know (via oppo research) that we don't? Trump's jab was a shot across the bow..."don't go there." To the extent it keeps RDS away from Trump's playboy days, that is a tactical win for Trump.

No doubt trumps attacks are working among the trumpists. Had a friend who tells me he can no longer support RDS because he's gone "mainstream." So he'll pull the trigger for trump.
I told you that would happen, inevitably. And it's not an irrational fear. All those neverTrumpers (and the Bushes are neverTrumers....) who support RDS will expect appointments, access, influence, if RDS gets elected POTUS. And will be obligated to reward his supporters. RDS is no Bushie (see next post below), but the establishment support he's getting is visible and will hurt RDS with persuadable primary voters.

No doubt in my mind it's going to be trump again in 2024. Hopefully he'll die off before the 2028 election so we don't have to go through this song and dance again.
Have another post on that, below.

---

I lauded RDS public statements on the (allegedly) looming indictment of Trump in NYC. He focused on the right aspect (outrageous prosecutorial misconduct for partisan reasons). And he did float a personal attack of his own with the "...I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star..." line. He risked overtly joining the Dem/neverTrumper attacks on an issue where Trump denies any wrongdoing. But I thought it was phrased well...not too hard, not too soft, and I've heard no blowback at all.

Again, politics is a tough game. Jabs and haymakers get thrown, on issues as well as ad hominem. You and I might disagree on the appropriateness of the attack, and to debate it is plowing the ocean. The voters will tell us whether an attack when too far. If Trump's attacks really are wildly outside of norms, voters will punish him for it. If they don't.....then it's pointless to criticize the attacks.

---

These are your words: "I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's comments are within the mainstream of such things. They are sharper, more frequent, and I think more significantly, typically made directly by him rather than by surrogates."

If you hadn't continued to argue the (inaccurate) point that Trump's attacks aren't unique or different from other Republican campaigns' attacks, I would have dropped the issue. But when you continued to make that same unsupported statement in defense of Trump, you deservedly got called out, and asked for evidence supporting your statement - evidence of course you could not produce.

You seem to have real trouble conceding basic points and facts. I am not sure if it's a desire to "win" an argument, if it's your zeal to defend all things Trump, or if you think any concession on your part shows weakness. But whatever the motivations, if you had simply acknowledged Trump's attacks are out of the mainstream, sharper, and more frequent, as you finally admitted above, we would no longer be engaged in this conversation. In fact, we could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had acknowledged the obvious many pages ago.

As for your defense of Trump's "jab," as you call it, of course you will downplay it. But Trump stating that a photo proves that DeSantis was "grooming" high school girls is a pretty serious allegation. It's more than a mere "jab." I mean, if Trump is correct, then DeSantis committed a sex crime with underage girls, did he not? You think that's a mere jab? And you don't think that is a serious allegation? Of course you do, but as we all know, you'll pretend what Trump said isn't a big deal because Trump made the statement.

Here is Trump's statement about DeSantis: "Here is Ron DeSantimonious grooming high school girls with alcohol as a teacher." Since you claim you will always defend RDS against "unfair" attacks, tell me, do you think it was fair for Trump to accuse DeSantis of being a groomer of underage girls based on that photo?

BTW, it was reported that Trump's attacks on DeSantis at his Waco rally didn't go over well at all. Were met with almost complete silence. While that's a good sign, the fact so many attended to see this grifter is further proof to me he wins the nom. So we are looking at another 4 years of Dem rule, it appears.

---

LOL I had made statements like that several times previously. You just kept picking at it because it was the answer you wanted.

Does it strike you as odd that the picture you mentioned has vanished? I haven't seen anyone reposting it or or commenting on it anywhere. You are, literally, the only one carrying a torch for it. IWhy is that? Think it thru.

I would also note that I saw a Twitter post that made the "complete silence" comment you did. I reviewed the attached video for possible posting here. It was 7-seconds long and cut off before Trump had completed his comments on the subject. Realizing it was just spin, I moved on. You should have, too.

---

You never said anything of the sort until the post I referenced.

Whether the picture has disappeared or not is irrelevant. The question you keep dodging is whether it was right for Trump to attack DeSantis in that way. Apparently, you feel suggesting he was a groomer of minor girls was apropos, since you allegedly defend RDS against unfair attacks.

Remember?