2024

640,091 Views | 10579 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by The_barBEARian
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Our dear leader . . . Always bringing folks together.

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mister, you have made it clear you would spit on Reagan or Washington themselves, if they were to say they might vote for Trump.

That's some industrial-grade spite you have showing up in every one of your posts.

So if we end up with another Democrat in the White House, you can go thank the guy you see in your mirror.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?


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.
When fighting a Guerilla, have your own Guerilla. RDS is in the Bush camp and has their support. Like em or not the Bush family is still a formidable political force with resources and influence. There is no way he loses to Trump as the end of the day.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mister, you have made it clear you would spit on Reagan or Washington themselves, if they were to say they might vote for Trump.

That's some industrial-grade spite you have showing up in every one of your posts.

So if we end up with another Democrat in the White House, you can go thank the guy you see in your mirror.
LOL. Never said or suggested anything of the sort. Unlike you, my allegiance is to conservatism, not Trump.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Our dear leader . . . Always bringing folks together.


Yup. All fine and dandy, tho, according to Whiterock.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Desantis is in the unenviable position of not really campaigning yet still being attacked and therefore is at his lowest in the polls. But Quinnipiac still has him beating Biden and Trump losing to Biden. That's incredible.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Desantis is in the unenviable position of not really campaigning yet still being attacked and therefore is at his lowest in the polls. But Quinnipiac still has him beating Biden and Trump losing to Biden. That's incredible.
DeSantis has not engaged yet. Until the FL Legislature finishes meeting, he is not going to engage. Once the Legislature is done, the gloves will come off.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mister, you have made it clear you would spit on Reagan or Washington themselves, if they were to say they might vote for Trump.

That's some industrial-grade spite you have showing up in every one of your posts.

So if we end up with another Democrat in the White House, you can go thank the guy you see in your mirror.
LOL. Never said or suggested anything of the sort. Unlike you, my allegiance is to conservatism, not Trump.
Bad lie, pal. For some reason the TDS crowd always throws out the false 'you are a Trumpist' or some such nonsense, even when I have repeatedly made clear that I do not want a second Trump term.

The facts are these:

1. You and your side throw an absolute snit fit anytime someone doesn't treat Trump as if he was a criminal. It makes you look like a middle school tween trying to impress the 'cool' girls.

2. Trump is a boor, but his policies were dead on target for the most part.

3. We need a united GOP to win in 2024. Demanding Trump quit the race is a wish you will never see come true, so you need to win over his base. And insulting Trump's base is as stupid as trusting a Biden with your kids' safety.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mister, you have made it clear you would spit on Reagan or Washington themselves, if they were to say they might vote for Trump.

That's some industrial-grade spite you have showing up in every one of your posts.

So if we end up with another Democrat in the White House, you can go thank the guy you see in your mirror.
LOL. Never said or suggested anything of the sort. Unlike you, my allegiance is to conservatism, not Trump.
Bad lie, pal. For some reason the TDS crowd always throws out the false 'you are a Trumpist' or some such nonsense, even when I have repeatedly made clear that I do not want a second Trump term.

The facts are these:

1. You and your side throw an absolute snit fit anytime someone doesn't treat Trump as if he was a criminal. It makes you look like a middle school tween trying to impress the 'cool' girls.

2. Trump is a boor, but his policies were dead on target for the most part.

3. We need a united GOP to win in 2024. Demanding Trump quit the race is a wish you will never see come true, so you need to win over his base. And insulting Trump's base is as stupid as trusting a Biden with your kids' safety.
I am a Never Trumper to the Always Trumpers, and an Always Trumper to the Never Trumpers. Hilarious.

I haven't asked Trump to drop out of anything. We are in primary season, and I support another candidate. Therefore, I will tout my candidate and criticize Trump for his bad acts, in the same way those who support Trump (and Trump himself) will be critical of my candidate. It's odd you think criticism of Trump is off limits, but criticism of his opponents is fair game.

As for his policies, that's a bit of revisionist history. Some of his policies were good. Many left much to be desired. He spent like a liberal, never built his border wall, and his COVID policies were atrocious.

sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra: "Many left much to be desired. He spent like a liberal, never built his border wall, and his COVID policies were atrocious."

Which policies, specific polices, were poor?

And it's pretty dishonest to blame Trump for the Wall issues when it was Congress which stopped the work.

As for COVID, it's my understanding that Pence told him to trust Blix and Fauci. And frankly, very few people understood before 2021 what those characters were up to.

Now what exactly did Trump want to spend money on, that you think was so bad? I honestly don't recall him 'spending like a liberal'.

If you judge Trump by what he accomplished and what he was trying to get done, he was very effective. You don't have to like him or vote for Trump to give him his due.

The problem with making up reasons to hate Trump, is that - again - you need the support of people who believe in secure borders, in common-sense trade policies with China and Russia and Canada et cetera, a proper ridicule of this 'woke' nonsense and the damage caused by it, judges who follow the Constitution as written ... and so on. Those people don't trust the empty promises of Establishment politicians like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and their ilk.

And for the record, if he runs and the primary were today, I would support DeSantis. But the message needs to be focused on continuing what Trump did right, not pretending his policies were wrong.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mister, you have made it clear you would spit on Reagan or Washington themselves, if they were to say they might vote for Trump.

That's some industrial-grade spite you have showing up in every one of your posts.

So if we end up with another Democrat in the White House, you can go thank the guy you see in your mirror.
LOL. Never said or suggested anything of the sort. Unlike you, my allegiance is to conservatism, not Trump.
Bad lie, pal. For some reason the TDS crowd always throws out the false 'you are a Trumpist' or some such nonsense, even when I have repeatedly made clear that I do not want a second Trump term.

The facts are these:

1. You and your side throw an absolute snit fit anytime someone doesn't treat Trump as if he was a criminal. It makes you look like a middle school tween trying to impress the 'cool' girls.

2. Trump is a boor, but his policies were dead on target for the most part.

3. We need a united GOP to win in 2024. Demanding Trump quit the race is a wish you will never see come true, so you need to win over his base. And insulting Trump's base is as stupid as trusting a Biden with your kids' safety.
I am a Never Trumper to the Always Trumpers, and an Always Trumper to the Never Trumpers. Hilarious.

I haven't asked Trump to drop out of anything. We are in primary season, and I support another candidate. Therefore, I will tout my candidate and criticize Trump for his bad acts, in the same way those who support Trump (and Trump himself) will be critical of my candidate. It's odd you think criticism of Trump is off limits, but criticism of his opponents is fair game.

As for his policies, that's a bit of revisionist history. Some of his policies were good. Many left much to be desired. He spent like a liberal, never built his border wall, and his COVID policies were atrocious.


Have to disagree here Mothra. Trump tried to address the border and build a wall, a wall that the Border Patrol and the States wanted, but was blocked by Congress.

His COVID policies were right on. Health and wellness is a State issue and he rightly left it to the States and made resources available as needed. He fast tracked treatments. He restricted travel. I do not see many issues with his Pandemic handling. Most of the damage was caused by Democratic Governors.

He also restrained Federal overstepping with the riots and not Federalizing.

As for spending, I have not seen a President since Eisenhower that was concerned with overspending. Even Clinton and his balanced budget was due to the .COM boom generating more revenue, not less spending. Name one that has cut the Budget to accomplish a balanced budget? Everyone was increasing revenue, including Biden and his tax the rich and corporations.

2016-2020 Trump was not a bad Executive. It was after the Impeachment and the Biden loss he went nuts...
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mothra: "Many left much to be desired. He spent like a liberal, never built his border wall, and his COVID policies were atrocious."

Which policies, specific polices, were poor?

And it's pretty dishonest to blame Trump for the Wall issues when it was Congress which stopped the work.

As for COVID, it's my understanding that Pence told him to trust Blix and Fauci. And frankly, very few people understood before 2021 what those characters were up to.

Now what exactly did Trump want to spend money on, that you think was so bad? I honestly don't recall him 'spending like a liberal'.

If you judge Trump by what he accomplished and what he was trying to get done, he was very effective. You don't have to like him or vote for Trump to give him his due.

The problem with making up reasons to hate Trump, is that - again - you need the support of people who believe in secure borders, in common-sense trade policies with China and Russia and Canada et cetera, a proper ridicule of this 'woke' nonsense and the damage caused by it, judges who follow the Constitution as written ... and so on. Those people don't trust the empty promises of Establishment politicians like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and their ilk.

And for the record, if he runs and the primary were today, I would support DeSantis. But the message needs to be focused on continuing what Trump did right, not pretending his policies were wrong.
I opposed his tariffs and other anti-trade moves and agree he did a poor job on COVID, although I've always said most get a free pass on that given all the unknowns and uncertainty. Also opposed his tax policy, as there was no reason for anyone to pay more taxes. And, yes, the deficit/debt skyrocketed. I also don't like how he demonized anyone who even brainstormed entitlement reform.

He was outstanding on deregulation, judges, and far underrated on int'l/military policy. Many of his supporters don't like to hear this, but Trump also moderated considerably on immigration. He was willing to accept the same deals over which he criticized his primary opponents - i.e., greater border security exchanged for some amnesty. I credit him for that.

I'm curious, what does establishment mean to you? Which prominent Republicans do you find acceptably non-establishment? Rubio, for example, was a Tea Party hero who is aligned with Trump on virtually every issue. I'm not saying this is your position, but to many Trumpers, virtually everyone not 100% aligned with Trump is "establishment."

I submit that a GOP establishment no longer exists. It's all split. Media, think tanks, prominent politicos, big business . . . they are no longer aligned, certainly not in any organized fashion. To the extent there is an establishment, I'd say it's fairly pro-Trump.

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra: "Many left much to be desired. He spent like a liberal, never built his border wall, and his COVID policies were atrocious."

Which policies, specific polices, were poor?

And it's pretty dishonest to blame Trump for the Wall issues when it was Congress which stopped the work.

As for COVID, it's my understanding that Pence told him to trust Blix and Fauci. And frankly, very few people understood before 2021 what those characters were up to.

Now what exactly did Trump want to spend money on, that you think was so bad? I honestly don't recall him 'spending like a liberal'.

If you judge Trump by what he accomplished and what he was trying to get done, he was very effective. You don't have to like him or vote for Trump to give him his due.

The problem with making up reasons to hate Trump, is that - again - you need the support of people who believe in secure borders, in common-sense trade policies with China and Russia and Canada et cetera, a proper ridicule of this 'woke' nonsense and the damage caused by it, judges who follow the Constitution as written ... and so on. Those people don't trust the empty promises of Establishment politicians like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and their ilk.

And for the record, if he runs and the primary were today, I would support DeSantis. But the message needs to be focused on continuing what Trump did right, not pretending his policies were wrong.
I opposed his tariffs and other anti-trade moves and agree he did a poor job on COVID, although I've always said most get a free pass on that given all the unknowns and uncertainty. Also opposed his tax policy, as there was no reason for anyone to pay more taxes. And, yes, the deficit/debt skyrocketed. I also don't like how he demonized anyone who even brainstormed entitlement reform.

He was outstanding on deregulation, judges, and far underrated on int'l/military policy. Many of his supporters don't like to hear this, but Trump also moderated considerably on immigration. He was willing to accept the same deals over which he criticized his primary opponents - i.e., greater border security exchanged for some amnesty. I credit him for that.

I'm curious, what does establishment mean to you? Which prominent Republicans do you find acceptably non-establishment? Rubio, for example, was a Tea Party hero who is aligned with Trump on virtually every issue. I'm not saying this is your position, but to many Trumpers, virtually everyone not 100% aligned with Trump is "establishment."

I submit that a GOP establishment no longer exists. It's all split. Media, think tanks, prominent politicos, big business . . . they are no longer aligned, certainly not in any organized fashion. To the extent there is an establishment, I'd say it's fairly pro-Trump.


I liked his tariffs, and had he won a second term we would be immensely better in our trade position. But I speak with knowledge of some China companies - when Trump put the tariffs in place, a lot of Chinese companies started changing their policies to comply with what they saw as a resolute United States.

Biden undid all that.

I also think twenty years from now, Trump's foreign policy will be seen as a bright spot in a dismal wasteland from 2003 to whenever we get a sane POTUS again.

The problem of Establishment is the way politics is played in D.C. The District is the oldest of Old Boy Clubs, where everyone is expected to 'pay their dues' before they get any real power. And that power comes with wealth.

One metric I recommend to anyone wondering who has been corrupted, is to figure up how much a Congress critter or Senator has made from their salary over time, then compare it to their gain in estimated wealth since taking office.

And no, the Establishment is not pro-Trump. Not because I believe Trump was a serious reformer of the system, so much as Trump wanted his own people in place, the same way Obama replaced a lot of Clintonites in the DNC when he took over. The difference was, of course, that Obama's efforts worked and he effectively runs Democrat policy now, while Trump was not able to oust the mandarins at the RNC.


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

Oldbear83 said:

Mothra: "Many left much to be desired. He spent like a liberal, never built his border wall, and his COVID policies were atrocious."

Which policies, specific polices, were poor?

And it's pretty dishonest to blame Trump for the Wall issues when it was Congress which stopped the work.

As for COVID, it's my understanding that Pence told him to trust Blix and Fauci. And frankly, very few people understood before 2021 what those characters were up to.

Now what exactly did Trump want to spend money on, that you think was so bad? I honestly don't recall him 'spending like a liberal'.

If you judge Trump by what he accomplished and what he was trying to get done, he was very effective. You don't have to like him or vote for Trump to give him his due.

The problem with making up reasons to hate Trump, is that - again - you need the support of people who believe in secure borders, in common-sense trade policies with China and Russia and Canada et cetera, a proper ridicule of this 'woke' nonsense and the damage caused by it, judges who follow the Constitution as written ... and so on. Those people don't trust the empty promises of Establishment politicians like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and their ilk.

And for the record, if he runs and the primary were today, I would support DeSantis. But the message needs to be focused on continuing what Trump did right, not pretending his policies were wrong.
I opposed his tariffs and other anti-trade moves and agree he did a poor job on COVID, although I've always said most get a free pass on that given all the unknowns and uncertainty. Also opposed his tax policy, as there was no reason for anyone to pay more taxes. And, yes, the deficit/debt skyrocketed. I also don't like how he demonized anyone who even brainstormed entitlement reform.

He was outstanding on deregulation, judges, and far underrated on int'l/military policy. Many of his supporters don't like to hear this, but Trump also moderated considerably on immigration. He was willing to accept the same deals over which he criticized his primary opponents - i.e., greater border security exchanged for some amnesty. I credit him for that.

I'm curious, what does establishment mean to you? Which prominent Republicans do you find acceptably non-establishment? Rubio, for example, was a Tea Party hero who is aligned with Trump on virtually every issue. I'm not saying this is your position, but to many Trumpers, virtually everyone not 100% aligned with Trump is "establishment."

I submit that a GOP establishment no longer exists. It's all split. Media, think tanks, prominent politicos, big business . . . they are no longer aligned, certainly not in any organized fashion. To the extent there is an establishment, I'd say it's fairly pro-Trump.




A good list. With respect to the border wall, the issue there was his significant over promises and under delivery. Recall he said on numerous occasions Mexico was going to pay for the wall. When people questioned him he simply repeated this mantra. And in truth he failed miserably on those assurances. Miserably.

And then of course his spending policies - oi vey. The guy spent like a liberal. He didn't have an ounce of fiscal conservatism.

I liked much about his policies and you mention most. But those claiming all of his policies were spot on conservative are ignoring the blights on his record.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iowa Poll: DeSantis 45 Percent, Trump 37 Percent
Axios reports:

Two new polls from a top Republican polling firm provided exclusively to Axios find Florida Gov. DeSantis is running more competitively with former President Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire than he is faring in national surveys.
Driving the news: The surveys, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies from March 21 to 23 for an outside client (not a candidate or super PAC) found DeSantis leading Trump by eight points (45%-37%) in a head-to-head matchup in Iowa and tied with Trump (39%-39%) in New Hampshire.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iowa-poll-desantis-45-percent-trump-37-percent/

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

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

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?

LOL….context doesn't matter? If you listen all the way to the end of the comments, the crowd laughed and applauded. Now you're foaming at the mouth about the comments even though nothing in that 7 seconds rises anywhere near the level of personal you cite. It was an entirely appropriate point to make: Trump made Desantis (with an endorsement), and now Desantis is running against Trump Both are clearly true. Fair point to make and it will have some effect.

"I didn't like that" does not equal "personal attack."
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Desantis is in the unenviable position of not really campaigning yet still being attacked and therefore is at his lowest in the polls. But Quinnipiac still has him beating Biden and Trump losing to Biden. That's incredible.

True but also a year away from the primary and even longer until the generals. We can expect RDS approval numbers to decline from this point forward. He'll be taking incoming fire now and it's going to get worse.

That's the big risk of the argument that RDS is more electable based on favorable polling with independents. It's more likely to get worse rather than better. And once that edge is eroded away, then what do you have left ?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

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?

LOL….context doesn't matter? If you listen all the way to the end of the comments, the crowd laughed and applauded. Now you're foaming at the mouth about the comments even though nothing in that 7 seconds rises anywhere near the level of personal you cite. It was an entirely appropriate point to make: Trump made Desantis (with an endorsement), and now Desantis is running against Trump Both are clearly true. Fair point to make and it will have some effect.

"I didn't like that" does not equal "personal attack."
What are you talking about? I was referring to Trump's attack on DeSantis on his social media platform, wherein he posted a photo of DeSantis with purported underage girls and said, "Here is Ron DeSanctimonious grooming high school girls with alcohol as a teacher." That's not an personal attack, in your book? That's not unfair?
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

sombear said:

Desantis is in the unenviable position of not really campaigning yet still being attacked and therefore is at his lowest in the polls. But Quinnipiac still has him beating Biden and Trump losing to Biden. That's incredible.

True but also a year away from the primary and even longer until the generals. We can expect RDS approval numbers to decline from this point forward. He'll be taking incoming fire now and it's going to get worse.

That's the big risk of the argument that RDS is more electable based on favorable polling with independents. It's more likely to get worse rather than better. And once that edge is eroded away, then what do you have left ?
His approvals will never drop lower than Trump's and his disapprovals will never go higher than Trump's. And I've said before - and I believe you agreed - it is unprecedented for someone like Desantis to have those numbers this early in the process with still relatively low name ID.

That said, I was wrong and am surprised that Trump has bounced back so well in the primary polls. I think Trump remains the favorite, unfortunately, and 2 months ago, I would have bet the house on Desantis. That will ebb and flow, of course, but I thought Desantis would maintain a solid lead in the state polls absent some major development.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

sombear said:

Desantis is in the unenviable position of not really campaigning yet still being attacked and therefore is at his lowest in the polls. But Quinnipiac still has him beating Biden and Trump losing to Biden. That's incredible.

True but also a year away from the primary and even longer until the generals. We can expect RDS approval numbers to decline from this point forward. He'll be taking incoming fire now and it's going to get worse.

That's the big risk of the argument that RDS is more electable based on favorable polling with independents. It's more likely to get worse rather than better. And once that edge is eroded away, then what do you have left ?
A loser re-tread running for president is what. And we lose. Again.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It seems critical thinking scares Blair Nathan.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

It seems critical thinking scares Blair Nathan.
I don't think he is wrong... Trump and the "Trump-ites" seem to be trying to bring back 1960 America and that can never happen. I do not believe that simply putting the rules in place that were here in 1960 will do it, too many changes. That is why I think a DeSantis is a better choice, he acknowledges and lives in the present.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

It seems critical thinking scares Blair Nathan.
I don't think he is wrong... Trump and the "Trump-ites" seem to be trying to bring back 1960 America and that can never happen. I do not believe that simply putting the rules in place that were here in 1960 will do it, too many changes. That is why I think a DeSantis is a better choice, he acknowledges and lives in the present.
Actually, the "Trump-ites" just want a government that makes policies that benefit the American people not Israel, China, Ukraine, Nato or the UN. It's pretty simple, actually.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Too many never Trumpers won't vote for Trump is he's the nominee

Too many Trumpers won't vote for DeSantis if he's the nominee

Too many people can't compartmentalize their emotions
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Someone needs to run for the GOP nomination on the platform that Trump cannot win. That vote for Trump as the nominee is a vote to lose to Biden. That person probably can't win the nomination, but will draw the fire of Trump non-stop, will make a good point, and might save the day. Who will the brave soul be?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:


I know several of these types. Wife has a friend that engaged in a prayer vigil for more than 2 months after the inauguration of Biden who believed God would put Trump back in power. She was absolutely convinced, and when it didn't happen, damaged her faith.

Too many crazies in the fringes of both parties. It's a damn shame.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

It seems critical thinking scares Blair Nathan.
I don't think he is wrong... Trump and the "Trump-ites" seem to be trying to bring back 1960 America and that can never happen. I do not believe that simply putting the rules in place that were here in 1960 will do it, too many changes. That is why I think a DeSantis is a better choice, he acknowledges and lives in the present.


"We didn't consult with you before we killed pre-1965 America and you people are bigots and probably racists for wanting it back anyway"
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

whiterock said:

sombear said:

Desantis is in the unenviable position of not really campaigning yet still being attacked and therefore is at his lowest in the polls. But Quinnipiac still has him beating Biden and Trump losing to Biden. That's incredible.

True but also a year away from the primary and even longer until the generals. We can expect RDS approval numbers to decline from this point forward. He'll be taking incoming fire now and it's going to get worse.

That's the big risk of the argument that RDS is more electable based on favorable polling with independents. It's more likely to get worse rather than better. And once that edge is eroded away, then what do you have left ?
His approvals will never drop lower than Trump's and his disapprovals will never go higher than Trump's. And I've said before - and I believe you agreed - it is unprecedented for someone like Desantis to have those numbers this early in the process with still relatively low name ID.

That said, I was wrong and am surprised that Trump has bounced back so well in the primary polls. I think Trump remains the favorite, unfortunately, and 2 months ago, I would have bet the house on Desantis. That will ebb and flow, of course, but I thought Desantis would maintain a solid lead in the state polls absent some major development.
Except that Trump was out-polling Biden for much of last year, and Biden remains barely (a point or two) ahead at the moment. Safest bet of all would be that the polling we see today does NOT remain static.

I did agree with your statement about Desantis. Such is a good rule of thumb. I also stated another rule of thumb: that as Desantis' name ID climbs, so will his negatives. That's because Democrats are going to "introduce" him to millions of people in a very negative light. They're already starting. Very reasonable to expect to see the (narrow to comfortable) favorables margin RDS has over Trump wither away to statistical insignificant. Not certain, mind you. RDS could hold up, campaign well and catch fire, etc.... But normally, favorables tend to sag under pressure during a campaign.

What we're seeing with Trump is a strong coalition holding together. RDS is the natural/obvious successor to that coalition, but it's hard for him to compete for it without looking like a traitor (which is why we're starting to see the Trump campaign messaging thusly). So RDS will have to build his own. We don't know what that looks like yet. in a general, and there at the moment may not be enough pieces available to build one in the primary.

RDS is very talented, has a very good team around him, and will be very well funded, possibly better than Trump. This race will be a lot closer than the polls indicate.

One thing that gets lost in these debates: the winner of the Trump/Desantis contest is our best candidate. Hard to make a case that a 2nd or 3rd place finisher is the stronger horse for the general. You cannot win the middle if you do not have your base fired up. The list of establishment yawners who tried to hide their base and win the middle is long.....losers all.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:


I know several of these types. Wife has a friend that engaged in a prayer vigil for more than 2 months after the inauguration of Biden who believed God would put Trump back in power. She was absolutely convinced, and when it didn't happen, damaged her faith.

Too many crazies in the fringes of both parties. It's a damn shame.
Dems know how to organize people like that to win elections. They find work for them to do that moves needles.

The wizards of smart in the GOP make fun of them to make themselves feel better.

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

Someone needs to run for the GOP nomination on the platform that Trump cannot win. That vote for Trump as the nominee is a vote to lose to Biden. That person probably can't win the nomination, but will draw the fire of Trump non-stop, will make a good point, and might save the day. Who will the brave soul be?
Larry Hogan has already dropped out of the race.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:


I know several of these types. Wife has a friend that engaged in a prayer vigil for more than 2 months after the inauguration of Biden who believed God would put Trump back in power. She was absolutely convinced, and when it didn't happen, damaged her faith.

Too many crazies in the fringes of both parties. It's a damn shame.
Dems know how to organize people like that to win elections. They find work for them to do that moves needles.

The wizards of smart in the GOP make fun of them to make themselves feel better.




Couldn't care less what the wizards of smart do. Standing up for what's right and calling ideas that are bad or crazy, bad or crazy is something we should never cease. I of course understand for you it's all about winning. But in the long run placating the crazies doesn't win you elections.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Redbrickbear said:


I know several of these types. Wife has a friend that engaged in a prayer vigil for more than 2 months after the inauguration of Biden who believed God would put Trump back in power. She was absolutely convinced, and when it didn't happen, damaged her faith.

Too many crazies in the fringes of both parties. It's a damn shame.
Dems know how to organize people like that to win elections. They find work for them to do that moves needles.

The wizards of smart in the GOP make fun of them to make themselves feel better.




Couldn't care less what the wizards of smart do. Standing up for what's right and calling ideas that are bad or crazy, bad or crazy is something we should never cease. I of course understand for you it's all about winning. But in the long run placating the crazies doesn't win you elections.
The first step in winning an election is putting all the crazies to work on productive tasks, not driving them out of the party. I think both of the top two guys right now understand that.

Here's a good example of calling out bad ideas:


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good news. Net GOP registration advantages have grown in key states by more than the margin of loss in 2020. Will impact primaries.

First Page Last Page
Page 22 of 303
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.