2024

432,203 Views | 8357 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by 4th and Inches
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 2:21p, 9/12/24
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
ScottS said:
sombear said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
Harris destroyed Trump last night.

ABC was shamefully biased.

How so? She lied through the whole thing. She failed to answer questions on the economy, the border, if people are better off now than 4 years ago, if she is ok with abortion in the 7, 8, and 9th month, and all her flip flopping. The media, who is all democrats, might say she won, but that is not the truth.


He missed countless opportunities and spent far too much time on J6, rehashing 2020, rallies, and eating pets.
True. But for Trump, it was much better than I expected it to be. I suppose that says something about how far the bar has been lowered.
missed opportunities and digressions are demerits, for sure. The more important question is, did he make the big points he needed to make. Seems pretty clear that he did. Trump never clutters main themes with torrents of data, details , plans, etc..... He is not ever going to please a wonk with masterful manipulation of minutiae. But it does speak to one-issue voters and simpler minds. Half of the electorate, remember, has below average intelligence.

I have seen no discussion of Harris's demeanor in the debate. I think it hurt her. Very expressively ridiculing him, incredulous expressions, smiling/laughing at "antics," fairly animated repositioning behind the podium etc..... Perhaps that inadvertently confirmed suspicions many have about how serious she is. To the extent she was trying to show lack of respect....that is not wise for Democrat who are the face of cancel culture.....judging harshly people with whom they disagree. That was almost a rallying cry in 2016 - Hillary's "basket of deplorables" prompting an visceral outburst of "YESSSS" from so many Trump voters. I don't at all think the debate was that kind of moment, but I do think Harris's demeanor was off putting to a lot of independent voters. Just another glib, arrogant, lightweight looking down her nose at someone who they disagreed with.

Trump, by contrast - stolid, scowling, serious, no nonsense demeanor, conveying a sense of exasperation at the ideological nonsense she represents, ideological nonsense which is feeding chaos across a number important policy realms. there are a LOT of voters out there who feel that way, who know they are being fed a quivering pile Democrat BS but are sick & tired of trying nail Jello to a tree. To them, Trump is a handy mallet.

Not trying to say Tuesday night was a big win for Trump or anything like that. But the numbers are pretty clear that she missed as many opportunities as he did, and perhaps did as much self-harm as Trump did. Maybe more with independents. We should get a better glimpse by Fri.
I say this with professional admiration-you are a rationalization machine of the highest order.

You and Trump are missing the point though. Kamala's one job in the debate was to not lose the election, which she could have done by appearing not qualified. She passed that test with flying colors because she did the one thing that no one has been able to do on a debate stage with Donald Trump-she was the alpha. The substance and the procedure are all beside the point. She looked like she could be president by the way she handled herself.

That in no way means she wins the election. She created possibilities with independents and never Trumpers but she did not close the deal, largely based on the points you make. She knows that. But she did everything she needed to do on Tuesday night. Goal accomplished but game on now.

Trump has been a unique politician based in part based on something he understands innately. He never apologizes and he gets away with outrageous things because he knows the news cycle moves on. What is important and outraging to people today is less so tomorrow and forgotten a week from now. Add that to the fact that most persuadable viewers thought Harris did well but she did not convince them to vote for her, his strategy ought to be to just act like the debate never happened. She had a good night but so what.

But his insane need to have the world perceive him as perfect means he has to relitigate and recharacterize the debate. The more the hard right echo chamber amplifies this tactic, the better off Kamala is becuase her good night grows in importance. If I am Trump or a Trump supporter I would quit talking about the debate as soon as I could becuase the narrative is set-she won. Every time you discuss it, she wins again.
Reply Quote
1
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 2:45p, 9/12/24
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they "bent knee to Trump."
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Malbec • 2:52p, 9/12/24
Malbec said:
Mothra said:
Malbec said:
Quote:
I'd describe myself as a conservative. Never been a Republican.
Quote:
I like being the party of the little guy and working man

I'd prefer not to be the party of war mongers anymore.
Sounds a little like you are being a bit disingenuous with that first statement, similar, but in the opposite direction of what those "lifelong Republican" turned Democrats always seem to claim. They tout their "former affiliation" while you deny any former or current connection, yet speak of the party in terms only a member would use.

Why are so many so afraid of the Democrats that they either feel the need to score points by proclaiming that they have seen the light, or by acting as if they aren't really what they are voting for and would surely come back home if only...? It's really a strange phenomena.


Not sure what's disingenuous. Never been a registered Republican at any point.

Am a conservative and always have been.
I simply meant that you made a point to distance yourself from the party, and then proceeded to attach yourself to it with how you "like being the party..."
I did make a point of distancing myself, and will continue to do so. Hate to burst your bubble, but the Republican Party sucks right now. It's dysfunctional and has nutjobs that would prefer to burn it down than work with their fellow Republicans. While Trump has brought some good things to the party, he's also brought a lot of bad, and the Trump sycophants and MAGA a-holes are one of the blights on the party right now. I am hopeful when Trump dies or goes away, that aspect of the party will diminish.

There is a binary choice this election cycle, and between a guy like Trump, as much as I dislike him personally, I prefer him to the Marxist liberal nutcase. That's why I will hold my nose and vote for him.
Reply Quote
1
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 2:56p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 2:57p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they "bent knee to Trump."
You're right, I missed the context on this one.
Reply Quote
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 2:59p, 9/12/24
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.



Why are you unlikely to vote for a 'personally honorable person' irregardles of who his Democratic opponent is ?
Reply Quote
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 3:04p, 9/12/24
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.



Why are you unlikely to vote for a 'personally honorable person' irregardles of who his Democratic opponent is ?
Because I don't like his policies.

But the "unlikely" does depend somewhat on the opponent. If it had been De Santis-Biden, and Biden had debated like he did against Trump, I would probably have had to vote for DeSantis. High likelihood that Biden would not be fit sometime during a second term, and I am not going to vote for a constitutional crisis.
Reply Quote
1
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 3:13p, 9/12/24
sombear said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they "bent knee to Trump."
You're right, I missed the context on this one.
A little more context. Mothra's party nominated, Bush 1, Bush 2, Dole, McCain, Romney, and I voted for them and don't regret it.. Now he has turned on candidates he nominated and is disdainful of these folks he nominated. He recommends I vote for Trump, even though he has already turned on him and no doubt will speak ill of Trump in a few years or weeks, IOW, Mothra has a long history of making bad choices in presidential elections, but asks me to trust him this year. Nope.
I won't be voting for a president this year. I'm not recommending anyone follow me in this. A lot of good people of sound mind and conscience will vote for Trump. I respect their decision.
Reply Quote
1
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 3:15p, 9/12/24
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.



Why are you unlikely to vote for a 'personally honorable person' irregardles of who his Democratic opponent is ?
Because I don't like his policies.

But the "unlikely" does depend somewhat on the opponent. If it had been De Santis-Biden, and Biden had debated like he did against Trump, I would probably have had to vote for DeSantis. High likelihood that Biden would not be fit sometime during a second term, and I am not going to vote for a constitutional crisis.


Please be specific and tell me which of DeSantis's policies concern you enough to be unlikely to vote for such a honorable man ?

Not playing 'gotcha games', just trying to learn something.
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:17p, 9/12/24
Reply Quote
1
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 3:27p, 9/12/24
Osodecentx said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they "bent knee to Trump."
You're right, I missed the context on this one.
A little more context. Mothra's party nominated, Bush 1, Bush 2, Dole, McCain, Romney, and I voted for them and don't regret it.. Now he has turned on candidates he nominated and is disdainful of these folks he nominated. He recommends I vote for Trump, even though he has already turned on him and no doubt will speak ill of Trump in a few years or weeks, IOW, Mothra has a long history of making bad choices in presidential elections, but asks me to trust him this year. Nope.
I won't be voting for a president this year. I'm not recommending anyone follow me in this. A lot of good people of sound mind and conscience will vote for Trump. I respect their decision.
You voted for all of those Republicans I nominated? LOL. If what you said is true, you actually voted for more Republicans than I did!

You sure you aren't a closeted Repub feigning to be an "independent"? Admit it, you put on MAGA clothing in the middle of the night, when the wife's asleep, don't you? LOL. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone can see you're in the closet.

A little more context, Sombear - Oso thinks he's insulting me by pretending I nominated Trump or that the Repubs he voted for are "my" nominees. Ironically, it's not unlike the 7th grade insults Trump engages in, so perhaps there is some truth to what I posted above that hits a nerve for him. Unlike you and other reasonable conservatives who don't like Trump, Oso has trouble seeing the big picture. He's all up in his feels, and his hatred of Trump will cause him to vote (or not vote, as the case may be) in a way that gets the most liberal presidential candidate in history elected.

Some people would rather burn down the house than behave like adults. Oso is one of them.




Reply Quote
1
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 3:36p, 9/12/24
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.



Why are you unlikely to vote for a 'personally honorable person' irregardles of who his Democratic opponent is ?
Because I don't like his policies.

But the "unlikely" does depend somewhat on the opponent. If it had been De Santis-Biden, and Biden had debated like he did against Trump, I would probably have had to vote for DeSantis. High likelihood that Biden would not be fit sometime during a second term, and I am not going to vote for a constitutional crisis.


Please be specific and tell me which of DeSantis's policies concern you enough to be unlikely to vote for such a honorable man ?

Not playing 'gotcha games', just trying to learn something.
I am pro-choice, he is ardently pro-life. I think he tries to insert religion into public school classrooms. He was lukewarm at best on support for Ukraine. He seems to elevate culture wars over business interests.
Reply Quote
1
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 3:48p, 9/12/24
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.



Why are you unlikely to vote for a 'personally honorable person' irregardles of who his Democratic opponent is ?
Because I don't like his policies.

But the "unlikely" does depend somewhat on the opponent. If it had been De Santis-Biden, and Biden had debated like he did against Trump, I would probably have had to vote for DeSantis. High likelihood that Biden would not be fit sometime during a second term, and I am not going to vote for a constitutional crisis.


Please be specific and tell me which of DeSantis's policies concern you enough to be unlikely to vote for such a honorable man ?

Not playing 'gotcha games', just trying to learn something.
I am pro-choice, he is ardently pro-life. I think he tries to insert religion into public school classrooms. He was lukewarm at best on support for Ukraine. He seems to elevate culture wars over business interests.


How is he putting religion in classrooms?
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 4:31p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they "bent knee to Trump."
You're right, I missed the context on this one.
A little more context. Mothra's party nominated, Bush 1, Bush 2, Dole, McCain, Romney, and I voted for them and don't regret it.. Now he has turned on candidates he nominated and is disdainful of these folks he nominated. He recommends I vote for Trump, even though he has already turned on him and no doubt will speak ill of Trump in a few years or weeks, IOW, Mothra has a long history of making bad choices in presidential elections, but asks me to trust him this year. Nope.
I won't be voting for a president this year. I'm not recommending anyone follow me in this. A lot of good people of sound mind and conscience will vote for Trump. I respect their decision.
You voted for all of those Republicans I nominated? LOL. If what you said is true, you actually voted for more Republicans than I did!

You sure you aren't a closeted Repub feigning to be an "independent"? Admit it, you put on MAGA clothing in the middle of the night, when the wife's asleep, don't you? LOL. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone can see you're in the closet.

A little more context, Sombear - Oso thinks he's insulting me by pretending I nominated Trump or that the Repubs he voted for are "my" nominees. Ironically, it's not unlike the 7th grade insults Trump engages in, so perhaps there is some truth to what I posted above that hits a nerve for him. Unlike you and other reasonable conservatives who don't like Trump, Oso has trouble seeing the big picture. He's all up in his feels, and his hatred of Trump will cause him to vote (or not vote, as the case may be) in a way that gets the most liberal presidential candidate in history elected.

Some people would rather burn down the house than behave like adults. Oso is one of them.






Trust you one more time? You would have written the same post about Obama McCain, Obama Romney, Dole Clinton, Kerry Bush, Gore Bush.

Why would I take your advice in 2024?

I'll leave it here, it's an interesting thread,

From Mothra: Great. Awesome. So we nominate the self-aggrandizing buffoon only so that he can get his ass kicked.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 4:54p, 9/12/24
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they "bent knee to Trump."
You're right, I missed the context on this one.
A little more context. Mothra's party nominated, Bush 1, Bush 2, Dole, McCain, Romney, and I voted for them and don't regret it.. Now he has turned on candidates he nominated and is disdainful of these folks he nominated. He recommends I vote for Trump, even though he has already turned on him and no doubt will speak ill of Trump in a few years or weeks, IOW, Mothra has a long history of making bad choices in presidential elections, but asks me to trust him this year. Nope.
I won't be voting for a president this year. I'm not recommending anyone follow me in this. A lot of good people of sound mind and conscience will vote for Trump. I respect their decision.
You voted for all of those Republicans I nominated? LOL. If what you said is true, you actually voted for more Republicans than I did!

You sure you aren't a closeted Repub feigning to be an "independent"? Admit it, you put on MAGA clothing in the middle of the night, when the wife's asleep, don't you? LOL. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone can see you're in the closet.

A little more context, Sombear - Oso thinks he's insulting me by pretending I nominated Trump or that the Repubs he voted for are "my" nominees. Ironically, it's not unlike the 7th grade insults Trump engages in, so perhaps there is some truth to what I posted above that hits a nerve for him. Unlike you and other reasonable conservatives who don't like Trump, Oso has trouble seeing the big picture. He's all up in his feels, and his hatred of Trump will cause him to vote (or not vote, as the case may be) in a way that gets the most liberal presidential candidate in history elected.

Some people would rather burn down the house than behave like adults. Oso is one of them.






Trust you one more time? You would have written the same post about Obama McCain, Obama Romney, Dole Clinton, Kerry Bush, Gore Bush.

Why would I take your advice in 2024?

I'll leave it here, it's an interesting thread,
I am not asking you to trust a thing, little buddy. If you're incapable of objectively determining what's best for you and your family, that's on you.
Reply Quote
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 5:50p, 9/12/24
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.



Why are you unlikely to vote for a 'personally honorable person' irregardles of who his Democratic opponent is ?
Because I don't like his policies.

But the "unlikely" does depend somewhat on the opponent. If it had been De Santis-Biden, and Biden had debated like he did against Trump, I would probably have had to vote for DeSantis. High likelihood that Biden would not be fit sometime during a second term, and I am not going to vote for a constitutional crisis.


Please be specific and tell me which of DeSantis's policies concern you enough to be unlikely to vote for such a honorable man ?

Not playing 'gotcha games', just trying to learn something.
I am pro-choice, he is ardently pro-life. I think he tries to insert religion into public school classrooms. He was lukewarm at best on support for Ukraine. He seems to elevate culture wars over business interests.


Thank you for your response.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 5:55p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they "bent knee to Trump."
You're right, I missed the context on this one.
A little more context. Mothra's party nominated, Bush 1, Bush 2, Dole, McCain, Romney, and I voted for them and don't regret it.. Now he has turned on candidates he nominated and is disdainful of these folks he nominated. He recommends I vote for Trump, even though he has already turned on him and no doubt will speak ill of Trump in a few years or weeks, IOW, Mothra has a long history of making bad choices in presidential elections, but asks me to trust him this year. Nope.
I won't be voting for a president this year. I'm not recommending anyone follow me in this. A lot of good people of sound mind and conscience will vote for Trump. I respect their decision.
You voted for all of those Republicans I nominated? LOL. If what you said is true, you actually voted for more Republicans than I did!

You sure you aren't a closeted Repub feigning to be an "independent"? Admit it, you put on MAGA clothing in the middle of the night, when the wife's asleep, don't you? LOL. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone can see you're in the closet.

A little more context, Sombear - Oso thinks he's insulting me by pretending I nominated Trump or that the Repubs he voted for are "my" nominees. Ironically, it's not unlike the 7th grade insults Trump engages in, so perhaps there is some truth to what I posted above that hits a nerve for him. Unlike you and other reasonable conservatives who don't like Trump, Oso has trouble seeing the big picture. He's all up in his feels, and his hatred of Trump will cause him to vote (or not vote, as the case may be) in a way that gets the most liberal presidential candidate in history elected.

Some people would rather burn down the house than behave like adults. Oso is one of them.






Trust you one more time? You would have written the same post about Obama McCain, Obama Romney, Dole Clinton, Kerry Bush, Gore Bush.

Why would I take your advice in 2024?

I'll leave it here, it's an interesting thread,
I am not asking you to trust a thing, little buddy. If you're incapable of objectively determining what's best for you and your family, that's on you.


Exactly. I will do that
Have you changed your mind on Trump
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 6:16p, 9/12/24
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 6:32p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 6:34p, 9/12/24
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:48p, 9/12/24
Reply Quote
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jacques Strap • 6:53p, 9/12/24
Jacques Strap said:

I wonder if Tom Walz is on the payroll of the ChiComs like Biden & possibly Gavin Newsom.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Reply Quote
1
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 7:09p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
. Oh wow! Nothing lower than a Democrat (like the one you voted for)

Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 7:11p, 9/12/24
"She passed that test with flying colors"

Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 7:18p, 9/12/24
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
. Oh wow! Nothing lower than a Democrat (like the one you voted for)

I think you're confused. You voted for Rochelle Garza. Remember?
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 7:24p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
. Oh wow! Nothing lower than a Democrat (like the one you voted for)

I think you're confused. You voted for Rochelle Garza. Remember?
you admitted voting for a Democrat. So do I , in fact several Democrats. Who is Garza?
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:33p, 9/12/24
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 7:37p, 9/12/24
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
. Oh wow! Nothing lower than a Democrat (like the one you voted for)

I think you're confused. You voted for Rochelle Garza. Remember?
you admitted voting for a Democrat. So do I , in fact several Democrats. Who is Garza?
Oh come now, how could you forget the dem candidate for AG you financially supported.

What other Dems will you be voting for this election cycle? Surely, Allred, like your hero ol' Liz, right?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:44p, 9/12/24
Reply Quote
1
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 7:45p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
. Oh wow! Nothing lower than a Democrat (like the one you voted for)

I think you're confused. You voted for Rochelle Garza. Remember?
you admitted voting for a Democrat. So do I , in fact several Democrats. Who is Garza?
Oh come now, how could you forget the dem candidate for AG you financially supported.

What other Dems will you be voting for this election cycle? Surely, Allred, like your hero ol' Liz, right?
I've never given money to AG candidate. Got to vote for Ted because Kavanaugh

You are a self confessed crook voter and Dem voter. So am I. We're okay

Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 8:41p, 9/12/24
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
. Oh wow! Nothing lower than a Democrat (like the one you voted for)

I think you're confused. You voted for Rochelle Garza. Remember?
you admitted voting for a Democrat. So do I , in fact several Democrats. Who is Garza?
Oh come now, how could you forget the dem candidate for AG you financially supported.

What other Dems will you be voting for this election cycle? Surely, Allred, like your hero ol' Liz, right?
I've never given money to AG candidate. Got to vote for Ted because Kavanaugh

You are a self confessed crook and Dem voter. So am I. We're okay
Well, glad to hear you have at least a smidgen of scruples. Too bad the TDS has driven the rest of them out of you.

Self-confessed crook, eh? I'd ask how so, if I thought it wasn't simply another juvenile taunt.
Reply Quote
2
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:53p, 9/12/24
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
My opinion of Trump hasn't changed. He's a self-aggrandizing jackass who I suspect will lose the election - although not nearly as dangerous and capable of inflicting as much damage to the country as Harris.

Hopefully, he's not around in 2028, if of course Kamala hasn't gotten us into a nuclear war or stacked the Supreme Court against Republicans by then, in which case it won't matter. We either won't be having any more elections, or Republicans will never stand a chance of winning another presidential election.

You sure sound like a Republican (no offense)
Thank you. Thankful I don't sound like a Democrat - like you (no offense).
. Oh wow! Nothing lower than a Democrat (like the one you voted for)

I think you're confused. You voted for Rochelle Garza. Remember?
you admitted voting for a Democrat. So do I , in fact several Democrats. Who is Garza?
Oh come now, how could you forget the dem candidate for AG you financially supported.

What other Dems will you be voting for this election cycle? Surely, Allred, like your hero ol' Liz, right?
I've never given money to AG candidate. Got to vote for Ted because Kavanaugh

You are a self confessed crook and Dem voter. So am I. We're okay
Well, glad to hear you have at least a smidgen of scruples. Too bad the TDS has driven the rest of them out of you.

Self-confessed crook, eh? I'd ask how so, if I thought it wasn't simply another juvenile taunt.

My post had a typo. You are not a crook, (you vote for them). Apologies

I financially supported Liz & would again
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 10:40p, 9/12/24
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
KaiBear said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
"If I have to decide who is more likely to be truthful, Trump, Mattis, McMaster or Kelly, I'll take the generals.
-Oso

love the faulty premise that generals are not political animals.

there is an old adage amongst retired military officers that "the guys who retire as brigadiers are the warriors," meaning to suggest that they lacked the political acumen to accumulate more stars.


The premise is the generals are more likely to be truthful
You're way too jaded to really believe that.


Let's talk when the generals say Trump won 2020 and pets are eaten in Ohio


If the Generals DON'T say pets are being eaten in Ohio, you can be sure they are playing politics.






Pet eating has always been the issue undecided voters care about, second only to Trump's victory in 2020
It's a sign of the times, a glaring avatar for the chaos and dysfunction facing ordinary people which has been CAUSED by bad policy. It builds on the narrative that Democrats in general and Biden/Harris in particular are not just incompetent but oblivious to the harm they're causing.

And, to top it all off, Muir stuck a knife in ABC's own kidney quoting the city manager's denial of it happening in order to defend Harris. ABC is the functional equivalent of the DNC press office.

Moderate Republicans cannot come to grips with the reality that our campaign opponent is really not Harris but rather the media. The MRs cannot shake the the instinct to accept the constraints and be willing to lose nobly rather than attack the adversaries we have.
It's never Trump's fault
I agree. The neverTrumpers are indeed responsible for many of the problems besetting the country.


And there we have it
What about RINOs & MRs? It's all their fault, right?


I truly am curious, what are you hoping the Republican party will do after Trump either loses or leaves office? Are you hoping for a Mitt Romney type party? Or a dick Cheney neocon type party? Just trying to figure out what it is exactly you want. Would also like to know how you think it has a chance in hell of winning an election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain, don't win elections my friend.
Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 went 5 for 6. The one loss was partially just bad luck with Perot. They all had an optimistic view of America and believed the coutnry had an obligation to promote and defend democracy. It is almost impossible for conservatives to have less than 48 senators and we will have a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

edit: I would add McCain, Romney, Bush 1 (and Dole) lost to two extremely gifted politicians who had skills well beyond what I see in anybody present in today's Democrats. McCain and Dole had terrible timing to be candidates based on economic factors. All meaning that what I call (and what I used to be) "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans can still win elections
Bush 2 lost the popular vote, and worse, was a neo-conservative who spent like a liberal and did far worse than anything Trump has done by getting us into a needless and costly war, destabilizing the ME and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including thousands of our boys, who ended up maimed or dead. If you recall, your side of the aisle called him a war criminal. Do we really want a return to that?

And Romney and McCain (another war monger) both lost soundly and decisively to Obama, who BTW had a pretty poor approval rating the second time around. Sure, he was a better candidate than Biden or Harris, but the Repubs also ran what should have been on paper a much better candidate from a likability standpoint, and were still soundly beaten.

Sorry, but I just don't think a return to the party of the country club neo-con republicans is a winning strategy. They were on the way out when McCain and Romney lost...
This straw man is getting tiresome. The choice isn't between an establishment/moderate/Neocon or Trump.

Who out of popular GOP politicos right now falls under the former? I can't think of any. Some would say Haley, but I disagree. Same with Pence (although he doesn't have enough of a following to even count.)

And BTW, Trump talks a big game now, but he supported the Iraq war before declaring it a promising campaign issue. He provided weapons to Ukraine. He took out Solemani. I could go on and on.
You are clearly not understanding the context of our discussion. I was responding to a poster who has in the past identified Bush, Cheney, Romney and McCain as the types of Republicans he likes and supports. That is why I mentioned them. He has said he longs for those types of Republicans. We have had a number of conversations about his neocon beliefs.

Then a poster responded, defending those Republicans.

I agree with you that none of the popular GOP politicos right now fit that mold, which is why I have consistently said I would have much preferred any of them over Trump. I would be fine with a DeSantis moving forward. In fact, I voted for him in the primary.

Just FYI, the poster in question has a problem with guys like DeSantis as well, since they remind him of Trump.
Just to be clear, while I dislike DeSantis on many policy issues and am not a fan of his style, he plays by the rules, respects the Constitution, and seems like a personally honorable person. I am unlikely to vote for him, but he is clearly "fit" to be president. Unlike Trump.



Why are you unlikely to vote for a 'personally honorable person' irregardles of who his Democratic opponent is ?
Because I don't like his policies.

But the "unlikely" does depend somewhat on the opponent. If it had been De Santis-Biden, and Biden had debated like he did against Trump, I would probably have had to vote for DeSantis. High likelihood that Biden would not be fit sometime during a second term, and I am not going to vote for a constitutional crisis.


Please be specific and tell me which of DeSantis's policies concern you enough to be unlikely to vote for such a honorable man ?

Not playing 'gotcha games', just trying to learn something.
I am pro-choice, he is ardently pro-life. I think he tries to insert religion into public school classrooms. He was lukewarm at best on support for Ukraine. He seems to elevate culture wars over business interests.

In DeSantis's defense, far too many business interests are elevating culture wars over business interests.
Reply Quote
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:01a, 9/13/24
Is Indian the new black?
Reply Quote
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39a, 9/13/24
I can't believe people are making Springfield, Ohio an issue. If ever there was a case study of the lazy entitled American killing a city, they should case study Springfield.
Reply Quote
1
First Page Last Page
Page 231 of 239 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.