Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
boognish_bear said:
He's probably not wrong
Recent polls suggest that a conviction is going to tank his presidency.
That of course won't prevent posters like whiterock from putting their faith in this re-tread loser.
MAGA is filled with a bunch of buffoons.
the neverTrumpers are even worse.
Pointing out the weaknesses in neverTrump or antTrump arguments is not MAGA. It's just good sense. Trump was always in a strong position to win the primary. His opponents spun the 2020 mid-term outcome against him very effectively, but he recovered and now has a lock on the nomination. Noting all that, which I predicted with 100% accuracy, is not MAGA. It's quite pragmatic.
My position every day has been that I'm going to support the nominee, no matter who, no matter what. I have some I like more than others, but you'll note I didn't criticize anyone except Hutchinson and Christie, who had no chance, no business even being in the race. I pointed out the positives of even the candidates I was personally less-than enthusiastic about.
In would prefer to have RDS as POTUS. He would, as I've said all along, be more effective than Trump at the agenda we need most. But he can't win the primary. And that much has been obvious for a solid 12 months.
Again, pointing all that out doesn't make me MAGA. Makes me a pragmatic conservative Republican who wants to win.
You defended every one of Trumps lies about DeSantis. I've never seen you say a critical word about Trump. You've pretty much defended his every action as good politics.
I am not sure defending a guy who hurts the party and our ability to win this election is what I would call pragmatic.
I suspect Trump will soon be running against someone other than Biden. It will be interesting to see if Trump fares as well against a candidate not named Biden.
Geez. You cannot just post an assessment. You have to spin everything. And what a convenient memory - have noted Trump's weaknesses many times.
Analyzing why Trump's attacks were effective (which they clearly were) is not "defending." I actually like RDS a lot, and have noted often (and recently) that he would likely be a more effective POTUS than Trump at the things of most important to me. I would not have been disappointed if RDS had defeated Trump in the primary, and will likely be a supporter in 2028. None of that is at odds with my consistent prediction that Trump would win the primary, though. And being quite comfortable with Trump as a nominee does not make me a mind-numbed MAGA-head. I'm more dispassionately grounded than them, or you, for that matter.
Trump is most likely to run against Biden, assuming latter is not dead or physically incapacitated (which could very well happen). 2nd most likely opponent is Harris, and she's polling worse than Biden. Big Mike might well be unbeatable but I'm not sure she is going to agree to do it. Axlerod just two days ago categorically ruled it out. The scenarios for bypassing Kamala are, uhm, difficult.
If Kamala ends up having to step in, expect to see "first woman POTUS" stuff ad nausem. and I do think Big Mike would endorse and even campaign a little (way preferrable to running). Also think it would be easier to get the coveted "Taylor Swift endorsement" Team Biden appears to be seeking. Endorsing a senescent old man is just engaging in partisan politics. But getting behind the first woman POTUS, and a minority one at that....well, that is what good girls do!
The problem is, no one asked you to analyze whether Trump's attacks were effective. What was asked is whether it was wrong of Trump to attack a fellow Republican with what we all knew to be lies, and whether that was good for the party. Your response was mere subterfuge. You chose to analyze whether that was an effective strategy instead of answering the questions posed because that would have been critical of Trump (which you will never be). And now you have your panties in a wad that I called you out over it.
Let's hope the faith and trust you put in the re-tread loser ends up being justified.
LOL you complain about a campaign tactic being unfair. I respond "that's politics, and pretty good politics at that." News Flash: This is politics. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not. Only matters if it's effective. If you can't come to terms with that, don't get into politics.
Other than Hutchinson and Christie, each of whom seemed to suffer from delusions of grandeur that they were going to save the party from Trump, I haven't launched a political attack at any of the candidates. Always analytical, pros & cons. Had several candidates I liked. One I held my tongue about. Only got mean about the two narcissists who deserved the critiques they got. I complimented several candidates, not just Trump, defended them all (except the two holier-than-thou guys).
And I continue to assess that Trump is our best chance of victory (even though if I could just wave a wand and make a coronation happen, I'd rather have RDS.) It's pretty obvious why. Have to work not to see it.
